Friday July 17th 2026 marks the worldwide release of The Odyssey which could be the best film in the history of cinema.

Based on Homer’s epic collection of stories, The Odyssey represents one of the most enduring pieces of literature, dating back nearly three millennium. It follows Odysseus as he attempts to return home to Ithaca after the Trojan War, a voyage that should have taken weeks but instead lasts ten years. This wasn’t just bad navigating, he had to contend with mythical creatures, cannibals, monsters and singing women. Meanwhile 100 men have taken up residence in his home and compete to marry his wife. Who can’t relate?

Bringing The Odyssey to the screen is one of the most ambitious projects a filmmaker can make. Trying to give justice to the 24 books, has never been achieved. There have been many adaptions but none have managed to capture the full essence of what makes The Odyssey an incredible story.

This is because this feat has not been attempted by a director worthy of such a challenge. Amongst active filmmakers, Christopher Nolan is currently the undisputed heavyweight champion. One could say this film represents an Odyssey of his own.

Coming off the success of Oppenheimer, Nolan could do any project he wanted. He took the biggest swing he could, adapting a work from Homer, a project that eluded him for 20 years. Nolan was hired to direct Troy in the early 2000s before the studio reversed course and returned the project to Wolfgang Petersen. Warner Bros. offered him Batman Begins as something of a consolation prize.

Now to pull off this project, he boasts one of the strongest casts in recent memory. Matt Damon & Anne Hathaway have headlined major projects for 20+ years. Robert Pattison and Zendaya are amongst the busiest leading actors in Hollywood today. Not to mention usual leads getting downgraded to supporting roles.

Some casting choices have been met with controversy but it doesn’t matter. This film will be a work of art people will still be talking about thousands of years from now.

Keep reading to learn why this will be the greatest film ever!

(*I have not seen the film yet and this does not contain any spoilers beyond what is common knowledge about a story that’s been out for 3,000 years)

Book I’m Currently Reading:

1. 1873: The Rothschilds, the First Great Depression, and the Making of the Modern World by Liaquat Ahamed

Related Reading:

1. The Odyssey by Homer

2. The Illiad by Homer

*Note: To ensure you don’t miss my emails please star or reply to this message

In case you missed them, here are some other recent articles to check out:

The Odyssey is The Greatest Story Ever Told

The Lindy Effect suggests the longer something exists, the more likely it will in the future. By that measure, we shouldn’t be surprised The Odyssey is one of the most anticipated films in recent years.

How can a story written 3,000 years ago still resonate with people today? The story is about a universal feeling, about somebody longing to go home.

Odysseus is gone for 20 years. The first ten spent for The Battle of Troy which precedes the events of The Odyssey. It was Odysseus who came up with the idea of the Trojan horse. His side won, although they lost many other great warriors because Helen and Paris couldn’t be discreet.

Odysseus isn’t impressive because he’s the greatest warrior, like Achilles, or the most powerful king, like Agamemnon. He is impressive because he is clever. He can fight, but his real talent is thinking his way out of seemingly impossible situations. Kind of like Jason Bourne if you dropped him in Ancient Greece.

Odysseus is not your perfect fantasy hero either. He’s not Aragorn. Odysseus is arrogant, dishonest and occasionally his own worst enemy. These flaws make his journey more interesting and his character more relatable.

Love him or hate him, Odysseus is ultimately just a guy who left home 20 years ago as a king and now wants to return to his land and his family, unsure of what will be waiting for him when he gets there.

Most of us don’t have to worry about our partners entertaining more than 100 potential suitors whenever we leave town. Yet the yearning to return home, wherever home may be, is a universal experience that cuts across time and space.

Christopher Nolan is the right person to capture that feeling.

Christopher Nolan is The Greatest Director of The 21st Century

Hitchcock, Coppola, Cameron, Spielberg and Lucas dominated the 20th century. Some remained active through the early part of the early of the 21st century, but ever since The Dark Knight hit theaters in 2008, there was a new king of Cinema. Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson battled for supremacy during the 90s and 2000s, and with respect to Dennis Villeneuve none have matched the quantity and quality of hits Nolan has displayed since 2010.

A director could have survived decades from the success of having made just one of Inception, Interstellar, The Dark Knight Rises or Dunkirk. Nolan made all of them, and Tenet for good measure. Although the latter wasn’t as well received, it’s incredible. If you didn’t enjoy it, it’s because you made the mistake of only seeing it once.

At a time when the film industry is dominated by franchise sequels, recycled intellectual property and algorithmically assembled ensemble casts, Nolan has consistently produced original films that perform at the box office without insulting the audience’s intelligence.

Instead of relying on big explosions, CGI and cheap gimmicks, Nolan makes films, that make the audience feel something. Films like Inception, Interstellar and Tenet aren’t linear and formulaic accessible to the lowest common denominator. Not everyone will understand it on the first watch, and that’s ok. Having people need to think about what they just watched after leaving the theater is what good filmmakers should do.

There’s enough mindless slop on Instagram, TikTok, don’t even get me started on Linkedin. It’s great when content is worth reflecting and re-watching. All of Nolan’s work falls into this category. Nolan isn’t mass producing next seasons fashion, like a H&M or Shein. He’s a craftsman, like a Hollywood Hermes.

Nolan insists on shooting in IMAX film cameras, which in 2026 is seen as an insane choice. Remaining one of the very few holdouts while everyone else has moved on to Digital. Nolan can only shoot scenes up to 3 minutes at a time, the cameras make loud noises, not to mention how much harder the entire downstream process becomes.

Nolan uses CGI as sparingly as possible, trying to capture as much as possible practically. He built a rotating hallway for Inception, flipped a real truck in The Dark Knight and crashed a 747 into a building for Tenet. Nolan still uses visual effects, but usually to support something physically captured by the camera rather than manufacture the entire spectacle afterward.

If there were any doubts about his abilities, Nolan followed up Tenet with Oppenheimer, which was among the biggest commercial and critical smash hits of the decade. Earning nearly one billion dollars at the box office and Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director. Nolan did this without the usual A-lister leading man films of this scale usually command. Opting for long-time collaborator Cillian Murphy, a respected actor, but not somebody thought capable of headlining a 3 hour, R-rated film about nuclear physics, moral responsibility and government bureaucracy.

Coming off that success, he chose the oldest, largest and most ambitious story he could find. To do this, he needed to assemble a murders row of thespians capable of living up to the epic legend.

This Is One of the Best Casts Ever Assembled

Matt Damon is an all time great. He’s played Will Hunting, Private Ryan, Jason Bourne and Mark Watney among countless others. Damon worked with most of the great directors of his era including Spielberg, Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh and Ridley Scott. His run from 1997 to 2007 is among the greatest decades for any actor ever. During that stretch, Damon made Good Will Hunting, Saving Private Ryan, The Talented Mr. Ripley, all three Ocean’s films, the entire Bourne trilogy and The Departed.

(Matt Damon reading The Odyssey on the set of The Talented Mr.Ripley (1997))

Like any actor with a career that long, he’s had bad films but it never took him long to bounce back. Few movie stars of his stature would have accepted such a small role in Interstellar. What the role lacked in screen time, it made up for in substance. This demonstrated Damon did not need to be the lead. He just wanted to be part of a great film. That choice paid off. Less than a decade later, Nolan cast him as General Leslie Groves in Oppenheimer. Now, at 55, Damon is playing Odysseus and leading the largest production of Nolan’s career.

Anne Hathaway has demonstrated similar longevity. She became a star through The Princess Diaries in 2001 and followed it with iconic films such as The Devil Wears Prada, The Dark Knight Rises, Les Misérables and Interstellar. She has shown she can lead a romantic comedy, anchor a major studio film or enter halfway through a Nolan movie and provide its emotional center. She occupies a rare place in popular culture where Boomers, millennials and Gen Z audiences all recognize her from different stages.

Robert Pattinson is one of the busiest leading men in Hollywood today. It took him years to escape the shadow of Twilight. Instead of immediately chasing another franchise, Pattinson spent the following decade working with directors such as David Cronenberg, James Gray, Claire Denis, the Safdie brothers and Robert Eggers. Performances in Good Time and The Lighthouse proved he was considerably stranger and more talented than his early reputation suggested. He eventually returned to blockbusters with Nolan in Tenet, Bruce Wayne in The Batman and in Bong Joon-ho’s Mickey 17. He now moves between enormous franchises and unusual independent films without seeming out of place in either.

Damon, Hathaway and Pattinson would already constitute an exceptional cast. When you realize Tom Holland and Zendaya, two of the most recognizable actors of their generation, are also in the film, they almost feel like afterthoughts. Other members of the supporting cast includes Charlize Theron, Jon Bernthal, Mia Goth and Benny Safdie to name a few. Actors who regularly headline their own projects, now occupy roles that would normally be filled by much smaller names.

The clearest indication of his power may be how quickly everyone agreed to participate. Robert Pattinson was reportedly the only actor who asked to read the screenplay before formally accepting. Nolan seemed surprised. Everyone else had simply said yes.

The closest recent comparison might be Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Quentin Tarantino began with Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie, then filled the smaller roles with Al Pacino, Dakota Fanning and Bruce Dern. The cast looks even better in hindsight because Austin Butler, Margaret Qualley, Mikey Madison and Sydney Sweeney appeared before reaching their current levels of fame.

Some of Nolan’s casting decisions were not without controversy. For months people were up in arms over the rumored casting of Elliot Page as Achilles. Page is a fine actor, but not who comes to mind when picturing the greatest warrior in Greek mythology. Brad Pitt made immediate sense in Troy. He looked capable of defeating an entire army by himself, even if Pitt was never particularly enthusiastic about the film. His indifference helped the performance. Achilles was the best warrior alive, knew it and seemed perpetually annoyed that everyone else was wasting his time. Any actor playing Achilles would inevitably be compared with Pitt, but this was irrelevant since Page is playing Sinon, not Achilles.

The other casting choice that drew the public’s ire was Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy. Helen of Troy’s beauty was deserving of 1,000 ships and the greatest battle the world ever knew at the time. Needless to say, whomever was cast would get a large bill to live up to. Some dismiss the casting choice as a Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) hire. Others don’t think her beauty reaches the level of 1,000 ships, perhaps 300-400 at the most. Still a lot of ships. Others believe Zendaya could have made more sense. Regardless, this is largely irrelevant to whether the film will be good or not. People forget, there was a massive outcry when Heath Ledger was cast as the Joker in The Dark Knight. That portrayal worked out quite well.

It’s 2026, people spend too much time online. Every major project is met with some backlash. If a film is historically accurate, people whine about lack of representation. If a film tries to represent everyone, others will whine about historical accuracy. The filmmaker and their studio should be less concerned about what a few journalists or people on X say, and focus on making the best film possible. A lot needs to go right for a movie to be good and profitable.

I didn’t have an issue with the casting of Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy up until she said she would ask Homer how he felt about the limited attention given to women in his epics. I’m not sure if this is a PR strategy to help generate more buzz or her own personal views, but these comments come off as somebody trying to gain clout by holding somebody who died thousands of years ago to account for today’s standards. It’s unnecessary and frankly a distraction from what promises to be a historical event.

The film marks Christopher Nolan’s own personal Odyssey, having spent 20 years making incredible films, all so that he can make the Odyssey the way its never been captured on screen before. He has the budget, the cast and goodwill from audiences to permit him to take on such an ambitious trial, to which I’m certain like Odysseus, he will find a way to succeed.

