4 ms·

This is smoke and mirrors. At least for the time being. There are a bunch of super wealthy people pushing hard for this, but it certainly doesn't exist today, e

This is smoke and mirrors. At least for the time being. There are a bunch of super wealthy people pushing hard for this, but it certainly doesn't exist today, except as a series of failures such as Theil's "anti-woke" bank: https://www.wsj.com/articles/glorifi-how-new-anti-woke-bank-stumbled-11665174704 https://www.wsj.com/articles/glorifi-how-new-anti-woke-bank-... Meanwhile, despite a noisy "backlash", ESG investing stays strong. The anti-woke do not have the numbers on their side when it comes to either population or economic power. Lots of sizzle, no steak.

asciii 3y ago
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/glorifi-how-new-anti-woke-bank- https://www.wsj.com/articles/glorifi-how-new-anti-woke-bank-... https://archive.is/yDNrx https://archive.is/yDNrx
d3vmax 3y ago
Thiel, Elon, Sacks, Chamath - A pattern is emerging.
guestbest 3y ago
I don’t think John Q Normie is either woke or anti-woke, but is ambivalent and will gravitate towards whatever goods and services are the most convenient
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ekianjo 3y ago
> ESG investing stays strong Because that's the only game in town, mind-share wise. > The anti-woke do not have the numbers on their side for now. but as you move to digital currencies and when banks start to punish you by kicking you out of your account for having non-mainstream discourse online, things may change. Those days are not too far.
- epistasis 3y ago
  People aren't going to decide first "I want to do political investing, not let's decide between ESG or anti-woke." ESG investing exists because there is demand for it. Anti-woke investing, or a parallel economy, does not exist because there's not enough demand for it. Saying that ESG investing is strong because it's "the only game in town" gets the causality all wrong Anti-woke options are there, they failed due to their unpopularity, not because ESG investing anlready exists.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    > ESG investing exists because there is demand for it. Which demand? I can't imagine that suddenly shareholders woke up and considered that "we don't care about making money anymore, now we are going to add metrics that have nothing to do with making profits"
mschuster91 3y ago
> The anti-woke do not have the numbers on their side when it comes to either population or economic power. Lots of sizzle, no steak. They have political power though, and gained quite a lot of it since the radicalization of the GOP in the post-Obama years. DeSantis and Trump are just the tip of the iceberg, they are backed by an insane amount of not just Senators and Representatives (MT Greene and friends), but also a host of locally elected officials ranging from school board members all the way up to sheriffs (Joe Arpaio). On top of that comes their voter base, fanaticized by years of Fox News, OANN, Newsmax, Alex Jones and the other far-right figureheads: a lot of old people with a distinct demographic advantage over young people. Besides: economic power is one thing, but deeming it relevant for political discussion raises other very serious questions. Let's for once assume Disney were the "anti-woke" company. Would we accept that a large company could simply trample over the law or buy themselves special treatment? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are standing up for those with no widespread voice - but it's nonetheless dangerous.
- rob74 3y ago
  Yes, all the politicians you mentioned are now playing a noisy game of "who's more extreme", and maybe that appeals to far-right nuts and Trump's hardcore MAGA followers, but, as the midterms have shown, not so much to the more moderate Republican voters, which are still the majority...
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > and maybe that appeals to far-right nuts and Trump's hardcore MAGA followers, but, as the midterms have shown, not so much to the more moderate Republican voters, which are still the majority... The thing is, most Republican (and also most Democrat) voters will vote for whomever has the R or D next to their name. All that matters is who wins the primary - and there, the far-right has the clear advantage, with Trump polling at 50% and DeSantis at 20% [1]. It's no longer about "who makes better politics", it's "doing anything just to not let the other side win". Honestly a wonder that the debt ceiling got raised. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/us/politics/desantis-trump-polls-2024.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/us/politics/desantis-trum...
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Using mega corps with more power than countries to push politics... the unwashed masses never had a chance.
- epistasis 3y ago
  Well let's not pretend that there weren't all sorts of politics already embedded deeply into these corporations. In particular, banks make extremely political decisions in how they evaluate risk of loans and who they choose to loan money to and on what terms. Which is one of the reasons that the fall of SVB will have such long lasting implications for startups! Good luck getting the traditional banks to understand your startup enough to loan you something now.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    Making sure the bottom line is as big a positive number as possible isn’t political.
    - epistasis 3y ago
      Of course it is, when you have freedom to direct your investment efforts, and make decisions on which class of investments are even investable. Decisions are made on the estimations before the bottom line is realized. And reevaluating counterfactual outcomes from investing in something else is also not a quantitative decision, but one that is highly subjective.
      - worrycue 3y ago
        If the company is public, they will go where the money is. The near random bunch of people that make up the shareholders won’t have any political leanings as a collective. They will care about one thing only, maximising profit.
gremlinsinc 3y ago
there's counter forces too, ai might topple old corporate hierarchies and usher in more equitable flat management orgs, there's also worker coops, etc... I went with mint mobile for instance because they at least seemed a bit aligned politically, that and I still respect Ryan Reynolds, not so sure what to think, now that TMobile bought it though. My point is where there's right wing themed or supporting businesses the will also be left wing, albeit the left is more ideological, so the right might get further faster because they used old school capitalism where the left will be more pragmatic and focusing on how to create a more balanced equitable co-op structure that's merges aspects of socialism and capitalism.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Your second paragraph is really interesting and I feel like there are several misunderstandings derived from a flat american left-right political understanding that doesn't really map. The first is when you say "left wing" you probably mean something more like liberal democrats, which are not meaningfully leftist in a global context and not as far left as the american right is far right. Something like the black panther party or sandinistas is left wing, and more or less necessarily incompatible with the sort of engaged business-centric capitalism you're expecting. You can have a thin blue line bank but not a redistributionist one you see what I'm saying? To the extent something like that exists it is just left-themed, which definitely do already exist, and will eventually collapse under its commitment to capitalism and become functionally like any other agency in its domain. The second is that it's probably not true that the left is more ideological than the right. Both groups will believe this about the other probably, and I certainly have my opinion. But for example undermining a high-value public good merely to deny access to an opposed group is a classic right-wing tactic that is deeply ideologically motivated. The right's ideology especially around economics & money tends to be a lot closer to the mainstream of american culture. This is a distinct advantage in business! Again, a thin blue line bank has no ideological inconsistency and may thrive in the right environment.
version_five 3y ago
The "anti-woke" companies don't care about values and more than the "woke" companies do. It's all smoke and mirrors around wealthy people building their power, either by earning more money or by the power pretending to have certain political views affords, or a combination.

