A general boycott hurts everyone, but a targeted strike on high-valuation tech and AI sectors creates a disproportionate ripple effect. Since their valuations are 'priced to perfection,' even a small revenue dip can cause significant market turmoil, capturing the administration's attention without widespread consumer harm.
Policies that pump financial markets disproportionately benefit asset holders, widening the wealth gap and fueling social angst. As a result, the mega-cap tech companies symbolizing this inequality are becoming prime targets for populist politicians seeking to channel public anger for electoral gain.
AI and immense tech wealth are becoming a lightning rod for populist anger from both political parties. The right is fracturing its alliance with tech over censorship concerns, while the left is turning on tech for its perceived alignment with the right, setting up a challenging political environment.
Despite populist rhetoric, the administration needs the economic stimulus and stock market rally driven by AI capital expenditures. In return, tech CEOs gain political favor and a permissive environment, creating a symbiotic relationship where power politics override public concerns about the technology.
Instead of military action, China could destabilize the US tech economy by releasing high-quality, open-source AI models and chips for free. This would destroy the profitability and trillion-dollar valuations of American AI companies.
To influence a market-obsessed government, citizen boycotts should target high-margin, high-growth tech companies. These firms are the market's "soft tissue," where a slowdown has an outsized impact on the S&P 500, making the protest more potent than targeting low-margin businesses like grocery stores.
Modern administrations, immune to moral outrage but sensitive to market fluctuations, can be influenced by targeted economic strikes. Mass unsubscriptions from major tech platforms can directly impact the stock market, forcing a political response where traditional protests fail.
The robust performance of the AI sector buoys the stock market, creating a positive economic narrative. This economic stability acts as 'cloud cover,' distracting the public and enabling politicians to pursue controversial or anti-democratic actions without immediate economic backlash that would otherwise trigger public outrage.
Against an administration fixated on market performance, traditional protests are merely 'cinematic.' A coordinated economic strike—reducing spending on major companies like Apple and OpenAI—creates market pressure that forces a political response where moral outrage fails.
The US economy is now so dependent on the performance of a few AI-centric tech giants that their failure is not an option. When the AI bubble deflates, expect a government bailout, framed as a strategic investment like the CHIPS Act, to prop up the market and prevent a wider economic crisis.
Traditional protests are ineffective against an administration that prioritizes market performance above public opinion. The most potent form of resistance is to create economic instability, as this is the only language such leadership understands and responds to, forcing a reaction where outrage fails.