There’s a reason The Odyssey is one of the most highly anticipated films in years and we continue to read Homer’s epics thousands of years later. It speaks to a truth that lives inside all of us, and we can be confident we will still be reading these works thousands of years from now.

Thank you for reading this weeks article. Please let me know your thoughts by commenting below

Subscribe now

The average couple will spend ~$35,000 to throw a wedding, while guests will spend around $600 to attend. Few will get married more than once per year, but there’s no limit on the number of wedding invitations you might receive. Once you reach your late twenties, you quickly discover you know more people than you realized. You hit thirty and start to view engagement announcements as early hurricane alarm systems.

Everything around the special day has gotten out of control. Women are expected to find a new outfit for every wedding, plus additional looks for the cocktail, rehearsal dinner, or whatever pre-wedding event now requires its own dress code. Men can usually get by with one or two decent suits, but remembering to pick them up from the dry cleaner remains one of civilization’s great administrative burdens.

If the wedding requires travel, the commitment escalates. For casual acquaintances, this can serve as a convenient excuse to opt out. Close friends, direct family members, groomsmen, and bridesmaids do not enjoy this luxury. No matter how obscene the groom/bridezilla gets, they are expected to smile and be supportive.

The decision criteria on whether to attend somebody’s wedding and associated etiquette is well documented but not enough attention is focused on the people that really matter. The poor souls that are obliged to organize and attend bachelor and bachelorette parties.

There lacks a clear consensus on the proper rules and etiquette surrounding stag and stagette parties, as a veteran of six bachelor parties, in this article I share my knowledge to help fill this void. Keep reading to learn the history behind stag parties and to ensure you aren’t responsible for any Faux Pas this wedding season.

In case you missed them, here are some other recent articles to check out:

The History of Stag Parties

You might be surprised to learn this, but the concept of the bachelor party originates none other than from Ancient Greece, specifically Sparta.

The night before a solider would get married, he and his co-soldiers would share a succulent meal and get really drunk. There were not many women in attendance. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

By the early 19th century, Western Stag parties would turn into classy black tie affairs, often hosted by the groom or his father. Some drinks would be shared, but festivities were usually contained to one evening. In the late 19th and early 20th century, these type of festivities became more rowdy affairs but the acceleration really happened during the Post-War period. This is when the stag parties ditched the black tie soirees for nightlight, pranks, destination trips etc.

Bachelorette parties are relatively new, having only become widespread in the 1960s and 70s. Eventually men ran out of convincing response when asked why they were permitted to have a wild send-off but the women were not?

Globalization, couples getting married later and easy access to credit cards have made these type of celebrations get increasingly out of hand. Nowadays, it’s rare if nobody in the friend group isn’t dead set on a multi-day excursion to Vegas, Nashville, Ibiza, Barcelona, Tulum or some other version of adult Disney world.

The invite is inevitable. Proper organization and expectation setting is needed to ensure friend groups don’t want to disband after the stag party.

Organizing a Bachelor/Bachelorette Party

These days the organization of a Bachelor/Bachelorette party takes similar project management to a Salesforce or SAP implementation. The complexity for both grow exponentially as more people are involved.

The Bride or Grooms responsibility as it pertains to their stag party is simple:

1. Elect the organizer(s)

2. Give them the preferred guest list of attendees

3. Tell the organizer(s) what type of party they are hoping for (Bonus points for anticipated budget)

They should not be involved in the process, but they need to assign clear ownership. Someone has to be accountable for the planning, budgeting, deposits, reservations, reminders, and managing the collective anxiety of the attendees. This usually falls on the best man or maid of honour. The “honour” is meant to compensate for the fact that they have just been assigned an unpaid operations role.

The organizer can share responsibilities with another person, but if somebody is expected to help, it needs to be made explicit by the bride or groom. Everyone should know what they are responsible for. Ambiguity is where chaos begins. If everyone thinks someone else is booking the Airbnb, you will be sleeping on the street.

The bride or groom needs to be clear about what they want. It reduces the risk of disappointment, and gives the organizer political cover. The organizer can explain to the group that these are the wishes of the person getting married, not the deranged personal vision of the best man, maid of honour or some other outspoken attendee.

If the groom wants everyone to spend $10,000 on a two-week trip to Mongolia, everyone should understand that’s his dream. If the bride wants six matching outfits, three separate themes, and one dinner where everyone dresses like a mermaid, don’t blame the maid of honour. Their job is hard enough. They need to thread the needle between the stag’s wishes and reality. These do not always align. When they don’t, compromise becomes necessary.

If the bride or groom wants something extravagant but the desired guest list is not on board, someone is going to have a bad time. The organizer then has to answer the central planning question: does the stag care more about maximizing attendance, or having the party they imagined?

When the bride or groom is being unreasonable, the organizer needs to temper expectations. When the attendees are being difficult, the organizer may have to cajole them or accept lower participation. This is the delicate art of stag-party diplomacy: protecting the bride or groom’s vision while preventing an all out mutiny.

As much as possible, the bride or groom should be spared the uglier details of the planning process. They do not need to know who complained about the hotel, who ignored five payment reminders, who objected to the itinerary after voting for it, or who tried to create a breakaway faction.

This unfortunately falls on the organizer. It’s a not a fun position, but hopefully they take delight in ensuring one of their closest friends gets a proper sendoff. This does not mean, attendees have free rein to make it more difficult for the organizers.

How to Attend a Stag Party

If you are invited to a bachelor or bachelorette party, your job is simple: help the stag have a good time. If you can’t commit to that, don’t go.

Regardless of the time, money, and logistics required, once you decide to attend, you need to let go of your grievances. If the event is too expensive, too far, too long, or too inconvenient, tell the organizer you’re out as early as possible. It’s better than agreeing to go but sabotaging the event by acting like a hostage.

Unless you are a groomsman or bridesmaid, you are not obligated to attend the stag party. If the bride or groom did not explicitly name you as one of their 5-10 closest friends, your attendance at any pre-wedding event is discretionary. Honestly, even the wedding itself is optional. Especially if this is somebody’s second or third time at the altar; you've already put in your time. Just keep in mind, your pal and their spouse might take your absence personally. That being said, if the stag attended your bachelor/bachelorette party, you should return the favour. If you can’t make it, the classy thing to do would be to send some money to the organizer to at least cover a round of drinks. Again not necessary.

Not every stag party will be accessible to everyone the bride or groom would like to invite, and that’s fine. The point of the event is to give the person getting married a proper send-off. It’s not a friendship lifetime achievement ceremony.

Some people will move mountains to be there. Others wouldn’t inconvenience themselves even if the organizer arranged everything perfectly, subsidized the trip, and had a helicopter pick them up from their front lawn. Don’t design the event around the lowest common denominator in the group.

A good compromise is when everyone feels a little upset. However, in the case of a stag party, the stag matters more. This does not mean everyone should be financially abused, but it also does not make sense to optimize the entire event around the cheapest, easiest, least disruptive option for every guest.

Just like at a wedding, your comfort is not the priority. It’s not about you. If you don’t think you will enjoy yourself, do everyone a favour and decline. Showing up as a martyr benefits nobody. Not everybody is built for a wild Stag party and that’s fine. Just wait for your own bachelor party to insist on a Settlers of Catan marathon.

Every stag party also has a small group of people who treat the event like General Custer’s last stand. They will go way too hard, too early while forgetting their real age. If this group is limited to regular attendees, they can usually be contained. If it includes the stag or the organizer, all you can do is prepare yourself emotionally.

You also need to be mindful of the two most dangerous budget personalities. The first is the “treat yourself” person. They will casually try to upgrade every aspect of the trip, quickly doubling the cost of the trip before anyone can protest. You can identify people with phrases such as:

1. “It’s only an extra $300 per night per person.”

2. “I found a better restaurant. It’s just a $300 tasting menu.”

3. “I got us a better table. We only need to commit to ten bottles.”

This person is impervious to financial pain. Other attendees are not.

The second is the extreme cost-cutter. This person is equally dangerous, just to the other extreme. At dinners they will order only a side dish and raid the bread basket. They will go too hard at the pregame because they refuse to buy drinks at the bar. They will try to convince everyone to walk 10 kilometres home late at night to avoid a $20 Uber. If given free rein, they will quickly ruin everybody else’s good time.

With luck, everybody in attendance will be on the same financial page but if not, the organizer needs to set expectations early so neither type ruins the event. It doesn’t need to be expensive for it to be a good time, the goal is to create a memorable event that the stag actually enjoys, at a cost the group can reasonably tolerate.

If you want to reduce costs, one way to do it is by avoiding merch. Nobody needs a custom T-shirt, hat, fanny pack, shot glass, or tote bag commemorating Ashleigh’s Last Ride. Nobody will wear it again. It will appear in three Instagram stories, spend eight months in a drawer, and eventually end up at Salvation Army or in a landfill.

The point of a Bachelor/Bachelorette party is to have an amazing time, nobody forgets but will never bring up ever again. Whether you are organizing or attending the event, the best thing you can do is give your friend a proper send off as they end their life as an unmarried person and begin their life as somebody’s husband or wife.

Thank you for reading. If you liked this article please Subscribe below. I publish articles on a wide range of topics from business, books, current events or anything on my mind.

Subscribe now

The problem is simple. Men like this cast enormous shadows. Their children are not just competing with one another, they are competing with the force of the founder himself. He advises presidents, knows every major tech leader personally, and owns media assets that can be used to advance both personal and business interests.

That description fits Logan Roy, the patriarch of Succession, one of the most iconic characters in modern television.

The Roys were widely understood to be modeled on the Murdochs, the family behind Fox and News Corp, who controlled major parts of the media landscape for decades while publicly fighting over the future of the empire.

The creators and cast have said as much.

But what if the real person closest to Logan Roy is not Rupert Murdoch? What if there is another living billionaire who fits the role even better?

A man who has been divorced many times, owns major media assets, recently fought a proxy battle, and is now trying to hand parts of his empire to his children.

That man is Larry Ellison.

Ellison, the co-founder of Oracle and the self-styled samurai of Silicon Valley, was close with Steve Jobs, has spent years operating like a kingmaker in tech and media, helped finance Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, recently acquire a stake in Bytedance US (TikTok) and has recently backed his son David Ellison’s bid to help take control of Paramount through Skydance.

Even some of the public commentary around him feels like it belongs in Succession.

The similarities do not stop at the surface level. In temperament, ego, family dynamics, and the instinct to treat business, media, and power as one seamless game, Ellison may be the closest thing America has to a real Logan Roy.

Don’t believe me? Keep reading.

If this week’s article does not interest you, please check out some other recent ones:

Early life/ Upbringing

Logan Roy was born in Dundee, Scotland, (where Brian Cox is actually from), sometime around 1939. Due to the war, he and his siblings were sent to Quebec to be raised by their aunt and uncle. Logan lost his sister to tuberculosis, which his uncle blamed him for. That same uncle beat him, and the scars were still visible when Logan was in his eighties in Succession. He had a strained relationship with his brother Ewan, and his own children seem to have few happy memories of him.

Larry Ellison was born in New York in 1944. At nine months old, he was given up for adoption to his aunt and uncle, who raised him in Chicago. He did not learn they were not his biological parents until he was a teenager. His adoptive father may not have been physically abusive like Logan’s uncle, but he once told Larry he would never amount to anything. That became fuel Ellison would burn for much of his life.

Like many founders and industrialists, both men seem to have drawn energy from the need to prove a father figure wrong.

Both built vast empires, but neither followed a conventional path. It is unclear whether Roy attended university, but his rise began with an advertising business that he scaled into a conglomerate. By the start of Succession, Waystar Royco spans cable news, newspapers, film studios, theme parks, cruises, and more.

