Why Not Your Typical Finance Bro Exists (Or: A Manifesto Against Slop)
Dear god, make the slop stop. Also, you know, tech, geopolitics, finance, they make the world go round, and that's why I'm writing.
Once upon a time I went to an investment banking recruiting event in orange velvet pants. The sea of navy blue was monotonous - your blue blues, dark blues, black-hinged blues - and I’ve always had a problem with monotony because it’s in those spaces that mediocrity thrives.
This blog exists because I’m not one of your typical finance bros. I wore gorgeous pants by Sézane, for god’s sake - I was never one of them to begin with. But I find the space interesting and I have a lot to say, moreso than any of their AI-generated weak PowerPoints. So that’s what this Substack is: writing following certain hunches to turn them into pieces testing a concept or thesis, the subject matter centered around the intersections between tech, geopolitics, finance, and culture. I can’t be anything but interdisciplinary in my approach to things both personally and professionally, and I know I’m not alone in this. You know those events where we’re told everything is connected, nothing is siloed, XYZ industry should work with ZYX industry, political scientists and IR people and economists should talk to each other - we’re told to think in terms of ecosystems while someone promotes their book, and afterwards there’s food and drinks? How there’s always lukewarm crab rangoon as the hors d’oeuvres? Where the speakers had interesting things to say for part of the time and completely irrelevant things for the other part? I know I’m not the only one who has come back from those things wondering how to actually work with the interesting part and discard the performance.
Since everyone and their second cousin from Long Island has a podcast and/or Substack now, the time seemed ripe to try. I love writing, this is my creative outlet, and I’m also a huge fan of researching down to the minutiae of things, I am the type of person with way too many tabs open at all times. Now, don’t get me wrong, there’s all sorts of content like there’s all sorts of blue - and hey, I like navy blue - all shades of blue happen to suit me well too. Yet there’s a difference between fitting in and standing for something, and a lot of people exist for nothing. A lot of content exists for nothing. That’s how mediocrity mines itself through sheer mass and multiplicity. It becomes overwhelming and slop, and fight me on that if you want to, but that’s the status quo that perpetuates itself to no one’s benefit.
In a less indirect way, frankly, I’m tired of AI-generated slop flooding the internet. I’m tired of surface-level analysis cosplaying as insight. I’m tired of complex questions getting steamrolled into LinkedIn wisdom and whatever passes for thought leadership this quarter. The bedrock pillars of modern society - law, order, the money underpinning the whole scheme - deserve better than the performance we’re getting. And I love, love, love these subjects as much as I love, love, love thinking about and now writing about them. It’s my goal to engage with the ideas and people involved in these systems and subjects, as well as with the readers interested in them. I’m also not a fan of jargon or non-sensical production. It is a waste of time, pointless, and indicates castles made out of sand. More strongly, in this house, we believe that opacity in language is a cover and gatekeeping is a shame. If you cannot articulate an idea clearly and simply to then illustrate it in action, you should not be writing about it. Consider this Noam Chomsky quote about understanding, ideas, and explanation:
‘There are lots of things I don’t understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat’s last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I’m interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don’t understand, but (1) and (2) don’t hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven’t a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of “theory” that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won’t spell it out.’
Chomsky on understanding tells us he can ask physicist friends to explain quantum theory and they can do it clearly, yet certain theorists write impenetrable work and no one who claims to understand it can explain it either. “That leaves one of two possibilities,” he says, and doesn’t spell out option (b).
I’m interested in the first possibility. The things that can be explained, should be explained, are worth explaining even when they’re difficult. Encore une fois - finance, geopolitics, technology, defense, culture, power, philosophy - all of it. They work hand in hand in ways we cannot discard - and it’s my aim to demonstrate that through a variety of pieces both serialized and singular. For example, the things on balance sheets and the things that will never make it there, and how that impacts valuation when it comes to data. Or the moment you realize weddings are IPOs, EU weapons procurement reveals something deeper about sovereignty, and everything actually does connect - not in the way they say at those events with the crab rangoon, but in ways that matter and have impact in real life.
This is a space for the intersections that are real, not the ones we’re told to perform. Where philosophy meets power meets profit and nobody wants to admit it. Yes, and - you can hold contradictions without needing resolution. I’m unabashed about this: smart writing on smart things doesn’t apologize for being either.
What you’ll find here: Tentatively, the plan is a revolving series of weekly, bi-weekly, and monthly deep-dive posts about geopolitics, tech, and finance. The idea from the debut is to tool around with a dual weekly series: one on a financial crime of the week and one on an ITAR violation of the week - for those unfamiliar, ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) governs the export of defense-related articles and services, and watching who violates it and how reveals more about global power dynamics than most white papers ever will. Interspersed among these weekly takes: bi-weekly research and analytical deep dives on whatever demands attention or is on my mind. Derrida or derivatives, defense tech masculinity or esoteric assets, Chinese manufacturing ecosystems or the financialization of veterinary care - all of these are just a preview of stuff I’ve been working on as I’ve been writing/planning my content out. Anything goes, as long as it’s worth the effort.
Readers will find original analysis that assumes you can handle nuance. My writing aims to translate between worlds for people tired of pretending those worlds don’t speak to each other - or worse, pretending they do while serving lukewarm appetizers and bitter white wine.
Now, on the other hand - what you won’t find here: Stock picks. Career advice. MBA groupthink. Engagement-optimized content. Another voice indistinguishable from the crowd. I am not giving any financial advice, you have been forewarned, though frivolous litigation could serve as a fabulous series of posts (for someone else). Also, I could not shill if my life depended on it, and there are plenty of people who can do that very well with larger followings than myself at the moment as of writing in October 2025.
Who this Substack is for: You had an intellectual phase that never quite ended. You’re curious but skeptical. You understand both cultural references and financial concepts. You read for insight, not validation. You want the interesting part without the performance. You’re bored but not boring. You have read this far and can appreciate the sacred and sardonic blending in systems thinking.
Plans for the set-up of Not Your Typical Finance Bro may change, but the aim won’t: quality over quantity, substance over slop, perpetual curiosity over polished certainty. A small, engaged audience beats a large, indifferent one every time.
On a final note, I decided to pour everything into my work. Since we all know no one is coming to save you, you might as well make it matter. It also never hurts to look good while doing it regardless of the colors you wear, for in a sea of finance bros, I’m not them. Hi dear reader, welcome!