#21 The Awakening

Can there be ethical consumption under capitalism? Maybe.

Hiiiiiiiiii

We’re back on schedule! Before we dive into the subject du jour, though:

Last week’s dispatch titled It's either this or death exploring how men and women experience ageing, longevity and vanity in vastly different ways, was my most viewed story. And rightfully so, if I’m allowed to play favourites. In an almost too obvious turn of events, I’ve received a ton of feedback from women and absolutely none from men. So if you identify as male and you’ve read it… lmk what you think.

xoxo Esther 💋

PS: you know you want to share Oblique Forecasting with your hottest friends so we can all be in this little club together:

---

Esther’s Buy/Sell List:

💰 What I’m investing in

🗳️Brands that take a political stand. The other day, I was reposting something related to Trump’s first days in office, and a friend replied saying he was insane. To which I retorted we had known this since at least 2016. He countered that to make up for the craziness, we needed to create art and beauty – said friend is a painter – whereas I urged for more drastic political measures.

Two different points of view, arguably both correct.

—

Growing up, I don’t remember knowing the names of CEOs. We knew who fashion designers, architects and other art-adjacent tradesmen were, but the world of people pulling the strings and controlling big corporations or media wasn’t as publicised.

But that has changed. We now live in the era of Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, where billionaires are not only household names but also wield significant influence over the cultural and political zeitgeist. These figures are not just entrepreneurs; they’ve become symbols of their brands, shaping their public personas and policies in ways that often align with—or directly support—political agendas. For instance, Musk's commentary on free speech and censorship on Twitter/X has drawn attention for aligning with a certain libertarian ethos, while Zuckerberg's control of Facebook has raised concerns over its role in spreading misinformation during election cycles. Bezos, too, through Amazon and The Washington Post, has become a central figure in debates about corporate power and media influence.

Consuming from these brands now feels like a political act, whether or not we acknowledge it. Supporting Amazon, for instance, isn't just about convenience—it’s a tacit endorsement of a business model that some argue prioritizes profit over labour rights and sustainability. Similarly, purchasing a Tesla might align someone with Musk’s vision of innovation, but it also ties them to his controversial public stances. Tesla owners are adding bumper stickers to show they distance themselves from the creator of their car.

Contrast this with brands like Ben & Jerry’s, which have consistently used their platform to advocate for progressive causes. The ice cream company has taken public stances on issues ranging from climate change to systemic racism and famously condemned the policies of the Trump administration. Patagonia is another example—a brand that actively fights for environmental justice and sued the Trump administration over public land policies. These companies show that businesses don’t have to stay apolitical; they can champion causes and foster change.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have brands like Goya Foods, which faced backlash after its CEO publicly praised Trump, leading to both boycotts and “buycotts” depending on one’s political alignment. Chick-fil-A has also been polarizing, with its history of donating to anti-LGBTQ+ organizations sparking debates over whether eating a chicken sandwich is a political act. See also: the boycotts related to Israel-Gaza (Starbucks, McDonald’s, etc).

This polarisation raises the question: should brands take sides at all? I think that we’ll see a surge in brands taking a stance either way which I can only encourage if I wear my strategist hat. Consumers' connections and loyalty will only strengthen with the recognition of shared values.

---

Esther’s Dealsheet:

📈 Bullish news

• The New York Times is exploring bundled subscription partnerships with smaller publishers to expand its subscriber base in the U.S. [Axios]

• Meta has been offering $10K to $50K bonuses to TikTok creators who post exclusively on Reels before other platforms [The Information]

• Bumble’s stock rose 8.8% after Whitney Wolfe Heard announced her return as CEO in March. [Bloomberg]. A rare comeback story!

• Trump announced a $100 B joint venture between OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank to create computing infrastructure to power AI. The initiative, called Stargate, could eventually invest as much as $500 B over the next 4 years. [NYT]

• Women are expected to be in charge of $34T, or 38% of all investable assets in the US by 2030. [Sotheby’s]

• Colossal Biosciences raises $200M at a $10.2B valuation to bring back woolly mammoths [TechCrunch]. Priorities!

📉 Bearish news

• The U.S. dollar weakened on the news global tariffs would wait. [Axios] The dollar strengthens on expectations of more tariffs and weakens when the opposite happens.

• Google has told the EU it will not add fact checks to search results and YouTube videos or use them in ranking or removing content, despite the requirements of a new EU law [Axios]

• Crypto lobby reels from Trump’s ‘memecoin’ [Politico]

• Kanye West is waging a "John Wick vendetta against every fashion company" 🤡

• Investors worldwide stand to lose more than $1T today because of the sudden fear that the market-driving AI spending boom might have been for nothing. There's a global rout in tech stocks, caused by a panic linked to the new Chinese AI platform DeepSeek. Last week the company released its R1 model, which competes with the world's very best — from the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic — but it's free, open-source, and was developed at a tiny fraction of its rivals' costs. [Axios]

Before you go:

• If you can’t get enough of me, here’s my Instagram. Here’s my LinkedIn. Choose wisely.

• Accepting future sponsorship applications: email me.