Ellison was a strong student, but dropped out of pre-med and headed to Silicon Valley to work in tech. After stints at several companies, he started a venture with former colleagues selling consulting services. He then came across a relatively obscure IBM research paper on relational databases, which became the basis for what would later become Oracle. Ellison realized IBM did not fully appreciate what it had and was too large and bureaucratic to move quickly. A smaller, leaner company could build the future faster.

IBM had made this mistake before. A few years earlier, it had let a handful of engineers walk away with another software idea it did not care much about. That company became SAP.

It is never entirely clear what motivated Logan when he started Royco. Ellison, by contrast, initially thought he might one day build a company with about $10 million in revenue and 50 employees. He overshot that pretty quickly. Then the ambition changed. The goal was no longer to build a good company. The goal became being number one. Not the number one database company, but the number one technology company in the world.

Competitive Fervor

One of the central themes in Succession is that to succeed at the highest level, you need to be a killer. Logan clearly believes this and tries to hammer the lesson into his children.

In the first episode, while explaining to Kendall why he is delaying retirement, Logan tells him: “I know that you’ve read a lot of books about business management and this and that. But sometimes it is a big dick competition.”

He makes the point even more explicitly in the season two finale. When Kendall asks whether Logan ever thought he could do the job, Logan replies: “You're smart, you're good, but you’re not a killer. You have to be a killer!” It is one of the defining lines of the series and helps set up one of the best season finales in television history.

We only meet Logan after the empire is already built, but by every account, he took no prisoners getting there. He is estranged from his older brother. His rivals fear him as much as they hate him. Even the President of the United States is wary of crossing him. He threatens to grind people’s bones into his soup. He is willing to sacrifice loyal employees when it serves his purposes. There is never much doubt that, once Logan wants something, he does not believe anything should stand in his way.

“I see him as a driving force. He gets what he wants. And when he focuses on something, he gets it.”

That’s not a line from Succession, that’s Marc Benioff talking about Larry Ellison.

“Larry has his foot on the accelerator to the floor trying to drive 150 MPH leaving his competition behind him. He knew eventually he would shoot the car over the cliff but like James Bond, the car will break into 10,000 pieces but he will still be on the other side.”

Ellison was not always like this. One of the things that initially attracted him to technology was that it gave him time to hike and left room for leisure. That changed after Oracle. By his own telling, his first wife left him because he was not ambitious enough. His second wife left him because he was too ambitious. Some would call that growth.

One turning point Ellison often cites was a trip to Japan, where an executive told him Americans were too comfortable with second place. For many of the Japanese businesspeople he met, you were either first or last. Wait, no, that is Ricky Bobby. Still, somewhere along the way, Ellison became obsessed with crushing the competition. It was never really about hitting a revenue target. He wanted Oracle to be number one.

What began as a mission to build the top pure software company, at a time when most firms bundled hardware and software together, evolved into something even bigger. Ellison wanted Oracle to become the largest technology company in the world. Bigger than IBM or Microsoft.

He would openly taunt competitors, put up billboards outside their offices, and run ads that depicted Oracle as superior fighter jets. Ellison had no problem taking direct shots at Bill Gates at the height of his powers. This was the antitrust-era Bill Gates, not the softened, philanthropic version most millennials and Gen Z know.

While Ellison was more of a sprinter Gates was a marathon runner type of psycho. He removed the radio from his car so he wouldn’t be distracted during his commute to and from work. Ellison would sail yachts and stay busy with hobbies outside of work.

Oracle never quite became the number one technology company, but for a long time it was one of the most formidable players in the industry. That is a remarkable achievement for a business-to-business software company competing across decades against Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry and Sergey, Zuckerberg, and pretty much every other titan of modern tech. Despite this, with Ellison’s reluctance to sell Oracle stock, in 2025 he briefly surpassed Elon Musk to become the world's richest man.

Contrarian

Before Peter Thiel, Ellison was Silicon Valley’s contrarian.

Oracle succeeded in large part because Ellison repeatedly saw something others did not and was willing to bet the company on being right. Few people initially believed relational databases would become a major category. Later, Oracle moved aggressively away from client-server applications and toward internet-based systems in the 1990s, before most people thought the internet would matter much for enterprise software.

Ellison’s logic was simple. This was the only path to number one. If Oracle stayed in client-server, SAP would remain ahead. If the internet reshaped enterprise computing the way Ellison thought it would, Oracle would be best positioned to ride the wave. There were many other examples like this. Ellison was rarely afraid to act on his own view of where technology was going, even when the rest of the industry and most analysts disagreed.

Logan made similarly bold calls in media. When others thought home video would kill movie theaters, Logan invested in theaters because he believed people would still want to go to the cinema. While Kendall and others were drawn to flashy websites and trendy digital assets, Logan preferred regional newspapers and local affiliate channels. These were aging businesses, but they still held influence and had sticky audiences, much more so than websites that could come and go with the seasons.

When he faces a proxy fight, Logan entertains two very different ways out: acquiring a politically opposed legacy media rival or buying a newer, buzzier tech-media company. His preference was the legacy media rival because that’s what he understands and value. Logan appreciates technology, but he never mistakes it for power itself. In his worldview, technology can amplify influence, but it cannot replace it. Real power still comes from controlling media assets that can shape opinion and pressure politicians into submission.

Influence

While Logan’s influence on politics is explicit, Ellison’s was more bespoke until recently.

In a fairly short stretch, Ellison went from being a rich political donor with strong connections to becoming a far more direct player in the machinery of information and influence. He helped finance Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, Oracle became deeply embedded in TikTok’s U.S. structure, and his son David Ellison now runs Paramount Skydance, which gives the Ellison orbit meaningful control over a major Hollywood studio and a broad set of media assets.

Ellison is the elder statesman of Silicon Valley. He was close with Steve Jobs, is viewed as a mentor by figures like Elon Musk and Marc Benioff, and is probably no more than a second-degree connection away from almost any important person in tech. He has spent decades accumulating not just money, but proximity to power.

It is also quite clear that he has unusual access to President Donald Trump. Ellison hosted a fundraiser for Trump in 2020, joined a post-election call about strategies for contesting Trump’s loss, and appeared beside Trump at the White House for the Stargate AI announcement in January 2025. Oracle was also central to both the earlier TikTok negotiations and the newer TikTok U.S. joint venture. None of this proves that Ellison is writing policy himself, but it does suggest something simpler and probably more important: when Larry Ellison wants something done, he can pressure politicians into making it happen.

That feels very Logan Roy. Logan may be fictional, but one of his defining traits is that he does not need formal office to exercise power. He can call the administration, intimidate rivals, shape narratives, and make politicians behave as though he outranks them. Even decide who the next President will be. This makes him hated by many politicians and the general public alike.

Ellison is not loved by everyone, either. The Paramount-Skydance deal drew heavy scrutiny from Democrats who preferred Netflix acquire Paramount.

This sounds exactly what Gil Eavis says of Logan Roy throughout Succession. It’s quite clear the Eavis character is at least partially based on Bernie Sanders, and although Sanders was not calling out Ellison during Succession’s filming run, he now is.

So this raises the real question. Was Logan Roy always closer to Larry Ellison than Rupert Murdoch, even if the writers did not fully realize it? Was this simply a question of time catching up with the character?

Here you have two men raised by relatives rather than by their biological parents, both marked early by hard and often humiliating father figures. Both built empires through bold, contrarian bets. Both obsessed with winning and treat business as a theatre of dominance rather than a vehicle for profits. Both understood that money alone is not enough. To bend the world to your will, you need power, money and influence.

That is why I submit that Logan Roy may be less a portrait of Rupert Murdoch than an accidental prophecy of Larry Ellison.

Or maybe Ellison saw Logan Roy and decided the resemblance was an aspiration.

Thank you for reading. If you liked this article please Subscribe below. I publish articles on a wide range of topics from business, books, current events or anything on my mind.

Subscribe now

You would sometimes see women or youngsters but they were not the key demographic. Don’t believe me? Dust off some archived coverage from major golf tournaments then try to find a commercial for something besides beer, Cialis or bladder medication.

This didn’t help dispel the belief golf was structurally inaccessible for most people, before considering financial and time constraints. However, the growing number of baby boomers entering retirement was expected to more than sustain golf for decades. This turned out to be overblown.

Golf participation began stalling in the 2010s, but suddenly young people started showing up. Outdoor golf driving ranges such as Topgolf turned out to be a big hit. Then came the pandemic, with people looking for hobbies they could do outside, golf benefitted. Golf participation is now at the highest level in 20 years while participation and viewership in other major sports is down.

A catalyst to golf, has been the emergence of a viewing alternative to the PGA Tour. No, not the Saudi backed LIV golf league. Youtube. Content creators ranging from professionals to high handicappers have helped win over a new generation who normally wouldn’t be interested in the sport. With videos ranging from a few seconds to multiple hours, in a variety of formats, Youtube has made watching much more accessible. For young golf fans, names such as Grant Horvat or Fat Perez are as synonymous to golf as Rory Mcilroy or Scottie Scheffler.

The PGA Tour and LIV have taken notice, and have embraced this new channel. If a sport accused of being stuck in tradition is open to change, it’s only a matter of time before all sports go this way.

Today’s article will give an overview of the business of sports and how golf might be the blueprint to increasing viewership and participation rates.

Keep reading to learn more!

But first, make sure to hit the Subscribe button below to be the 1,000th Subscriber to Serviceable Insights to get articles like these, delivered directly to their inbox.

Subscribe now

If this week’s article does not interest you, please check out some other recent ones:

The Economics of Sports

Since the days of the Roman Coliseum and Olympics, spectator sports have played an important role in society. Athletes used to compete for pride and glory, these days they also get paid handsomely; in line with big company executives. Since major sports leagues are profit seeking enterprises, to pay for these high salaries and generate enough profit for their shareholders, revenue comes from a few sources:

1. Fans - Ticket Sales & Spending on Merchandise, Concessions/Parking

2. Corporate Sponsors - Advertisement & Other Marketing

3. Media Rights - National & Local Distribution

The three sources are deeply intertwined. Fans are needed to fill the arenas and tune in, to justify companies willing to allocate their marketing budgets there. The more people want to watch, and companies wish to advertise, the more valuable the media distribution rights become. This encourages media companies to pay more, generating more revenue for the league, the players and the owners.

Since arenas have limited capacity, and leagues can only put on so many events, leagues need to convince the people at home to watch their sport instead of other entertainment alternatives (Netflix, News, Video Games etc.). Even outside the sporting event itself, leagues and networks offer extensive coverage to keep fans engaged year round, even when there are no live outings. In 2025, these TV contracts generate billions of dollars each year for the major sports leagues.

This rising revenue has translated to higher valuations for professional sports teams, that now sell for multiples between 6-11 times revenue, consistent with fast growing tech companies. These firms typically grow between 15-20%, whereas these leagues have been growing closer to 5-10%. Still very impressive but more consistent with mature, stable business like Coca-Cola or Disney , which typically trade between 3-6 times revenue. Part of this can be explained by the status element of owning a pro sports team. More recently, private equity firms have began taking minority stakes, on the basis of offering their limited partners diversification from traditional financial assets, not to mention access to good seats.

Although there isn’t any shortage of billionaires and private equity firms looking to pay high prices to own sports team, they might change their tune if the growth stops. Viewership numbers have been declining these past few years, with the NBA seeing the largest decline, with estimates as high as 50% drops from their peak. Fortunately for them, they managed to sign a new TV deal that will keep revenue growing for at least the next decade but this is mostly because networks are desperate and willing to pay up, at least for now.

