Bye, Alexa…

9+

To receive a free full-text email of The Zeitgeist whenever we publish to the website, please sign up here. You’ll get two or three of these emails every week, and your email will not be shared with anyone. Ever.


Leave aside the question of whether you care about wealth concentration or believe in any socially deleterious effects it might have. Ignore whether you believe that Amazon or any other Big Tech company is really an anti-competitive monopoly. Do you disagree with Ben about wealth taxes? Hold that in abeyance, too.

Why? Because what we personally believe about each of these things isn’t the same thing as what we all believe we all believe, or what we all know that we all know – a thing which we call Common Knowledge. And it is Common Knowledge, rather than the sum total of all of our deeply held personal beliefs, which usually shapes our culture and our politics.

The more we glance at the top of the Zeitgeist, our daily collection of the most linguistically connected articles in financial news, the more often we see common threads with our Election Index. In many ways, the framing of all news through the lens of income inequality, monopoly power and the influence of Big Tech IS the zeitgeist.

It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that this article about the apparent attempts by Amazon and Bezos to steer the outcome of a local city council election ranks so highly.

Amazon’s $1.5 million political gambit backfires in Seattle City Council election [Reuters]

To date – and it’s true with this article and its neighbors, too – the most powerful connections between finance and markets articles have been phrases like ‘socialist’, ‘billionaire class’ and ‘unprecedented spending’. Still, it’s hard not to observe a subtle transition happening here. Here the main event isn’t just income inequality or power and influence per se, but the framing of Amazon’s use of wealth to generate political power as ‘backfiring‘ and ‘repudiated.’ I think that similar language in coverage of Bloomberg’s primary bid and the related Howard Schultz retrospectives probably contributed to that. So maybe this is anecdotal.

But if we’re not looking ahead to consider what else we might all know that we all know through these lenses, that’s a failure of imagination on our part.

9+

To receive a free full-text email of The Zeitgeist whenever we publish to the website, please sign up here. You'll get two or three of these emails every week, and your email will not be shared with anyone. Ever. It's our effort to spread the word about what we're doing, and allow you to read more Epsilon Theory!

3
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Rafa Mayer
Member
Rafa Mayer

What this article makes me think is Ben’s line – They’re. Not. Even. Pretending. Anymore.

And the counter-effect is interesting; the spend boomerangs. It brings negative attention to the supported candidate and positive attention to their opponent (we all love an underdog?).

Is this the eventual result of the “democratization of voice through social media” whereby large $ spends can easily be neutralized by a viral wave of negative sentiment?

Fascinating…

4+
Mark Kahn
Member
Mark Kahn

Can’t bode well for Bloomberg’s bid.

1+
Peter
Member
Peter

RE money and the “David vs Goliath Effect” in elections and who’s backing them, I’m reminded of something Sun Tsu (or was it Nietzsche) said. Paraphrased: One must always battle a superior foe. If you lose, you battled against the best/biggest and lost. You get the psychic/social benefit of courage and a having made a good try/effort against the impossible. If you beat a superior foe, you’re a hero for doing the impossible. However, if you challenge/battle an inferior/smaller foe and win, you’re a bully. If you lose…well you’re just a plain loser. Nuf sed!

2+

The Daily Zeitgeist

Pleased to Meet You, Hope You Guess My Name

By Ben Hunt | January 22, 2020 | 9 Comments

It’s the one thing that Donald Trump and Rachel Maddow can agree on … “who the hell cares about the budget?”

If you don’t see that every government in the developed world is about to embark on a massive deficit spending spree, with modern-day ziggurats constructed in every burg and hamlet … you’re just not paying attention.

Read more

The Church of the Long Now

By Ben Hunt | January 17, 2020 | 2 Comments

I know, I know … it’s me being mean to Neel Kashkari again.

Sorry, not sorry. Belittlement and scorn is the only weapon we have against the creeping ensorcellment of the Long Now.

Read more

Shot, Chaser

By Ben Hunt | January 13, 2020 | 9 Comments

So I downloaded and compiled every SEC Form 4 filing that former Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg has ever made, to answer one simple question:

How much money did Dennis Muilenburg suck out of Boeing over the last ten years?

Read more

An End to War!

By Rusty Guinn | December 17, 2019 | 5 Comments

The Long Now wouldn’t be complete without the Long War. And as with every other component of the Long Now, its supporting memes are intensely cynical.

Read more

It’s Not So Much …

By Ben Hunt | December 16, 2019 | 6 Comments

If you don’t see that there is one set of rules for the very rich and another set of rules for everyone else … if you don’t see that there is an unaccountable political power that accrues to the very rich in both big social ways and in small personal ways … well, you’re just not paying attention.

Read more

One Narrative Keeps on Trucking

By Rusty Guinn | December 9, 2019 | 6 Comments

Trucking is dying and truckers are suffering along with it. The fact that the latter is the framing being chosen for the issue should pique your interest.

Read more

DISCLOSURES

This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.