Building infrastructure

 

Dustin

@r0ck3t23

Jeff Bezos built a trillion dollar company on infrastructure paid for by people who went bankrupt. And he just explained why it’s about to happen again with AI. In the 1990s, companies poured billions into laying fiber optic cable across the planet. Every one of them went broke. Bezos: “All of that fiber optic cable that got laid, and by the way, the companies who laid all that cable went out of business.” They died. The cable stayed. And it became the foundation of everything that followed. Now it’s happening again. Six people. No product. They started yesterday. $20 billion valuation. Bezos: “Investors don’t usually give a team of 6 people a couple of billion dollars with no product. It’s rare. And that’s happening today.” Everyone sees this and screams bubble. Bezos sees the same thing and recognizes something older. There are two kinds of bubbles. A financial bubble, like 2008, is pure destruction. Capital vanishes. Society inherits the crater. An industrial bubble runs on entirely different logic. Bezos: “This is a kind of industrial bubble, as opposed to financial bubbles.” The 90s biotech boom burned through billions. Stocks collapsed. Companies disappeared. The drugs they created are still saving lives today. Bezos: “As a group, they all lost money. But we did get a couple of life saving drugs.” The investors lose. The inventions remain. Every single time. Most AI companies being funded right now won’t exist in five years. The people writing the checks already know it. They are not confused. They are not reckless. They are financing infrastructure the entire world will inherit. Bezos: “The benefits to society from AI are going to be gigantic.” 25 years ago, no one could have predicted what the internet would become. Least of all the people who laid the cable. They went broke before the world they built ever switched on. The AI bubble is not a sign that something has gone wrong. It is how civilization has always financed things too large for any rational person to justify. Every piece of technology you use without thinking was once someone’s life savings disappearing in real time. That is what a successful bubble looks like from the other side. You stop seeing it. It just becomes the world. The system only works because the builders believe they will be the exception. If they ever saw the pattern clearly, they would stop. And the future would stop arriving. Progress does not run on genius. It runs on brilliant people being catastrophically, necessarily wrong. The people who build the future have never been the ones who get to live in it. That is not a flaw in the system. That is the system.

Optimus will be the biggest product ever.

 

Dustin

@r0ck3t23

Elon Musk just told you what Tesla was actually built for. It was never cars. Musk: “If successful, Optimus will be the biggest product ever.” The automobile reshaped civilization. The smartphone rewired human behavior. He’s saying Optimus dwarfs both. Then he ranked it against everything else he’s building. Musk: “It might be more of my mental cycles than anything else, any other single thing, on Optimus.” The man building the world’s most valuable car company, landing rockets on drone ships, and racing toward superintelligence spends most of his thinking on the robot. Musk: “It will have the manual dexterity of a human, an AI mind that can navigate and comprehend reality, and be made in very high volume.” Human hands. A mind that comprehends the physical world. Volume manufacturing. Three problems no one has solved. He’s going after all three at once, in the same machine. Musk: “None of the actuators in Optimus are available from an existing supply chain. We have to recreate it from scratch.” No existing parts. No existing suppliers. No existing industry. He’s building the entire manufacturing base from nothing. Then putting a robot on top of it. This is the pattern people keep missing. He didn’t build an electric car. He built Gigafactories, a global charging network, and a battery supply chain that made EVs inevitable. The car was the output. He didn’t build a rocket. He built the engines, the factory, and the landing systems until reusable launch became routine. The rocket was the output. Then the machine handed him a second business. Global satellite internet had been impossible for decades, not technically but financially, because nobody could afford to launch thousands of satellites. Once the rockets came back and flew again, that cost collapsed. Starlink wasn’t a new bet. It was leftover capacity. Same play. Every time. Build the machine that builds the machine. Then the thing becomes unstoppable. Optimus is that play at a scale that makes everything before it look small. Every product in human history extended a single human capability. The hammer extended the fist. The telescope extended the eye. The computer extended the mind. Optimus doesn’t extend one capability. It replicates all of them. At volume. Every economy, every government, every career path, every border ever drawn was organized around one scarcity. Human hands and human hours. Optimus is what happens when that scarcity disappears. For ten thousand years, human worth was measured by output. What you could build. What you could carry. What you could produce. Every one of those years was spent building tools to escape that measurement. Not once did we stop to ask what’s waiting on the other side. We’re approaching the moment the measurement breaks. Not a new product. Not a new industry. The first real test of whether we can define ourselves by anything other than our labor. And the man forcing that question just told you it takes more of his mind than cars, rockets, and superintelligence combined.

woke indoctrination camps

 

Whether intentional or not, an education system increasingly influenced by Marxism is producing politically radical graduates with insurmountable debt, primed to demand sweeping economic change. It's like the kids are being set up for failure even before stepping into a job.

By contrast, voters with high school or partial college educations who secure well-paying, goods-producing jobs tend to lean more Republican. These folks don't go through four to six years of woke indoctrination camps....

For parents focused on positioning their children to thrive, the traditional college pathway can no longer be treated as the default. Unless a degree provides a clear return on investment, technical training, skilled trades or direct entry into goods-producing industries may offer a stronger path to financial independence.

