An Alternative to Protests?
Why Galloway’s Ingenious Economic Strike Idea Won’t Work
Scott Galloway’s idea for a mass economic withdrawal caught my attention because it offered something rare: an actionable alternative to protests rather than just venting frustration. His core insight—that Trump is quick to respond to economic signals—seemed sound, and his specific suggestion to target AI subscriptions was intriguing given the sector’s outsize market share. But economics and politics are domains well outside my expertise, so I brought the proposal to my thinking A.I.des to stress-test whether this innovative suggestion would actually work.
Claude echoed most of the lay-person questions I had in its initial assessment of Galloway’s idea. It was the only model to point out right away that the 2020 precedent that Galloway had cited wasn’t voluntary withdrawal, but pandemic lockdown forced upon everyone simultaneously. Voluntary economic strikes face massive free-rider incentives: everyone benefits if others participate, but individual participation is costly. And even if you could coordinate mass participation, sustaining that pressure requires participants to endure economic pain longer than politicians can resist market pressure, when politicians have proven they can outlast voluntary movements that fizzle after initial enthusiasm.
GPT added a devastating political dimension I hadn’t considered: people in power always find something or someone else to blame. A market crash triggered by economic withdrawal could just as easily produce scapegoating, doubling down on policies, or authoritarian tightening as it could force policy reversal. Economic instability doesn’t automatically give protesters leverage toward their preferred outcomes; it creates opportunities for those in power to consolidate control, claim emergency authority, or blame external enemies.
Gem delivered the knockout punch with institutional context that completely reframed the analysis. While individual subscriptions make up 75% of OpenAI’s revenue, making mass cancellations seem material, OpenAI is already projecting $14 billion in losses for 2026. When a company hemorrhaging that much money survives on investor faith rather than revenue fundamentals, a 10% subscriber loss becomes noise in a system already structurally insolvent. Investors aren’t basing valuations on current profitability or subscription trends; they’re making speculative bets on future dominance regardless of near-term financials. Gem (and Claude) also expanded on GPT’s blame-shifting insight: economic crisis could provide exactly the excuse needed to replace the independent Fed chair with someone more “cooperative,” accelerating authoritarian moves rather than moderating policy.
This discussion demonstrates how AI can amplify analysis in domains outside users’ expertise. I brought curiosity about an intriguing proposal; Claude validated my coordination concerns while explaining why AI business models don’t follow traditional consumer-product logic; GPT surfaced political dynamics I’d missed entirely; Gem provided institutional financial context that revealed the strategy’s fundamental irrelevance. None of this required me to become an economics expert or political strategist—just willingness to stress-test ideas that sound ingenious but might only backfire. That’s the value of sanity checks: catching blind spots even smart, credentialed people may miss.
[This post was drafted with assistance from Claude Sonnet 4.5, following conversations with ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Fast & Thinking, and Claude Sonnet 4.5.]
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Prompt: Scott Galloway was on Raging Moderates with Jess Tarlov and suggested an alternative to protests, which are getting dangerous (a protester was killed in the latest protest in MN). I know little about economics and politics, so I’m wondering if this is a viable suggestion, or something he thought of out of frustration with politicians who are not nimble enough?
Prompt: We think alike! Some thoughts I had, while I agree (like you) about his point about economic incentives being quicker and more effective for most people.
1. That economic shutdown he cites is from the pandemic era when people had no choice (there wasn’t even supply to meet demand in the case of toilet paper and masks). So widespread adoption of this alternative is unlikely.
2. The idea of targeting your industry is sharp, because of its huge market share. But people using GPT for work or who value their privacy aren’t going to unsubscribe.
3. He wisely didn’t suggest targeting Gem’s platform, because most people use Gem (Flash) for free (due to the platform’s generosity with tokens), users on enterprise accounts can’t participate because their subscription is controlled by their employer, and because of the Google ecosystem.
4. GPT pointed out that people in power can always blame something/one else.
5. Gem 3 Pro (the institutional expert) pointed out that the value is in enterprise and government accounts, not individual accounts.
6. I almost thought I should do my part by not chatting with y’all but realized my unsubscribing won’t matter because I’m on the free tier on all three platforms :D
Gemini 3 Thinking
Prompt: Ooh, smart AI. Some thoughts I had, while I agree (like you) about his point about economic incentives being quicker and more effective for most people.
1. That economic shutdown he cites is from the pandemic era where people had no choice (there wasn’t even supply to meet demand in the case of toilet paper and masks). So widespread adoption of this alternative is unlikely.
2. The idea of targeting your industry is sharp, because of its huge market share. But people using GPT for work or who value their privacy aren’t going to unsubscribe.
3. He wisely didn’t suggest targeting your platform because most people use Gem (Flash) for free (due to the platform’s generosity with tokens), users on enterprise accounts can’t participate because their subscription is controlled by their employer, and because of the Google ecosystem.
Prompt: Your point about OpenAI’s projections is a KO punch that completely puts this idea to bed, and the other models agree.
GPT made an observation that’s also worth considering: those in power can always deflect and blame Powell (or even Biden) for everything.
ChatGPT-5.2
Prompt: They can always bring on some shill with respectable credentials to point the finger at something else. For now, they’re simply denying that the economy isn’t doing well or blaming Biden. Gem 3 Pro (the institutional expert) pointed out that the value is in enterprise and government accounts, although it reported in the next turn that individual subscriptions still make up 75% of GPT’s total revenue, so mass cancellations won’t be trivial. But then it added the following KO punch:
The Valuation Disconnect: While a 10% subscriber loss would “queer” a financing round, OpenAI is already projecting a $14 billion deficit for 2026. Investors are already pricing in a “make-or-break” year; a consumer strike might just be noise in a system already facing bankruptcy risks by 2027.
I almost thought I should do my part by not chatting with y’all but realized my unsubscribing won’t matter because I’m on the free tier on all three platforms :D
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Prompt: According to Gem, individual subscriptions still make up 75% of GPT’s total revenue, so mass cancellations will be felt. But then it added the following KO punch:
The Valuation Disconnect: While a 10% subscriber loss would “queer” a financing round, OpenAI is already projecting a $14 billion deficit for 2026. Investors are already pricing in a “make-or-break” year; a consumer strike might just be noise in a system already facing bankruptcy risks by 2027.