asciii 3y ago

> https://www.wsj.com/articles/glorifi-how-new-anti-woke-bank- https://www.wsj.com/articles/glorifi-how-new-anti-woke-bank-... https://archive.is/yDNrx https://archive.is/yDNrx

d3vmax 3y ago

Thiel, Elon, Sacks, Chamath - A pattern is emerging.

guestbest 3y ago

I don’t think John Q Normie is either woke or anti-woke, but is ambivalent and will gravitate towards whatever goods and services are the most convenient

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ekianjo 3y ago

> ESG investing stays strong Because that's the only game in town, mind-share wise. > The anti-woke do not have the numbers on their side for now. but as you move to digital currencies and when banks start to punish you by kicking you out of your account for having non-mainstream discourse online, things may change. Those days are not too far.

epistasis 3y ago
People aren't going to decide first "I want to do political investing, not let's decide between ESG or anti-woke." ESG investing exists because there is demand for it. Anti-woke investing, or a parallel economy, does not exist because there's not enough demand for it. Saying that ESG investing is strong because it's "the only game in town" gets the causality all wrong Anti-woke options are there, they failed due to their unpopularity, not because ESG investing anlready exists.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  > ESG investing exists because there is demand for it. Which demand? I can't imagine that suddenly shareholders woke up and considered that "we don't care about making money anymore, now we are going to add metrics that have nothing to do with making profits"

mschuster91 3y ago

> The anti-woke do not have the numbers on their side when it comes to either population or economic power. Lots of sizzle, no steak. They have political power though, and gained quite a lot of it since the radicalization of the GOP in the post-Obama years. DeSantis and Trump are just the tip of the iceberg, they are backed by an insane amount of not just Senators and Representatives (MT Greene and friends), but also a host of locally elected officials ranging from school board members all the way up to sheriffs (Joe Arpaio). On top of that comes their voter base, fanaticized by years of Fox News, OANN, Newsmax, Alex Jones and the other far-right figureheads: a lot of old people with a distinct demographic advantage over young people. Besides: economic power is one thing, but deeming it relevant for political discussion raises other very serious questions. Let's for once assume Disney were the "anti-woke" company. Would we accept that a large company could simply trample over the law or buy themselves special treatment? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are standing up for those with no widespread voice - but it's nonetheless dangerous.