Otherwise, why subject your kids to a four-year Marxist indoctrination camp, only for them to dye their hair purple, become weekend No Kings activists and work two jobs, one at Starbucks and the other as a cat walker?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/overeducated-liberals-worthless-degrees-are-dsas-sweet-spot-voter

Overeducated Liberals With Worthless Degrees Are DSA's "Sweet Spot" Voter

by Tyler Durden

Wednesday, Jul 22, 2026 - 03:20 PM

Nate Silver identifies lower-income, highly educated voters as the core demographic of the Democratic Socialists of America, revealing a striking breakdown in the traditional relationship between education and higher income.

"Income and education are usually positively correlated. But sometimes the relationship breaks down. What's the most Democratic voting group in America? People with post-graduate degrees but lower-to-middle incomes," Silver wrote on X.

One explanation: newly minted graduates burdened by student debt, holding low-value liberal arts and other worthless woke degrees, and working multiple service-sector jobs. The result is a cohort driven by progressive ideology but denied the prosperity they were promised, creating fertile recruiting ground for far-left movements.

Typical socialist voter...

Some of these movements, including ones pushed by the DSA, aim to collapse the nation from within.

Whether intentional or not, an education system increasingly influenced by Marxism is producing politically radical graduates with insurmountable debt, primed to demand sweeping economic change. It's like the kids are being set up for failure even before stepping into a job.

By contrast, voters with high school or partial college educations who secure well-paying, goods-producing jobs tend to lean more Republican. These folks don't go through four to six years of woke indoctrination camps.

Palantir CEO Alex Karp on Zohran Mandani recently said it best about educated socialist voters:

The average Ivy League grad voting for this mayor is annoyed their education is not that valuable—and that the person who knows how to drill for oil has a more valuable profession. That annoys the f*ck out of these people.

The education system run by the left wing has massively failed young people. It is instead transforming them into Marxist activists intent on overthrowing America and capitalism - a trend evident in the rise of the DSA.

There is good news: Nancy Lazar, Piper Sandler's chief global economist and head of the firm's economics research team, recently published a note stating that goods-producing jobs are returning due to reshoring and data center buildouts.

For parents focused on positioning their children to thrive, the traditional college pathway can no longer be treated as the default. Unless a degree provides a clear return on investment, technical training, skilled trades or direct entry into goods-producing industries may offer a stronger path to financial independence.

Otherwise, why subject your kids to a four-year Marxist indoctrination camp, only for them to dye their hair purple, become weekend No Kings activists and work two jobs, one at Starbucks and the other as a cat walker?

Important issues for young men and women

 

Alyona

@askaya

For young men, the most important issue is the ability to get a job and make enough money to support a family. For young women, the main issue is to be able to kill their baby. How and when did women become so retarded?

https://x.com/askaya/status/2079318185426169865

Envy needs an ideology

 

Handre

@Handre

Envy needs an ideology, and socialism has always been happy to provide one. Mises wrote a whole book about this in 1956, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, and the diagnosis holds up: people who resent the outcomes of voluntary exchange will always search for a doctrine that transforms their resentment into virtue. The woke left found theirs. Notice what wokeism and socialism share at the root. Both start from the premise that unequal outcomes prove injustice. You earned more than your neighbor? Exploitation. One group outperforms another in median income? Systemic oppression. Neither doctrine ever asks whether people made different choices, took different risks, or produced different value for others. Asking that question would ruin everything, because the entire project depends on assigning blame rather than understanding prices, profit, and loss. Once you accept that unequal outcomes equal injustice, you need a corrector. Someone powerful. Someone with the authority to override contracts, seize property, and redistribute according to a moral hierarchy the planners themselves define. That job description has exactly one applicant: the state. This is why the woke activist and the socialist always arrive at the same policy desk, demanding rent control in New York, wealth taxes in Sacramento, hiring quotas in every HR department from Seattle to Brussels. Marcuse and the Frankfurt School figured out decades ago that the Western worker refused to play his assigned role as revolutionary. He got rich instead. Capitalism handed him a car, a house, and air conditioning, and he stopped listening to men promising utopia through expropriation. The revolutionaries needed a new client base. Class became identity, but the machinery stayed identical: oppressor and oppressed, guilt and grievance, revolution and rule. The love affair with socialism, then, follows logically. Wokeism supplies the moral demand for coercion; socialism supplies the economic apparatus of coercion. Neither can survive in a world of private property and voluntary exchange, because in that world you rise by serving customers, not by capturing committees. Venezuela ran this experiment from 1999 onward. The grocery shelves reported the results.

Immigrants come to America to flee capitalism

NYC DSA co-chair

RedWave Press

@RedWavePress

·

Jul 18

Fox News’ Martha MacCallum: “Your family came here from Peru really in the middle of the heat of the Shining Path. They were Maoist communist guerrillas in Peru. So why did your family come to America?” New York City DSA co-chair Gustavo Gordillo: “The economic situation in South America and Peru was in a really bad place… much of what we could say was responsible for that actually was the imposition of capitalism and American imperialism. In many cases, it is actually what brings immigrants to the U.S. coming out of Latin America.” Martha MacCallum: “They come here because they don’t like the imposition of American imperialism in the country that they’re in.” Gustavo Gordillo: “Yes…” Martha MacCallum: “That doesn’t make much sense.”