I've written about this on my Substack that I'm actually quite concerned that aging childless women is going to lead to some kind of political radicalization. If we think "blue" US areas are bad now, I could see it getting worse before it gets better.
What's crazy is that other women are often the victims of these progressive policies. Just look at all the violence and sexual assaults on women being perpetrated by illegal immigrants for an example.
Friend of mine opened up a video game bar years ago. Remember this quote for long degeneracy gaming:
"My focus within the esports industry is to create businesses and opportunities to help catch those who are ready to retire from the competitive scene and solidify the esports ecosystem beyond the high and fast “Invest, Flip, and Ghost” method."
Max loneliness because competitive scene is usually 2-3 year career pro gamer, burnout, no skills for another job/career & try coaching (most coaches are terrible in North America). Remember pro gamers travel sometimes 100+ days of the year with insane uptime for world championship events (you won't be losing money when you own the publisher, developer & event/tournament organizer companies)
Invest, flip & ghost method works extremely well for individual titles:
The Finals (new esport, buy pro gamer comtracts while they're cheap)
GTA (role playing communities worth multi-millions)
Riot Games MMO (create guides 2-3 months before launch on YouTube etc.)
Do this on a long enough time frame and you'll have enough resources (money included) to start your own AAA gaming studio or buy one (10,000+ layoffs in gaming recently). Enough unemployed people for anyone who wants to acquihire, dominate & grow/scale long degeneracy in gaming:
`If you’re interested in a career in politics (some of you are!) just vocalize extreme takes. The biggest opportunity here is unsurprisingly for attractive women. Just copy paste the top male talking points and re-word them`
Not to take anything away from her, but Eva Vlaar (https://twitter.com/EvaVlaar) is a good example of what this can look like. Big niche.
In general spot on analysis, see it anecdotally as well. People looking for a quick fix for their lack of prospects.
Pearl is an example in the men's dating space. Just repeat 2010s era Manosphere stuff but with a girl saying it, along with the word "based" a bunch of times, and you can grift to your hearts content.
What's crazy about her "extreme takes" is that they would be considered completely normal only 50-100 years from now. Probably wildly progressive before that. Just shows how much of a clown world we live in today.
When it comes to populism, one thing I have noticed is that the liberal people I know are not having any kids or very few if they do (many in thirties matching the description here). On the other side, religious conservatives are having MANY kids at a younger age (4+ per family). America could realize a shift similar to what Israel is currently seeing where conservatives are the only people having kids and eventually turn the political landscape.
Yes, with a few caveats: the left doesn't need to have kids. They just need to 1) indoctrinate other people's kids in school, and 2) import immigrants who aren't necessarily political but will vote for welfare-type programs, ergo promoting the left.
Correct. The immigration piece is the major caveat until the South American immigrants (catholic) wake up to the political reality. On the other end, I’ve anecdotally seen traditional Catholics are more likely to home school to exit the system.
I disagree on this, it makes no difference because political affiliation is essentially meaningless.
What we should be looking at is if the person/s are productive members of society. Regardless if that person is Left/Right/Religious or not, if they're essentially parasites to the community then it makes no difference.
Productive people are becoming less and less inclined to produce because the state takes from them and gives to the normies who do more consuming. That's the real issue
This is really oversimplified. How are you defining "productive"? What exactly is the metric? Tax revenue they generate? Income they generate selling [goods, Innovation, junk, lifestyle envy, whatever] to consumers? If a producer of anything non-essential (most 'stuff') didn't have consumers able to consume, incentivized to spend on non-essentials they'd have no mkt.
And on the flip side, where is the line between parasitic and mutualism? Disabled? Veterans? Sick? Mentally ill? How about just well meaning but low IQ folks? What about smart but irreparably traumatized folks? Are *productive* and *not*, the only two classifications?
In reality there's massive, complex, constantly changing multi-layered overlap between >90% of the population. It's only the last 10%, if that, that have a simple, clearly defined classification separating them and everyone else. It's easy to see this on a graph: it's that giant cliff/gap/chasm. The place where you are or one aspires to be. But off the edge of that cliff, several miles down, is an ocean of gray, a soupy mess you can't possibly categorize as either "productive or not".
Well, unless the categorizer is a tyrannical dictator willing and able to do so, forcefully, from within.
Populism is here via America First. Participatory populism and economic nationalism. It’s why the uniparty hates MAGA. As Bannon says, if you’re under 40, you’re just a Russian serf.
May be related, may not be... but I see levels of government "struggling due to lack of workers". A friend in a "prestigious" gov't accounting job empties her own garbage cans, there's rodent control canisters on the floor, and she's expected to use her own salary to buy food & supplies to furnish office events. More cuts coming. But they are staffing more "DEI" type jobs that don't require hard skills. Competent ppl aren't applying to the hard skills public service jobs, so their quality will drop further.
Just a side thought, not really related to investing...
The seemingly "new" phenomenon of populism seems a little strange to me. How new is it really? Seems to me that it's been the way politics have operated for quite some time. It's been "vote for us, we promise to give you some new free government handout." Conservatives have been pushing back against this tendency for years: remember the mantra that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also large enough to take away everything you have.