The question is for how long? If viewership continues to decline, eventually advertisers won’t justify paying more for less, and this means less money for the networks, franchise owners, the league and the players. They don’t want that.

What if there was a way to boost viewership and make the sport seem more fun?

Golf is Cool?

Economics of Professional Golf

Professional golf works a bit differently than the other major professional sport leagues. Basketball, hockey and American football have one dominant league made up of around 30 franchises across North America, made up with players signed to contracts ranging from a few weeks to multiple years with at least partially guaranteed salaries. Golf doesn’t work this way.

Pro golfers are independent contractors that earn a portion of the prize purse based on where they finish in an event. They don’t have the luxury of guaranteed money. Outside of sponsorships, their earnings are completely tied to their performance. They are effectively like real estates agents. Golfers can have a great year or make no money at all. In fact, a golfer ranked outside the top 165, likely loses money to participate on the PGA tour.

LIV golf backed by Saudi money began offering massive guaranteed money to attract stars to defect from the PGA tour. While the PGA Tour has yet to follow, they have had to increase payout to players in response. The PGA Tour earns their money like other sports leagues, so to manage these higher payouts, they needed to get it from sponsors. So viewership is more important than ever.

Fortunately, golf has been seeing an increase in participation these past years, especially from youths, women and people of color at record levels. While viewership from traditional broadcasts are down, streaming and online content are largely offsetting this. These new channels should only continue to grow, helping propel the sport forward.

What is Youtube Golf?

Show up to a golf course in 2025 and you’ll still see many familiar Titleist and Nike logos, but also many new ones such as Bad Birdie, Good Good and Primo. None of these existed 10 years ago, and chances are older golfers won’t recognize them but younger ones will. This is because for them, Youtube and golf are intrinsically linked.

Many of these young golfers are on the course because of Youtube videos (and TikTok) from their favorite creators such as Bob Does Sports, Grant Horvat or Rick Shiels that sport channels with over a million subscribers. This would be impressive for any type of channel but especially for non-professional athletes that launched their channels without an existing audience. Having 1 million subscribers would put a channel in the top 5% of Youtube. Since young people spend between 1-3 hours per day on Youtube, much if it coming from long form content (>30 minutes), this translates to a lot of time watching golf videos.

What began with low budget swing tutorial and trick shot videos, eventually blossomed into full camera crew 18 hole matches featuring professional golfers and prizes in the hundreds of thousands. This might pale in comparison to the purses in PGA events but it might not be a stretch to see it get there one day. Videos from top creators are regularly generating hundreds of thousands if not millions of views which is consistent with PGA broadcasts.

If you aren’t familiar with these kinds of videos, you might wonder why would anyone spend hours watching mostly meaningless matches between high handicappers and scratch golfers when you can tune in to see professional golfers compete for big money and glory. For one thing, the format is much more watchable. While a golf broadcast can last hours, with few noteworthy moments, a Youtube video can edit out the uninteresting parts, allowing the viewer more entertainment per minute watched. Slow pay doesn’t matter if the viewer doesn’t see it. Videos don’t have to stick to the traditional stroke play format either. Creators can mix it up with match play, skins, alternate shot, scramble etc. Things you rarely see in professional tournaments.

Beyond the play itself, the format allows a more intimate relationship. On a Youtube video, the camera crew can step inside the ropes and get up close and personal with the players. Players can talk through their shot, club selection and other considerations as they are setting up. Since they aren’t competing for money, it’s a much more friendly and relaxed atmosphere, with friendly advice and jokes you wouldn’t see in a professional tournament.

(As of November 2024. Credit to article)

This is not to say there’s a shortage of competitiveness. Some of the top creators are current or former PGA or LIV members, such as Bryson DeChambeau or Wesley Bryant. Others are former college golfers, capable of playing against professionals. When these kind of people get a round going, you start to see trash talk and emotions you wouldn’t normally see in a professional sporting event.

If that’s not your cup of tea, you can watch the boys on Bob Does Sports get crazy drunk, shoot 30 strokes over par and celebrate sinking 10 foot par puts like they’re Rory McIlroy completing the majors grand slam. You have drama/bad blood, like Micah Morris and Grant Horvat defecting from Good Good to concentrate on their own channels or Riggs from Fore Play taking on internet trolls. There’s something for everyone.

There is a great variety of creators and content that sucks viewers in, and professional golf has noticed. Traditional OEMs, like Titleist, TaylorMade and Callaway are sponsoring non-professional golf Youtubers. The PGA tour has hosted two installments, of The Creator Classic. LIV golf is encouraging their best players to film with Youtubers.

This is why the expectation should be for Youtube Golf to keep growing, which will further help the growth of the sport as a whole. Not to mention the added support from Netflix’s Full Swing series and the emergence of Scottie Scheffler as the dominant figure within the sport. Golf is facing plenty of strong tailwinds which should support it’s growth, and other professional leagues should be trying to figure out how to emulate it.

YouTube has helped turn golf from a country-club pastime for older folks into a reality show with unlimited tee times, and the sport will not look back. Now, there is a new demographic interested in the sport for the first time. As such, clubs previously struggling for members are suddenly overcrowded, creating multi-year waitlists. Trying to find tee times at public courses is starting to become tricky but golf is currently in the best place it’s been in years and it’s partially thanks to young people spending too much time on the internet.

Thank you for reading. If you liked this article please Subscribe below. I publish articles on a wide range of topics from business, books, current events or anything on my mind.

Subscribe now

In recent weeks, I had the good fortune to see works of art that will likely be discussed and re-watched much longer than the usual TikTok cycle. Succession creator Jesse Armstrong returns with a film Mountainhead, the premise being a few tech executives on a weekend retreat as a global calamity occurs, caused by deepfakes and Artificial Intelligence. Sounds like a far fetched scenario, I know.

If you want something more realistic, what about a TV series about a comedian flying a Boeing 737 to prove a point about airline safety? Well Nathan Fielder in season 2 of The Rehearsal, takes things to another level, physically and comedically. Fielder stretches the limits of what can be allowed on network television. He has shown to be fearless; allowing him to take his comedy to depths not previously seen. The Rehearsal season 2 is must-watch TV, that is among the best seasons of television this decade (thus far).

Keep reading to find out why you should watch these immediately.

But first, make sure to hit the Subscribe button below to be the 1,000th Subscriber to Serviceable Insights to get articles like these, delivered directly to their inbox.

Subscribe now

If this week’s article does not interest you, please check out some other recent ones:

Mountainhead

Mountainhead is an incredible satire on the personalities of the Silicon Valley elites. It’s difficult not to see the film and immediately see it as an SNL style spoof on the All-In Podcast. Jason Schwartzman's character is clearly based on Jason Calacanis, the moderator of pod, that’s mostly famous for being friends with Elon Musk. He was also an early investor in Uber, which he reminds people about often. While’s he’s rich, he’s neither a billionaire or a centi-millionaire, making him the poor man of the group. Sacks and Chamath have ridiculed him for this on many occasions on the All-in pod. Although he’s well connected in tech circles, Calacanis lacks the pedigree of a top investor or company builder, which Chamath and Sacks are not afraid to remind him, when he’s taking a contrary position to them. They way they speak to him, sometimes borders on bullying, which is exactly the dynamic shown on Mountainhead.

While ripping on Jason is mostly good natured, some of their comments reveal the hubris from these besties. This isn’t completely unwarranted; they have played important roles in generation defining companies such as Google, Facebook, PayPal and others, while amassing large fortunes. Besides, what’s the point in having “eff you money”, if you don’t ever say eff you, every now and then?

This is all fine and good, but when you hear some of their comments and how quickly these tech executives have managed to secure access to the White House, it shows they clearly believe their powers extend far beyond the realm of tech or business. This isn’t exclusive to technology, plenty of energy or finance executives or former entertainers made forays into politics, with varied success. What’s different in this case, is the sincerity to which tech executives believe they are making the word a better place, regardless of clear negative externalities their products cause. The mantra of many tech elites appears to be, technology is not only the best solution to all human problems, it's the only one.

If regulators or governments dare get in the way, they are anti-progress. While satirical, it’s not a stretch to think that many tech elites would buy a country if they could. Not the U.S. or China, of course. But something small. Vulnerable. Maybe in the Caribbean.

The group dynamic in Mountainhead echoes what has been playing out in real time on the All-In Podcast. Chamath and Sacks are now full-on Trump whisperers. Calacanis is a devout Elon Musk loyalist, which, until recently, meant being softly pro-Trump even after years of warning how catastrophic his return would be. David Friedberg is the outlier, more intellectually honest, less partisan. Politically a libertarian, but still grounded in reality. He is the closest analogue to the film's Jeffrey "Jeff" Abredazi, a billionaire who, unlike the rest, seems aware that something has gone deeply wrong, and they might be the cause.

Then there is Venis "Ven" Parish, an amalgamation of Big Tech CEOs. He’s clearly some caricature of Zuckerberg, Bezos and Benioff, possibly others. Obsessed with biohacking, convinced he understands philosophy, and certain that his work is saving humanity. He does not just disrupt industries; he thinks he is evolving the species. Randall Garrett (Steve Carrell), isn’t exactly David Sacks. Maybe certain aspects of Peter Thiel or a Bill Gurly type. More of an old school VC, that serves as something of a mentor to the rest of the group. They give him a god complex, believing he can control his health and live forever. This is clearly referencing the longevity investments Thiel made a while ago. Perhaps also a reference to Bryan Johnson.

Regardless of the exact characters, the film will prove prescient. Misinformation and deepfakes are already distorting public perception. Open Twitter right now and scroll through footage from Israel or Iran. If you believed everything you saw, you'd assume both countries have been wiped off the map. In less than a generation, tech founders went from hoodie-wearing outsiders to front-row seats at inaugurations. Jesse Armstrong, the creator of Succession, brings the same scalpel here, eviscerating the powerful while making you laugh. If you loved Succession, you will love this. If you hate Big Tech, you will love this. If you work in tech, you will probably call it "mid."

The Rehearsal

Nathan Fielder is the new king of comedy

With all due respect to Severance and White Lotus, Nathan Fielder just created the standout season of television this decade. He also just snatched the crown from Sacha Baron Cohen (SBA), Eric Andre, and even the late Andy Kaufman to become the reigning king of method comedy.

Method acting, popularized by Marlon Brando and employed by modern legends like Daniel Day-Lewis and Jeremy Strong, requires the actor to stay in character throughout the shoot. Nathan has adopted a similar commitment, except his stage is the real world, and his character is just a strange, obsessive version of himself. This is in contrast to SBA or Kaufman that played characters with no similarities to their own personalities. The difference from the character Fielder plays on his shows and how he is in real life, is subtle. To the point that when he’s doing interviews, whether he’s promoting a show or not, it’s difficult to decipher if he’s still show Nathan.

This is likely because for most of his career, he performed under his own name. Fielder began his television career nearly twenty years ago doing short segments on This Hour Has 22 Minutes, a CBC comedy show. He was far from a main player but he did enough to convince execs at Comedy Central to let him launch his own show, Nathan for You. The premise was simple: Nathan, a supposed business genius, offers absurd marketing advice to small businesses. The execution was anything but. He started with simple premises such as having an ice cream store temporarily offer a poop-flavored ice cream. Convince a a realtor to guarantee any homes she sold were certified "ghost-free." He then took it to another level when he realized using parody law, he could rip off Starbucks. He created Dumb Starbucks. That last one went viral globally. People thought it was a Banksy installation. The stunt made international news before being shut down by health inspectors. Nathan had arrived.