rob74 3y ago
Yes, all the politicians you mentioned are now playing a noisy game of "who's more extreme", and maybe that appeals to far-right nuts and Trump's hardcore MAGA followers, but, as the midterms have shown, not so much to the more moderate Republican voters, which are still the majority...
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > and maybe that appeals to far-right nuts and Trump's hardcore MAGA followers, but, as the midterms have shown, not so much to the more moderate Republican voters, which are still the majority... The thing is, most Republican (and also most Democrat) voters will vote for whomever has the R or D next to their name. All that matters is who wins the primary - and there, the far-right has the clear advantage, with Trump polling at 50% and DeSantis at 20% [1]. It's no longer about "who makes better politics", it's "doing anything just to not let the other side win". Honestly a wonder that the debt ceiling got raised. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/us/politics/desantis-trump-polls-2024.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/us/politics/desantis-trum...

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Using mega corps with more power than countries to push politics... the unwashed masses never had a chance.

epistasis 3y ago
Well let's not pretend that there weren't all sorts of politics already embedded deeply into these corporations. In particular, banks make extremely political decisions in how they evaluate risk of loans and who they choose to loan money to and on what terms. Which is one of the reasons that the fall of SVB will have such long lasting implications for startups! Good luck getting the traditional banks to understand your startup enough to loan you something now.
- worrycue 3y ago
  Making sure the bottom line is as big a positive number as possible isn’t political.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Of course it is, when you have freedom to direct your investment efforts, and make decisions on which class of investments are even investable. Decisions are made on the estimations before the bottom line is realized. And reevaluating counterfactual outcomes from investing in something else is also not a quantitative decision, but one that is highly subjective.
    - worrycue 3y ago
      If the company is public, they will go where the money is. The near random bunch of people that make up the shareholders won’t have any political leanings as a collective. They will care about one thing only, maximising profit.

gremlinsinc 3y ago

there's counter forces too, ai might topple old corporate hierarchies and usher in more equitable flat management orgs, there's also worker coops, etc... I went with mint mobile for instance because they at least seemed a bit aligned politically, that and I still respect Ryan Reynolds, not so sure what to think, now that TMobile bought it though. My point is where there's right wing themed or supporting businesses the will also be left wing, albeit the left is more ideological, so the right might get further faster because they used old school capitalism where the left will be more pragmatic and focusing on how to create a more balanced equitable co-op structure that's merges aspects of socialism and capitalism.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
Your second paragraph is really interesting and I feel like there are several misunderstandings derived from a flat american left-right political understanding that doesn't really map. The first is when you say "left wing" you probably mean something more like liberal democrats, which are not meaningfully leftist in a global context and not as far left as the american right is far right. Something like the black panther party or sandinistas is left wing, and more or less necessarily incompatible with the sort of engaged business-centric capitalism you're expecting. You can have a thin blue line bank but not a redistributionist one you see what I'm saying? To the extent something like that exists it is just left-themed, which definitely do already exist, and will eventually collapse under its commitment to capitalism and become functionally like any other agency in its domain. The second is that it's probably not true that the left is more ideological than the right. Both groups will believe this about the other probably, and I certainly have my opinion. But for example undermining a high-value public good merely to deny access to an opposed group is a classic right-wing tactic that is deeply ideologically motivated. The right's ideology especially around economics & money tends to be a lot closer to the mainstream of american culture. This is a distinct advantage in business! Again, a thin blue line bank has no ideological inconsistency and may thrive in the right environment.

version_five 3y ago

The "anti-woke" companies don't care about values and more than the "woke" companies do. It's all smoke and mirrors around wealthy people building their power, either by earning more money or by the power pretending to have certain political views affords, or a combination.