The shift is now the democrats seems to have moved away from things people actually want - to instead focus on DEI, open borders, bad economic policy to pursue some "cause", terrible foreign policy. Things that people don't like. Yeah, there's still the "we'll pay for your student loans" giveaway scam, but the working class don't like it, people who have already paid off their own loans don't like it - so it's only popular for a certain demographic. So, anyway, it's kinda funny that all of a sudden now that the Democratic party has shifted away from populism, is the word even being floated out there so ubiquitously. And it's being done so now only in a pejorative sense. Now, Trump is a populist. And it's such a bad thing, right? It's so terrible that politics have stopped serving the common man and they aren't getting anything that they really care about. It's not surprising that this comes at a time in America's history where the left holds the levers of power of most of big tech and other big business, big education, big pharma, federal agencies, big media, hollywood, etc. It would seem only natural that the left would abandon the little guy and the right wing would find a vacuum to be filled through "populism".
"the rich would not be on board with cash handouts since this would be blown instantly", I'm not so sure about this, seems like a lot of wealthy people transpose their mentality onto others: "I would be responsible with a regular cash injection from the government, therefore it makes sense to give cash directly." Maybe the ones that came up from poverty see it differently, but most people born comfortably middle class or above seem to have no concept of a left bell-curve mentality.
Or even if they do see it, maybe they like the second order effects - "I'm invested in gambling companies, give them the cash so it comes right back to me."
How you think these trends will spiral out internationally?
For eg. Canada will prob follow next.
People will try to move to better jurisdictions, and political players will try to slow down the trend through policies in different countries. But will they succeed or internet will reign?
Also opportunity at other end for those that continue to have kids (shrinking group but have $$).
The value of “islands” will continue to go up (eg Balboa on West and John’s Island in SC). Inland golf course type neighborhoods / country clubs that add schools and medical care will create significant value.
I've written about this on my Substack that I'm actually quite concerned that aging childless women is going to lead to some kind of political radicalization. If we think "blue" US areas are bad now, I could see it getting worse before it gets better.
Already happening
Correct. These are my peers. And let me tell you, if you do not already get this: at the root of all evil in today's world is a progressive woman.
What's crazy is that other women are often the victims of these progressive policies. Just look at all the violence and sexual assaults on women being perpetrated by illegal immigrants for an example.
Too late
Friend of mine opened up a video game bar years ago. Remember this quote for long degeneracy gaming:
"My focus within the esports industry is to create businesses and opportunities to help catch those who are ready to retire from the competitive scene and solidify the esports ecosystem beyond the high and fast “Invest, Flip, and Ghost” method."
Max loneliness because competitive scene is usually 2-3 year career pro gamer, burnout, no skills for another job/career & try coaching (most coaches are terrible in North America). Remember pro gamers travel sometimes 100+ days of the year with insane uptime for world championship events (you won't be losing money when you own the publisher, developer & event/tournament organizer companies)
Invest, flip & ghost method works extremely well for individual titles:
The Finals (new esport, buy pro gamer comtracts while they're cheap)
GTA (role playing communities worth multi-millions)
Riot Games MMO (create guides 2-3 months before launch on YouTube etc.)
Do this on a long enough time frame and you'll have enough resources (money included) to start your own AAA gaming studio or buy one (10,000+ layoffs in gaming recently). Enough unemployed people for anyone who wants to acquihire, dominate & grow/scale long degeneracy in gaming:
http://videogamelayoffs.com/
`If you’re interested in a career in politics (some of you are!) just vocalize extreme takes. The biggest opportunity here is unsurprisingly for attractive women. Just copy paste the top male talking points and re-word them`
Not to take anything away from her, but Eva Vlaar (https://twitter.com/EvaVlaar) is a good example of what this can look like. Big niche.
In general spot on analysis, see it anecdotally as well. People looking for a quick fix for their lack of prospects.
Pearl is an example in the men's dating space. Just repeat 2010s era Manosphere stuff but with a girl saying it, along with the word "based" a bunch of times, and you can grift to your hearts content.
What's crazy about her "extreme takes" is that they would be considered completely normal only 50-100 years from now. Probably wildly progressive before that. Just shows how much of a clown world we live in today.
When it comes to populism, one thing I have noticed is that the liberal people I know are not having any kids or very few if they do (many in thirties matching the description here). On the other side, religious conservatives are having MANY kids at a younger age (4+ per family). America could realize a shift similar to what Israel is currently seeing where conservatives are the only people having kids and eventually turn the political landscape.
Yes, with a few caveats: the left doesn't need to have kids. They just need to 1) indoctrinate other people's kids in school, and 2) import immigrants who aren't necessarily political but will vote for welfare-type programs, ergo promoting the left.
Correct. The immigration piece is the major caveat until the South American immigrants (catholic) wake up to the political reality. On the other end, I’ve anecdotally seen traditional Catholics are more likely to home school to exit the system.