The show wasn’t just about laughs, though it was consistently hilarious. It captured the quiet desperation of small business owners struggling under regulation, competition, and modernity. It revealed how easily Nathan could convince people to do outrageous things. And it hinted at the deeper commitment and ambition lurking beneath the surface.

(In 2014, I saw him at a show at the Just For Laughs Festival and got to ask him a question on stage)

By season three, Fielder had declared war on Uber with a sleeper cell of rogue taxi drivers. The logistics were insane. The laughs were real. But as his fame grew, and as smartphones made him more recognizable, the show became harder to produce. So he stepped back. He helped Sacha Baron Cohen on Who Is America?, consulted off-screen on other projects, and disappeared from the spotlight.

The Rehearsal

(Some Spoilers Alert)

The show begins with an odd but compelling premise: what if people could rehearse difficult moments in their lives before they happen? It quickly evolves into something surreal. In one storyline, Nathan helps someone rehearse becoming a parent by simulating an entire life with a child actor. Eventually, Nathan inserts himself into the simulation, raising the child himself, until it becomes impossible to tell where the show ends and Nathan begins.

Season one is weird, brilliant, and not for everyone. It is far from mass-audience sitcom territory. But if it clicks with you, it really clicks. Season two, is where he takes things further than you would expect from any network television show can go.

It starts with a genuine safety concern: many plane crashes are caused by miscommunication between pilots. Nathan investigates. He meets with the former head of the FAA, who agrees it's a problem. So Nathan does what any sane person would: he decides to stage a rehearsal for pilot communication. But not just that. He spends two years learning to fly starting on small planes working his way up until he is trained to pilot a commercial Boeing 737. Legally. He goes through the same training as a commercial pilot, finds a plan and flies 100 people, logging airtime under obscure FAA rules. The scene is astonishing. He actually lands the plane. It is not a joke. It is not CGI. He did it. Why? Because that is what the show required. Because that is who Nathan is.

Along the way, The Rehearsal explores real issues: the mental health of pilots, the pressure they face, the impossibility of disclosing conditions without risking their careers. It also remains funny, darkly, awkwardly, relentlessly funny. Nathan finds bizarre people and lets them talk. He recreates Sully’s Hudson River landing just to understand it better. He lives as Sully. He creates an alternate history where Sully isn’t actually a hero, he was just a dude distracted by Evanescence.

He takes on one of the largest film and television studios in the word: Paramount+. Fielder learnt they removed an old episode of Nathan for You , that as part of the episode, included the creation of a brand that raised money for Holocaust awareness. Paramount+ claimed it did not want to "take sides" in the Israel-Palestine conflict, so it pulled any content related to Judaism. Despite pointing out to them that they still host plenty of content related to N@zis and other potentially sensitive content, the studio did not reverse their position. His response is scathing.

At the time, The Curse, his other show with Emma Stone and the Safdie brothers, was waiting on a season two renewal with Paramount+. He wasn’t just risking a professional relationship. He was risking his career. That HBO let the episode air is nothing short of astonishing. This goes to show, not only the lengths Nathan will go, but the extend to which the network, will allow him to spend endless money and go after anything he sees fit. HBO or Max, whatever they call themselves these days, is not a small network. This isn’t Adultswim or some small network. They have shareholders and eliminate even decent shows at the drop of a hat. They allow Fielder to do this because they acknowledge that he’s special. He might not drive the most views, but for the people who get him, they will subscribe to HBO just to watch anything he does.

He’s built a fiercely loyal fanbase because Nathan Fielder is fearless. He commits harder than anyone. He never breaks. And somehow, always lands the plane.

Thank you for reading. If you liked this article please Subscribe below. Each week I publish an article on a wide range of topics from business, books, current events or anything on my mind.

Subscribe now

The noble days of Jesse James robbing banks as a conduit for financial stability are over. Today’s criminals more closely resemble Thomas Crown than Bonnie & Clyde.

The return on investment (ROI), of such heists are no longer economically feasible, forcing the working class to resort to small ball petty crime, making the major scores only accessible to the ultra-rich.

This post will demonstrate why the ROI of great heists has been declining for decades, the societal implications and what this means for young children aspiring to be the next Neil McCauley or Danny Ocean.

Subscribe now

If this week’s article does not interest you, please check out some other recent ones:

The Cost of Pulling off a Heist

Heading into my Bachelor party, my Best Man, Augustin asked me what I wanted to do. Like any normal person, I told him I wanted to rob a bank or casino. When else would such a large group of friends be able to leave our work and families behind to accomplish such a feat? After doing what I am certain was a thorough review, he informed me that it was simply not feasible.

Pulling off a medium sized heist would require months if not years of training; the time spent practicing and planning would make it impossible to keep a full time job. Without factoring in the lost income for 11 men with white collar jobs, the equipment and materials needed for first timers, would costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Due to the high risk of getting caught and facing jail time, an experienced criminal lawyer needs to be kept on retainer. If we believed at some point during the heist, we may find ourselves in a gun fight, we would need to pay additional legal fees preparing our last wills and testaments, if any of our party members were to perish.

When reviewing these costs, the initial budget for this heist came in above $3M. Opting for less costly accommodations and restaurants during our stay did not meaningfully reduce the cost. To make my dream a reality, we would need to raise the money from investors.

While working on a pitch deck for this opportunity, we quickly realized that we had a problem. Most medium sized heists only had an expected payout between $1-15M. This return was not high enough for Venture Capitalists (VCs). We met with a few prominent firms and they promptly rejected us.

“Sorry gents, this venture just doesn’t have enough upside for us. We need to underwrite at least a 10X return on our money. If this one is successful and you one day choose to go up-market, come back to us and maybe there will be a fit then. “ Roelof Botha, Managing Partner - Sequoia Ventures

“This looks interesting but unfortunately we have a conflict; Adam Neumann was in here last week pitching something similar and we already gave him $100M for it. We don’t want to be seen backing a potential competitor.” Marc Andreesen, Managing Partner - Andreesen Horowitz A16z

See Footnote for more details1 (If you want to raise VC funding for real, check here)

Other institutional investors were not much help either, citing issues having to do with low Sharpe Ratios and ESG concerns associated with financing crime. We finally had to accept that heists like these were not available to people in our tax bracket. We settled for a more conventional Bachelor party, which was perfectly lovely. However, as I listened to Kygo playing Firestorm to finish his set at Ushuaïa, I couldn’t help but wonder to myself, when did bank robberies and heist become a rich person activity?

The History of Heists/Robberies

Serial robbery is a noble tradition extending back to the days of Robin Hood. As the legend went, Mr. Hood would steal from the rich and give to the poor. At the time the rich consisted of Royals, Aristocrats, the Church and a few corrupt politicians. Income inequality was much worse than it is now; the rich would represent at most 5% of the population while owning about 95% of all assets. These days the top 10% of Westerners own closer to 60-70% of wealth within their country.

This is likely why those living in the Feudal system looked at Robin Hood and didn’t see a criminal. They could not have faith in the invisible hand of the free market or government fiscal policy to help them. Robin Hood who was single handedly redistributing wealth, became the children’s savior and hero.

One of these young children, Jesse James, became one of the earliest and most famous serial bank robbers in American history. The concept of a "serial bank robber" existed before James, but he became a national figure, partly due to sensationalized media coverage, which sometimes romanticized him as a Robin Hood-like figure.

Jesse James and his gang did not perform any elaborate tricks or stunts in their robberies. They would show up as a group of several armed men in the middle of the day, hold up the cashiers of the bank, take a few hostages then ride off with the money as quickly as they can. He would basically just “Raw-Dog” it.

While it wasn’t their primary goal, if they had to shoot some bank employees or law enforcement, so be it. Even if Mr. James and his associates were merely trying to continue the legacy of Robin Hood, the mainstream media footage would inspire many copycat bank robbers, that would co-opt this message. Most like Jesse James came from humble beginnings, but there were some exceptions.

Adam Worth, born three years before Jesse James, came from a relatively well off family. Unlike Jesse James, he was not stealing out of necessity and he wasn’t just after money. Worth was an international thief, going after priceless works of art and sought to avoid violent confrontations. He was a classy and well educated gentlemen, accepted by high society in American and Europe. Worth served as the inspiration for Moriarty, Sherlock Holmes main rival. Not only would he inspire Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but most modern criminals.

The Ocean’s 11 Hoodwink

For Young Gen Xer’s and Millennials, the gold standard for organized heist films is Ocean’s 11. The film stars an absolutely legendary cast including George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and Julia Roberts. Part of why we love the Ocean’s Trilogy, is because the characters feel relatable. The team largely hails from middle or working-class backgrounds. Each team member has their quirks but they have clear motivations why they want to participate in the operation: money or status. Besides Danny Ocean (Clooney), who just wants to win Tess back from Terry Benedict.

Ocean’s 11 are a cast of lovable misfits, trying to take down the mean Terry Benedict. Sure they were criminals, but they are robbing a Casino with $160M in their vault. I’m sure Benedict has good insurance, it’s practically a victimless crime right? The Ocean’s Trilogy were not alone in depicting this. Other films from the 2000’s such as The Italian Job, The Fast and the Furious and The Town all generally deal with poor or working class individuals stealing from the rich while enacting revenge. Films like these, teach us that it’s not really a crime, if it happens to a rich person.

No wonder there is widespread support amongst young people for the likes of Elisabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders & AOC. T-shirts saying “Eat the Rich!” are merely repeating lessons learnt from childhood heroes such as Jesse James or Danny Ocean.

These people have unfortunately been mislead. Upon rewatching Ocean’s 11, a few things put this poor misfit versus rich mean guy dynamic into doubt:

1. This group that Danny assembled are experienced and accomplished thieves. When Basher (Don Cheadle) tries to perform a smaller heist with another group, it fails due to the lack of talent. Such heists can only work with an all star lineup.

2. All star lineups are expensive, especially now that we live in a salary cap era. Reuben is wealthy and willing to bankroll the whole operation, negating the need to go to VCs. Without a friend or relative willing to play the role of Reuben, there is no way they could afford such a massive payroll & expenses.

3. Linus (Matt Damon), is only added to the group because of his father, making him a “Criminal Nepo Baby”. Terry Benedict on the other hand, built his empire and even after “making it” still works harder than anyone in the Ocean’s group.

While Danny and his crew were not rich, they did not need to incur any financial risk because of the generosity of Reuben. The participants only had to forgo a few weeks worth of wages but since none were salaried, the opportunity cost was far less than your regular Joe with a family to support.

The fact of the matter is, the Ocean’s group and most big score thieves, don’t actually pull off these heists for the money.

Men Would Rather Steal Than Attend Therapy

“Ya gotta be *nuts*, And you're gonna need a crew as *nuts* as you are!”

Reuben Tishkoff - Ocean’s 11

Rusty knew Danny didn’t want to do the Bellagio job for the money. When he pressed him, Danny gave him this whole story of it being a rigged game, and that this was their chance for the little guy to hit back at the Casino! You would swear that Danny Ocean was quoting Robin Hood or Bernie Sanders.

Rusty might not have believed it but he accepted the premise, because he and the rest of the crew were dying of boredom. When Rusty realized Danny was really doing it to win his ex-wife back, he knew the money was only a tertiary consideration. Robbing a casino to win back an ex, who left you over incarceration for stealing is an odd strategy. Yet Danny managed to get the money, outsmart a rival and get his wife back.

When Danny & Rusty first got into the game, they promised they would play it like they had nothing to lose. Throughout the Ocean’s trilogy, they would break this rule, but they always won because they didn’t care about the money. If you look at any successful film thief of the past 40 years, you will notice they did the same.

Neil McCauley (Robert De Niro) from Heat had easily amassed tens of millions of dollars from his recent heists alone but lived a minimalist and isolationist lifestyle. While his crew members were participating in heists out of the necessity to pay their bills or fill a void, McCauley only cared about the score. This is why he was successful and in the clear until he finally slipped giving Al Pacino the chance to thwart him. Although it wasn’t the money that defeated him. He chose revenge over millions of dollars and a clean getaway with his girlfriend.

Think it’s a one off? In The Dark Knight, The Joker (Heath Ledger) set hundreds of millions of dollars ablaze purely to send a message. The Joker did not care about wealth, he simply wanted to sow chaos.

Thomas Crown, François Toulour (The Night Fox) and most Bond Villains are already fabulously wealthy yet they choose to risk jail time or death, for various reasons unrelated to needing money. What do these villains have in common? They are bored unmarried, men who don’t appear to keep regular appointments with a therapist. This is not a coincidence. The unit economics of such heists are so unattractive, that rational thieves wouldn’t attempt them.

Where are the emotionally stable criminals?

The fact is, despite the high potential payoff from such heists, the high costs and low probability of success, render such activities economically unfeasible. When rational criminals evaluate different scores, they calculate its Heist Net Present Value (HNPV). The HNPV factors in the risk versus reward of these activities with the time a criminal would need to allocate. Each would be criminal has their own desired threshold they will want to hit, but at a minimum it should at least equal to or greater than 1, otherwise you are expecting to lose money on the operation.

When crunching the numbers, Mega Heists (>$100M+) have very high anticipated payouts but carry high operational costs, time commitments and a low probability of success. In fact, after evaluating qualifying mega heists of the past 30 years, none had an HNPV greater than one. This is why rational criminals that aren’t independently wealthy have to settle for lower market robberies.

Criminals stealing out of economic necessity are optimizing for lower costs of operations, higher probability of success and lower time commitments. This really only leaves them with Small Ball Crime (<$500K) and possibly Lower Mid-Market Heists ($500K-15M). Toby & Tanner Howard in Hell or High Water are only going after scores of about $40K. Ryan Gosling in The Place Beyond the Pines, only manages about $15K per bank robbery. These men don’t have the resources at their disposal to rob the Bellagio, and if they get caught, who will feed their families? This forces them to settle for small payouts.

Since only wealthy thieves can attempt the big payouts, income inequality becomes further exacerbated. Some recent Defund the Police movements gave temporary hope for the little guy, but many companies responded with private security solutions. Gone are the days where all it took to pull off large heists was a questionable upbringing and a will do attitude.

Even the Fast and the Furious crew that started by stealing drag cars, won’t even get out of bed unless they are commandeering helicopters and visiting multiple continents on the same mission. They have become the rich that they used to steal from.

Unless the government intervenes to do something about this and fast, I’m afraid just like in the days of Robin Hood, the rich will soon be the only group able to pull off heists, of any size. There needs to be a New Deal, type program for young aspiring criminals. Whether it be new university programs or scholarship funds, there needs to be a major reset to level the playing field. Otherwise we will be left with a society where all heists are only performed by bored, rich men who are unwilling to go to therapy.

I hope you enjoyed today’s article. Please Subscribe or Share Some Feedback in the Comments

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

This article is satirical. If you want to learn about Venture Capital or Financial Decision making for real, you should check out some of my other posts or follow:

Critics and social media do not share the same enthusiasm for Season 3, which diverges significantly in style from the previous seasons. Some claim that the series jumped the shark1 while others believe the producers had a missfire. In my view, the writers achieve precisely what they intend; today’s post will explain how.

If you haven't seen Season 3 yet, consider this your spoiler warning. For those who haven't watched the series, I suggest you stop here. Below are some other articles worth checking out, and I'll see you next week with a piece on a different topic.

How to Not Suck at Sales Part I & II

Best City to Move to in 2024

Revisiting Peter Thiel’s Zero to One Parts I & II

For those not afraid of spoilers, let’s continue:

Season 1 was great, because of the chaotic nature of the restaurant and the erratic personalities involved. Jeremy Allen’s White deadpan performance was nicely complemented by over the top portrayals of Richie (Ebon Moss-Bachrach), Sydney (Ayo Edebiri) and Matty Matheson (Neil Fak). Episode 7, “Review,” delivered an intense depiction of a kitchen struggling to keep up with their orders. The use of a continuous camera cut maintained high tension until the very end of the episode. While not the first series to employ this technique, The Bear showcased one of the best applications in recent TV memory. The only other episode that could rival it was “Connor's Wedding” from Succession (Season 4 episode 3). If you are a Succession fan, check this out. Season 1 of The Bear definitely passed the fun and watchable threshold.

As incredible as the debut was, the second season took things to a whole over level and separated the series from many other good TV shows. Particularly episodes 6, Fishes and 7, Forks, showed the series had a depth few could rival. Fishes captured the essence complex family dynamics and personal traumas with raw realism. Hopefully viewers cannot relate too closely with the Berzatto holiday gathering, yet the episode continued to build tension, bringing the stakes to an unbelievable climax to end with Donna driving her car through their house.

Subscribe now

As awe inspiring Fishes was, the subsequent episode Forks was a masterclass in character redemption. In a single episode, The Bear took Riche from angry, detestable and irredeemable outcast to loveable underdog. There have been some impressive redemption arcs in the history of TV such as Andy Bernard (The Office) or Jamie Lannister (Game of Thrones) but these transpired over many episodes or seasons; the Bear did this in one episode.

After a stretch where Carm appears to finally have found some sense of peace with the restaurant and his relationship with Claire, he gets locked in a freezer for the duration of a service. The season ends with Carm’s anger and angst causing him to lash out at Richie, Claire and everyone else around him. Carmen’s interpretation of the events, was that his pursuit of a life outside of the restaurant caused him to lack focus, allowing standards to drop leading to him being stuck inside the freezer.

Carmen took from this that unless he was ready to dedicate everything to The Beef, it would never achieve the heights that he wants for it. A Michelin star. This meant he had to abandon anything that prevented him from achieve this goal. His girlfriend Claire, had to go. Having fun at the restaurant, no more. The writers of The Bear, seemed to have had a similar realization.

Season 3 starts with Carm establishing a list of non-negotiables. Among them were that the menu had to change daily, not repeat ingredients, they had to respect tradition but innovate. Carm believed, for The Beef to reach the next level, they had to abandon what they were previously doing and reinvent themselves.

This is not just what Carm wanted for the restaurant, but also the writers telling us what to expect from the season. Each episode has a different format and chose to abandon what worked in seasons 1 and 2. Each episode is shot differently, with a mixed tone not employed in the earlier seasons, that is less fun. Just like Carm needs to dedicate everything and suffer to make the restaurant a success, the writers decided viewers needed to do the same to reap rewards of watching a great show.

What season 3 is really trying to explore is if the cost of greatness is worth the sacrifice? The way it is depicted it’s not. Carm is fighting demons from his family and chef mentors. In season 1 and 2, he seemed to have abandoned this ambition, season 3 he has dived completely back in and has become more emboldened than ever.

Season 3 was very hard to watch because the writers wanted it to be. Carm Berzotto believes he needs to suffer for the restaurant to be successful, the writers decided the audience need to participate in this sufferance to reap the benefits of watching a great show. This is why much of the season explored much of the turmoil within The Bear staff life outside the restaurant. It’s not always light, fun and a straight line to success. Greatness comes at a cost. It hurts, it’s uncomfortable at times. Such is life. This does not make the creators of The Bear popular in the interim, but they believe that this is their cost of greatness. Even if this means alienating their audience.

Basketball legend, Kobe Bryant (RIP) came to a similar conclusion after losing to the Boston Celtics in 2008. He understood that leadership sometimes meant being hated by your teammates in order to get the performance you need out of them. He expressed this in a Facebook post in October 2012.

The writers of "The Bear" embraced the role of the villain, understanding that for the show to achieve greatness, viewers must feel the perils of pursuing it. Working in a restaurant is far from glamorous. For every Gordon Ramsay or Daniel Boulud, there are thousands of aspiring chefs toiling endlessly in high-pressure environments, their livelihoods hinging on a single review or social media post. Beyond the kitchen, the staff faces stress, uncertainty, and worry in their personal lives. The writers wanted to remind us of this reality.

Season 3 felt off because it was. The showrunners ventured into areas they had previously avoided, pushing boundaries not necessarily because they believed it was the right thing to do, but because shows of this stature often do. Just as Carmen experimented with different menu items, the series explored traditional television methods. In the first two seasons, they skillfully avoided stunt casting2, ensuring guest stars played meaningful roles, as seen with John Mulaney and Jamie Lee Curtis in the "Fishes" episode. In Season 3, they featured Josh Hartnett and John Cena, whose screen time and attention seemed disproportionate to their impact on the story.

The decision to stunt cast was consistent with the show's list of non-negotiables. Now that the audience has seen what happened when they stunt cast, The Bear can now move forward without it. This made the show worse in the short term, it was necessary to explore these choices to elevate the series to new heights.

After the second season, the writers felt the need to attempt something audacious to propel the show forward, taking a significant risk. Ironically, within the restaurant, the only part of the business that was making money, was the sandwich counter. Selling the old recipe. Even the patrons of the main restaurant were not on board with the changes as the staff would have liked. Rather than the show sticking with the successful formula, they chose to sacrifice a season to allow the show to live up to its maximum potential.

This required leadership and the willingness to become the villain. Though the audience might not realize it now, those who stick around will one day appreciate "The Bear" for these bold decisions.

I look forward to Season 4.

Lost your job and looking for new opportunities?

Commit a crime and trying to flee law enforcement or just tired of going to the same bars and restaurants?

Do I have a solution for you.

The world is buzzing with cities that promise exciting lifestyles, booming career opportunities, and rich cultural experiences. For those ready to start anew, picking the perfect city can be a thrilling yet overwhelming adventure. With factors like affordability, taxes, and community vibe to consider, the choice becomes even more complicated.

For the purpose of this guide, I am focusing largely on affordability, demographics, and cultural flair. This article will be most useful to North Americans and Western Europeans in their late twenties or early thirties without children and with careers that can be easily relocated. Naturally, depending on your situation and personal preferences, these recommendations might not appeal to you. Before making any life plans, please consult with your life coach, psychic, partner, or any other professionals in your employ.

*Note: To ensure you don’t miss my emails please star or reply to this message

In case you missed them, here are some other recent articles to check out:

Where Expats are Looking:

Today I will be discussing the following cities:

1. Mexico City

2. Lisbon

3. Montreal

4. Paris

   If you have lived in any of these cities, I am certain you will find something you disagree with or feel is missing context. I encourage you to share your thoughts in the comments for the benefit of other readers. Feel free to insult me while you're at it; I am sure it will do wonders for my engagement metrics.

Mexico City, Mexico (CDMX):

If you tell somebody you are going to Mexico City (CDMX) you will generally be met with one of two reactions:

1. Mexico City?… Be careful, it’s super sketchy and don’t drink the water!

2. That’s amazing, you are going to have such a great time! Where are you staying? Roma Norte? Condesa?

You can easily discern the two groups of people. The first group has not been recently while the second group likely has, at least since COVID. If you visit today, you will immediately understand the latter groups reaction, but still don’t drink the tap water.