I disagree on this, it makes no difference because political affiliation is essentially meaningless.
What we should be looking at is if the person/s are productive members of society. Regardless if that person is Left/Right/Religious or not, if they're essentially parasites to the community then it makes no difference.
Productive people are becoming less and less inclined to produce because the state takes from them and gives to the normies who do more consuming. That's the real issue
This is really oversimplified. How are you defining "productive"? What exactly is the metric? Tax revenue they generate? Income they generate selling [goods, Innovation, junk, lifestyle envy, whatever] to consumers? If a producer of anything non-essential (most 'stuff') didn't have consumers able to consume, incentivized to spend on non-essentials they'd have no mkt.
And on the flip side, where is the line between parasitic and mutualism? Disabled? Veterans? Sick? Mentally ill? How about just well meaning but low IQ folks? What about smart but irreparably traumatized folks? Are *productive* and *not*, the only two classifications?
In reality there's massive, complex, constantly changing multi-layered overlap between >90% of the population. It's only the last 10%, if that, that have a simple, clearly defined classification separating them and everyone else. It's easy to see this on a graph: it's that giant cliff/gap/chasm. The place where you are or one aspires to be. But off the edge of that cliff, several miles down, is an ocean of gray, a soupy mess you can't possibly categorize as either "productive or not".
Well, unless the categorizer is a tyrannical dictator willing and able to do so, forcefully, from within.
Yes it's oversimplified because I'm not trying to point out what a producer should be classified as.
I'm stating that political affiliations have nothing to do with what's going to happen in the future.
Populism is here via America First. Participatory populism and economic nationalism. It’s why the uniparty hates MAGA. As Bannon says, if you’re under 40, you’re just a Russian serf.
Another good area (high barrier to entry though) are cosmetic procedures that don’t require a doctor, nurses instead, injectables and fillers.
100% botox, fillers etc money printers
Hot tip: You don’t need nurses
Affiliate/Paid traffic for limb lengthening surgery. Part of the looksmaxxing ish for men.
May be related, may not be... but I see levels of government "struggling due to lack of workers". A friend in a "prestigious" gov't accounting job empties her own garbage cans, there's rodent control canisters on the floor, and she's expected to use her own salary to buy food & supplies to furnish office events. More cuts coming. But they are staffing more "DEI" type jobs that don't require hard skills. Competent ppl aren't applying to the hard skills public service jobs, so their quality will drop further.
Do you think there's any chance this could lead to a civil war in our lifetimes?
Just a side thought, not really related to investing...
The seemingly "new" phenomenon of populism seems a little strange to me. How new is it really? Seems to me that it's been the way politics have operated for quite some time. It's been "vote for us, we promise to give you some new free government handout." Conservatives have been pushing back against this tendency for years: remember the mantra that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also large enough to take away everything you have.
The shift is now the democrats seems to have moved away from things people actually want - to instead focus on DEI, open borders, bad economic policy to pursue some "cause", terrible foreign policy. Things that people don't like. Yeah, there's still the "we'll pay for your student loans" giveaway scam, but the working class don't like it, people who have already paid off their own loans don't like it - so it's only popular for a certain demographic. So, anyway, it's kinda funny that all of a sudden now that the Democratic party has shifted away from populism, is the word even being floated out there so ubiquitously. And it's being done so now only in a pejorative sense. Now, Trump is a populist. And it's such a bad thing, right? It's so terrible that politics have stopped serving the common man and they aren't getting anything that they really care about. It's not surprising that this comes at a time in America's history where the left holds the levers of power of most of big tech and other big business, big education, big pharma, federal agencies, big media, hollywood, etc. It would seem only natural that the left would abandon the little guy and the right wing would find a vacuum to be filled through "populism".
"the rich would not be on board with cash handouts since this would be blown instantly", I'm not so sure about this, seems like a lot of wealthy people transpose their mentality onto others: "I would be responsible with a regular cash injection from the government, therefore it makes sense to give cash directly." Maybe the ones that came up from poverty see it differently, but most people born comfortably middle class or above seem to have no concept of a left bell-curve mentality.
Or even if they do see it, maybe they like the second order effects - "I'm invested in gambling companies, give them the cash so it comes right back to me."
What does this mean for those in their twenties- anything they should do to adjust/exploit this?
Sell to women in their 40s with no kids but huge bank accounts.
Skin. Weight. Cosmetics. Pets. Counseling. Drugs. Matchmaking. And on it goes.. printing.
How you think these trends will spiral out internationally?
For eg. Canada will prob follow next.
People will try to move to better jurisdictions, and political players will try to slow down the trend through policies in different countries. But will they succeed or internet will reign?
Canada has fewer kids already and in some ways is further into the degeneracy cycle.
Canada 1.4 births per woman
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=CA
US 1.7:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=US
And housing is more out of whack.
Directionally correct.
Also opportunity at other end for those that continue to have kids (shrinking group but have $$).
The value of “islands” will continue to go up (eg Balboa on West and John’s Island in SC). Inland golf course type neighborhoods / country clubs that add schools and medical care will create significant value.