Mexico City is a vibrant mix of history, culture, and modernity, brimming with fabulous restaurants, world-class museums, and trendy boutiques. The city is a magnet for North Americans and Europeans, looking for a remote work haven, especially during winter. CDMX is ideal for telecommuters as it’s 3-6 hours from most major North American airports and just one hour behind Eastern Standard Time.

(the Bosque de Chapultepec)

Despite its 9.2 million residents, Mexico City doesn’t feel overwhelmingly crowded; spanning 1,485 square kilometers (573 square miles), its land area is nearly double that of New York City. At 6.2 thousand (K) inhabitants per square kilometer (KM²), its population density is closer to cities like Montreal or Lisbon (more on those later). There are naturally more people closer to the city center and popular tourist spots, but even in the busiest places, CDMX feels surprisingly spacious and relaxed compared to other high-population cities like NYC or London.

Roma Norte and Condesa are fun neighborhoods, and if you are into art and culture, there are many great museums like the Museo Nacional de Antropología, which is located in the Bosque de Chapultepec, a 686-hectare park nearly double the size of Central Park. You can definitely spend many afternoons there admiring the sights or simply getting lost.

11% of Mexico City residents are foreign-born. This may not seem like much, but it still amounts to nearly 1 million people, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to find expat friends. Due to its geography, about 80% of these foreign-born residents are American, with the rest coming mainly from South America1.

Even with its vibrance and immigration, CDMX is not as expensive as other major international cities. There are many good restaurants, but they do not need to be expensive. In my experience, meals at nice restaurants often come out to around $50-100 USD per person. They have many options at different price ranges, which makes it suitable for various budgets. This is supported by a number of international food guides2.

Beyond food, it ranks well when comparing the cost of living against other big cities in the world3. From a tax standpoint, if you were to earn $100K USD your effective tax rate would be around 31%4. This is higher than most places in the US but compares well against European countries. This allows telecommuters earning salaries from other places to have a very high standard of living.

The weather is quite good all year, although it gets pretty cold in January and early February, especially during the mornings. The city gets a lot of sunlight year-round and receives about 300 millimeters of rain per year; more than half of that rain comes from June through August.

It is generally straightforward to immigrate to Mexico but you can also stay up to 180 days without a Visa. You can visit and get by without knowing Spanish but it does certainly help, especially once you get further from the touristy parts of town. For longer-term stays, you should learn Spanish.

To address the criticism from the first group of people, on a global basis, CDMX is considered a higher-crime city, but compared to other parts of Mexico and South America, it is less so. There is more dangerous crime closer to the US-Mexican border. Violent crime against tourists is less common in CDMX, although pickpocketing can be an issue. Locals will tell you that most of the crimes in CDMX happen away from areas that tourists or expats would frequent.5.

The main thing missing from CDMX is a beach; not having one within at least a few hours is a bit of a shame. It’s rare for a city this size with all of these other great attributes to have one, so perhaps I am just greedy. Beyond that, many local jobs require Spanish, so it’s more ideal to have a remote job that lets you work from Mexico City.

Otherwise, with great weather, food, culture, and nice people, this would be an amazing place for a short or medium-term stay. If you are moving to Mexico to avoid crimes, you should know that they do have an extradition treaty with the US.

Lisbon, Portugal:

Lisbon is another fun city that benefited greatly from the COVID remote work boom. Like CDMX, many people were drawn by the nice weather, great food, and relatively lower expenses. CDMX largely took in North Americans, whereas Lisbon appealed to many workers across Europe with flexible work arrangements. Portugal further fueled this by launching a few visas making it easier to stay long-term (see the Digital Nomad6 the D77 or D38 Visas). Lisbon is very well located, with direct flights to many large cities in North America, South America, and Africa. The 5-9 hour time zone difference with North America could be a deal breaker for some, but if you don’t mind starting your workday at 2-3 pm, you will trade working late for free mornings.

Lisbon is much smaller compared to Mexico City, covering only 100 kilometers (39 square miles), and with 500K residents, it is less populated than big cities. Despite this, Lisbon has a good energy with fascinating architectural styles, some dating back to the 12th century.

This is why you will find castles (see São Jorge above), old cathedrals, towers, and other great sights scattered about. If you are willing to drive to Sintra, there are even more sights to enjoy, making for a great day trip when you want to get out of the city. If you are into art, there are many great museums, such as the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, located near the Tagus River, offering stunning views and a serene environment.

As in CDMX, there are a lot of great restaurants. Dining out in neighborhoods like Bairro Alto or Chiado is not prohibitively expensive; I found dinners often cost around $40-90 USD per person. There are many options at different price ranges, making it suitable for various budgets. If you can get paid a salary consistent with a bigger city but live in Lisbon, you will live like royalty. This is because the cost of living in Lisbon is very favorable compared to other cities.9.

The reason it is so affordable is that the economy is not very strong, and Portuguese salaries are comparatively low while taxes are high. As an expat, if you moved to Lisbon but continued to earn $100,000 USD, your effective tax rate would approach 50%10. This, combined with fewer job opportunities, especially for non-Portuguese speakers, likely gives people pause before immigrating fully to Lisbon; only about 9% of Lisbon residents are foreign-born11.

The weather is pretty good from April onwards. Like the rest of the Mediterranean, it rains quite a bit from October through January but only gets sub-10-degree weather for three months per year.

Although only about 40-50% of Portuguese people speak English, this percentage is much higher in Lisbon, making it easy to get by without Portuguese. However, in rural areas, this changes. Dealing with administration might be challenging, but Portuguese people are generally patient and helpful with foreigners12.

Despite the amazing weather, food, culture, and lower living costs, most North Americans or Western Europeans might find it tough to move to Lisbon full-time due to limited local job opportunities and higher taxes. If you seek culture with better career prospects, consider looking north.

Montreal, Canada:

When some picture Montreal (or all of Canada, for that matter) their mental image normally resembles north of The Wall in Game of Thrones13 . While it definitely gets cold from December through February, the weather is pretty agreeable for the rest of the year. I won’t try selling you on moving to Montreal on the weather but accounts of how cold it gets are often exaggerated. In any case, there are many reasons why more than 1.6M14 live in the largest city in Quebec (second biggest in Canada).

Yes, Quebec is the French speaking part of Canada. While only about 20% of Quebecers (Québécois in French) consider English their first language, about half the province is bilingual15. In Montreal, these percentages increase, especially in stores and restaurants with bilingual staff.

Montreal, at 200 square kilometers16, is twice the size of Lisbon but the neighborhoods further from downtown are more residential, ideal for families but don’t have any castles. If you seek excitement, areas such as Saint-Henri, Verdun, Griffintown, Mile-End or Little Italy are a better bet. There is also the Plateau, notably popular with French expats, with distinct accents and aesthetics.

Many people from France move to Montreal because of the common language17 but Montreal appeals to immigrants from all around the world. According to the 2021 Canadian census, ~30% of Montreal’s population are immigrants. This is consistent with Canada but high on a global scale. Most are from Europe & North America followed by Africa and the Middle East.

Montreal is a great middle ground for Europeans not ready for a full-blown American experience and Americans not ready for Europe. The city offers good food, nice parks, edible croissants, and the best bagels. You can bike around but still easily drive or use Uber. Europeans will appreciate the spacious apartments, job opportunities, and lower rents, all while enjoying a gun free environment, universal health care, subsidized daycare, and maternity leave.

Americans might appreciate these benefits too, although they'll likely complain about income taxes and some might want to keep their guns (especially if the Montreal Canadiens come close to winning the Stanley Cup). However, they’ll enjoy the favorable capital gains rate and the lack of estate/inheritance taxes18. They might also like the ability to be at a ski hill in under an hour from the city.

If you dislike skiing, hockey, or winter chalets, you might not love winter in Montreal (though Igloo Fest, a month-long outdoor electronic dance music event, is pretty cool). You can always follow the snowbirds to Florida or Mexico City for the winter. Still, there's a reason people always come back for the summer.

(Igloofest during winter)

In a span of 8 weeks Montreal hosts the following events:

1. Formula One Grand Prix (First week of June, has been hosting since 1967)

2. International Jazz Festival (Two weeks starting the last Week of June)

3. International Comedy Festival - Just for Laughs (Last 2 weeks of July19)

4. Osheaga Music Concert (First Weekend in August)

5. îleSoniq EDM Music Concert (Second Weekend in August)

This doesn’t include Piknic Électronik, held every weekend from mid-May through early October at Parc Jean-Drapeau, the same venue as Osheaga and ÎleSoniq.

Despite not having any Michelin starred restaurants, Montreal regularly receives acclaim in international food publications20. Similar to in Lisbon and CDMX, you can find good dining options without paying a fortune. A meal at a good restaurant in the Plateau or Saint-Henri generally costs between $50-100 USD per person; in the Old Port, add about $20. You need to tip in Montreal, standard is between 15-20%.

Compared to other large North American cities, Montreal ranks well in cost of living while still offering good job opportunities.21. The inability to speak French will hurt your job prospects, but this isn’t true for all jobs, and there are government programs and subsidies available if you’re willing to learn.

If you want to live in Canada with a primary focus on career opportunities, you might end up in Toronto, but it comes with higher living costs and fewer good restaurants and cafes. If you’re not afraid of winter and willing to learn some French, Montreal offers a nice middle ground between North America and Europe. Speaking of Europe.

Paris, France:

I am sorry to disappoint those hoping to read about the one in Texas. Paris, France is consistently one of the most visited cities on earth and needs little introduction, but have you ever wondered what it is like to live there?

At 105 KM, Paris is about the same size as Lisbon but has >2M inhabitants (11M in the metropolitan area). At 20.5K people per square KM², Paris is way more densely populated than CDMX (6.2K), Lisbon (5.5K) or Montreal (4.8K-8.0K).

If you are looking to optimize for food and culture, Paris remains a bastion for both. The city boasts over 100 Michelin-starred restaurants and more than 14,000 eateries. While foreigners often think Paris only offers classic French bistros or high-end cuisine, you can find a variety of food concepts (happy to share some addresses if you want). You don’t need to spend a fortune to have a great meal. Though Paris is not cheap, you can find more affordable options away from the pricier arrondissements—just avoid rue Barbes (I don’t want any of my readers to get stabbed22). One key thing to know about dining out in Paris: tipping is not necessary as servers are paid a full salary. They might try to trick you into tipping, but ignore them—don’t do it.

Paris boasts over 100 museums, including the Louvre, d’Orsay, and Centre Pompidou, plus smaller gems like the Musée Rodin, Musée Picasso, Fondation Louis Vuitton, and Musée de l'Orangerie. If you are not into museums, you have plenty of Opera and Concert halls.If museums aren’t your thing, there are plenty of opera and concert halls. You can visit historical literary cafes and pay a lot to sit where famous communists once criticized the bourgeoisie. Walking around, you’ll encounter historic sites like Montmartre, L’Arc de Triomphe, and Sainte-Chapelle or Notre-Da-oh never mind (Sorry still too soon. It’s okay they are restoring it). I think you get the point, when it comes to culture, Paris has an embarrassment of riches but these are all things you could benefit from as a tourist; what if you lived there 12 months per year?

Between 15-20% of Paris residents are immigrants or foreign born23. Many come from former French colonies such as Algeria and Morocco or other parts of Europe. With ~400K immigrants, you are likely to meet people from your home country.

Many move to Paris for its cultural allure, not the weather. It’s not as cold as Montreal, but December through early March is still unpleasant, with humid winters feeling colder than they are. Summers can be quite hot, exacerbated by tourist crowds. To avoid tourists or bad weather, May or September are the best months.

As you would expect, living costs are way more than the other 3 cities in this article, but not as high as London and NYC24. Pre-tax salaries are similar with London, but much less than New York (30-40% ). When factoring in taxes, at a salary of $100K USD, you would pay ~$10K USD more in taxes working in Paris compared to NYC. Despite its reputation, taxes in France are not the worst; they are lower than in Portugal, similar to Canada for income tax but worse for capital gains, and higher than Mexico for income tax but similar for capital gains.

Beyond weather, living costs and taxes, Paris shares issues with other highly populated cities, such as higher crime and areas to avoid at night25. Parisian and French culture might also require adjustment, especially regarding food and drinks.

Did you know you are not allowed to snack in France? Seriously. However, if you do insist on snacking then it must be at 4pm. It must also be a sweet snack. If you want to have something sweet, you can only have them during after work drinks (apéritif)26. If you do not enjoy following social norms, and their weird rules, you might not enjoy it.

If high population density, living costs, crime, and taxes don’t scare you off, and you seek amazing food and culture, Paris could be the city for you.

To conclude, deciding to move is a big life step and one that should be carefully contemplated. While I cannot prescribe specific advice, I hope this article taught you a few new things about these cities and helped inspire your search for a new place to live.

Thank you for taking the time to read today’s article, please Subscribe so you don’t miss the possible sequel article and many others, released each week.

Subscribe now

When it comes to family drama, backstabbing, and the relentless pursuit of power, no show captures the chaotic essence of corporate ambition quite like HBO's "Succession." The series, centered around the Roy family and their global media empire, offers a masterclass in the complexities of business, leadership, and human nature. Much like attending an intensive MBA program with a front-row seat to a Shakespearean tragedy, "Succession" has plenty to teach us—if we can look past the dysfunction and focus on the underlying lessons.

Here are 5 life lessons, embedded with the series that we can learn from the Roy family and their associates.

(Here is your spoiler warning if you have not seen the Series in its entirety)

Subscribe now

In the cutthroat world of Succession, power and dominance often overshadow collaboration and diplomacy. Logan Roy’s blunt declaration, “Sometimes it is a big dick contest,” encapsulates a harsh reality of both business and life: sometimes, brute force and sheer willpower are necessary to come out on top.

Logan says this line to Kendall during the premier as part of a discussion around naming Logan’s successor. Logan was not pleased that it was taking Ken so long to get a deal closed, even with all of the concessions Ken kept making. Logan told Ken that his inability to get the deal closed exemplified that he lacked the character needed to lead Waystar Royco. This declaration haunts Ken throughout the series.

It is fair to question Logan’s logic but his assessment of Ken is accurate; Ken lacks something. Despite all of his attempts, He is not a killer. This lesson is a stark reminder that in high-stakes environments, whether in the boardroom or beyond, assertiveness and confidence can be as crucial as strategy and intellect. It’s not just about having the best ideas; it’s about having the audacity to push them through against all odds. Logan’s ruthless approach might not always align with conventional wisdom about leadership, but it underscores a critical point: in a world where power dynamics are constantly at play, the ability to assert dominance can be a decisive factor.

Logan’s empire is a corporation, in corporations, even family owned ones, the oldest male is not the automatic heir. Even if the eldest boy is the heir apparent, they still need to convince others around them to vote for them. No matter how badly Kendall wants to be king, he cannot. Ken’s journey in Succession is a reminder that if you want to achieve your ambitions, knowledge, skill and desire is not enough. The more ambitious, the goal, the harder it will be to achieve. This is where strength of character is needed to fill in the remaining gaps. However, in Lesson # 2, you will see why you need to be careful of when you choose to demonstrate your character.

Logan Roy holds many similarities with another fictional character I wrote about recently, Tywin Lannister. (See 5 Business Lessons I learnt from Game of Thrones)

In the chaotic world of Succession, Roman Roy’s infamous blunder—sending an explicit photo to his father, Logan, is a powerful reminder of how one impulsive act can instantly destroy credibility and goodwill, no matter how carefully it’s been built up. This is a perfect encapsulation of how it takes an entire lifetime to build a reputation but only a few seconds to ruin it.

Throughout the series but especially Season 3, Roman had been steadily proving himself within the Roy family empire. His sharp instincts, strategic moves, and unexpected displays of loyalty were earning him a significant amount of respect and positioning him as a serious contender in the family’s power dynamics. However, in one moment of poor judgment, all that progress was undone. The photo he accidently sent to Logan wasn’t just a personal embarrassment; it was a professional catastrophe that shattered the image Roman had worked so hard to cultivate.

Roman’s mistake underscores the importance of maintaining professionalism and discretion, especially when you’re on an upward trajectory. His loose and joking nature was an advantage in that it helped him connect with people such as Matheson, which earned his father’s trust. However, his nature along with his weird perversion with Jerry, led to his downfall. Starting off with joking flirtation (which you probably shouldn’t too with your company’s chief corporate legal council), before escalating to increasingly inappropriate behavior. This culminated in Roman, attempting to send a picture of his d**k to Jerry, but it instead went to his father.

Up until the picture was sent, it looked almost certain that Roman had finally shed his image of the court jester and would take over the empire. The repercussions of a single misstep can be swift and severe, as Roman’s downfall so vividly illustrates.

This is why, it is generally best not to send elicit photos, but especially not to people who do not want them. I would especially recommend not sending to family members unless it is for medical purposes. This can make people perceive you differently.

That is enough about phallus1 (for now)

In the world of Succession, Roman Roy’s irreverent quips often serve as comic relief, but they can also reveal deeper truths about the characters’ motivations and priorities. This particular line underscores a recurring theme in the show: Logan Roy’s intense concern for understanding the perspective of the average person. This differs greatly from most of the other characters, who are only concerned with elites.

Logan built his empire by meeting the average person where they were. The Roy family is based on the Murdoch’s, the owners of Fox News and other media brands. Fox News is largely criticized for its role in the public discourse, often being blamed for abandoning journalistic principals in exchange for brazen partisanship. Waystar owned ACN appears to fill the same role in the Succession universe. Logan might not agree with the positions taken by his media companies, but that does not matter to him. He wants his media companies to give the people what they want to hear in order to build trust and brand equity with their customers. This is why Logan is acutely aware that public opinion can make or break his business ventures; his obsession with the average person’s preferences is necessary to maintain his influence. If his company does not understand it’s audience, they won’t be able to cater to it. If they don’t cater to it, they will lose their customers.

Roman’s dismissive attitude toward seemingly trivial details like the obsession with milk contrasts sharply with Logan’s mindset. Logan knows that every detail, no matter how small, contributes to the larger picture of brand perception and market positioning. Roman’s irreverence shows the gap between Logan, who built the company and his children and the other executives at the company.

This demonstrates the difficulty with the succession. How can Logan entrust his company to people that know nothing about how the average person lives, when their whole business is predicated on exactly that? No matter what business you are in, you need to understand your customers, or you cannot give them what they want. Even outside of business contexts, you want to be empathetic, which will allow you to better understand situations you will find yourself in. Logan seems to be the only one at Waystar Rocyo that understands this.

In one of Succession's more memorable scenes, Logan Roy orchestrates a game called "Boar on the Floor" to expose disloyalty among his senior executives. The spectacle is humiliating, reducing powerful individuals to scrambling animals in a power play that underscores Logan’s ruthless control over his empire.

There was a consensus amongst the executive team that they disagreed with Logan’s desired acquisition target. Instead of bringing this up directly with him, the executives all tried to pawn off the uncomfortable conversation on somebody else, to not lose favor with Logan.

When Logan learns of this from Tom, his son-in law, he understands that his decisions are being undermined and everybody is too much of a coward to tell him. For Logan, this exercise is about establishing dominance, showing that to him loyalty is paramount and rooting out any threats to his authority.

"Boar on the Floor" is a vivid metaphor for the dangers of losing your autonomy and dignity in the pursuit of approval from those in power. It serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of maintaining self-respect and integrity, even in high-pressure environments. In the Roy family’s world, where power dynamics are constantly shifting, those who grovel and degrade themselves for favor are often the first to be trampled.

(Can skip to 2:45 if pressed for time)

For Tom and Greg, participants of the game, this scene illustrates the perils of complicity. Both characters are desperate to climb the corporate ladder and stay within the empire, they give up any sense of pride, morals or personal boundaries. The lesson here is about the cost of ambition: achieving success at the expense of your values and self-respect can lead to a hollow victory, one where you’re perpetually at the mercy of those more powerful.

Never find yourself in a position where you feel like you need to be a boar on the floor. Recognize your own self worth, and have some damn pride. At the end of the day, you need to be able to look at yourself in the mirror and have respect for the face that you see. The characters involved with what scene, have clearly forgone any sense of pride or agency, all in the pursuit of wealth and status and this scene was a perfect representation of that. This relates to our next lesson.

Cousin Greg Hirsch is the most relatable character in Succession. At the beginning of the series, the trappings of generational wealth are completely foreign to him, unlike his cousins Kendall, Roman and Shiv. We are introduced to Greg after he loses his entry level job, something his cousins likely never had.

Despite his upbringing and being new to the corporate world, he immediately exhibited a keen understanding of power dynamics and knew how to curry favor. He likely read the Prince by Machiavelli or a Kissinger biography. Greg’s air of goofy cluelessness, eliminated the chance of somebody viewing him as a threat, at the same time, his position in the family was just close enough that people could not entirely dismiss him. This is exactly why Tom, Shiv’s husband, took Greg under his wing, forming the purest relationship in the series, “The Disgusting Brothers”.

Neither of The Disgusting Brothers, are one of Logan’s children, therefore if they wanted power, they needed to get it through maneuvering. Tom was able to rise to at least middle management, without nepotism and from the start of the series, shown that he was willing to do whatever was needed to climb the corporate ladder. Hailing from Minnesota from a rich but not excessively wealthy family, Tom had to learn everything about the east coast corporate elite lifestyle himself. Even though, the Roy family, including Shiv all treat him like he is beneath them, he had engrained himself into their world. He clearly gave up his soul a long time ago. This is why he serves as the appropriate mentor to Greg2.

This quote, delivered with his characteristic naivety, underscores a pivotal moment where Greg contemplates the value of his integrity versus the allure of power and wealth. This moment had been in the making for 3 seasons from the moment Greg appeared at Logan’s apartment. Greg had gradually became one of the Roy’s, learning how people of that financial standing behave and how and when to shift alliances etc.

By the time he had said the line, he had already sold out his beliefs. He was suing Greenpeace, abandoning a girl he recently coveted in exchange to try to date an Italian Contessa and had switched allegiances several times. The scene merely served as a confirmation of Greg’s descent (or ascent depending how you look at it). Either way, Greg ending up playing the game better than anybody, this is why by the end of the series, he found himself in a situation where he came out on top, regardless of whomever was named successor.

Greg showed how to climb quickly: You need to be cunning, adaptable and flexible with your allegiances, playing a fine line between being useful, but not so useful that people are worried that you will replace them.

Greg’s journey also serves as a cautionary tale about the slippery slope of ethical compromises. Each small concession can lead to larger, more significant sacrifices, ultimately resulting in a complete erosion of one’s moral foundation. By the time you realize the extent of your compromises, it might be too late to reclaim your integrity.

I hope you enjoyed today’s article, if you enjoyed this article, please Subscribe so you don’t miss my weekly editions.

Subscribe now