Greatest wealth transfer in human history is happening and you are all in the midst of it. (Credits in the end)
A small thread 🧵 👇
So let's talk about generations based on their birth years for a second. Baby boomers are the wealthiest of all generations and they're gonna retire & transfer wealth.
Gen Z (1995-2015)
Millennial (1980-1994)
Gen X (1965-1979)
Boomer (1944-1964)
Assuming $500 trillion as total global wealth, USA 🇺🇸 holds about 13.6% of global wealth, which is $68 trillion.
For this thread we are only considering just US population, even though the world is large enough to hold 191 other countries with massive population living outside.
Taking the population distribution in USA 🇺🇸 between different generations, here's the breakdown
Gen Z (1995-2015) - 24.3%
Millennial (1980-1994) - 23.9%
Gen X (1965-1979) - 26.9%
Boomer (1944-1964) - 24.9%
Pretty evenly divided I'd say
Who's got the money between these generations. Obviously Baby Boomers command a lot more money than any other generation. Between GenX & Boomers they control the vast majority of American wealth.
Put another way, 56+ year olds control 75% of all wealth in USA. That's massive wealth to say the least.
Why do Millennials hold so little wealth compared to boomers at the same age.
College debt - Millennials raked up huge college debt
Sound money - Ever since 1971 gold backing removed
Inflation - Inflation was ridiculous post 1971
Look at the approximate wealth distribution based on what we discussed earlier.
Pie chart representation of Millennial wealth percentage compared to other generations looks tiny. But they will inherit massive amounts of it soon.
The biggest stake of their wealth is in stocks. 55% of stocks are owned by Boomers, compared to only 2.5% owned by Millennials.
Investment preferences change drastically. Millennials are pro crypto compared to most older generations. 83% of Millennial millionaires own #Bitcoin & crypto.
Boomers may have preferred gold, but Millennials and younger generations prefer digital gold #Bitcoin
Assuming just the US population, assuming only 2.5% of their net worth being invested linearly into #Bitcoin for the next decade, we see massive price appreciations.
In just three months as the 47th President, Donald Trump has governed with a ferocity that seems fueled by the trials of his past—indictments, investigations, assassination attempts, and impeachments—emerging not as a man diminished, but as one emboldened to deliver on his promises with unrelenting focus. His campaign pledges, once dismissed by critics as bombastic rhetoric, are materializing at a breakneck pace, reflecting a leader who thrives under pressure and channels adversity into action. From sweeping border security measures to economic policies aimed at revitalizing American industry, Trump’s early tenure feels like a defiant rebuttal to those who doubted his resolve, proving that the chaos of his journey has only sharpened his determination to reshape the nation in his image.
What’s most striking is how Trump has turned promises into tangible outcomes, defying the inertia that often bogs down presidencies. He’s tackled illegal immigration with a vigor that’s already shifting the landscape, while imposing tariffs to bolster domestic production, moves that echo his “America First” mantra and resonate with a base hungry for results. Gas, grocery and egg prices have eased, a practical win for everyday Americans, while his administration’s bold strokes—like dismantling bureaucratic excess and confronting global adversaries—signal a rejection of the status quo. For a man who’s faced relentless scrutiny, Trump’s first 90 days suggest not just survival, but a triumphant assertion of his vision, delivering a governance style as unapologetic and unconventional as the path that brought him back to power.
The statement that "more squirrels and raccoons have been arrested than Epstein clients" highlights a stark disparity between the enforcement of minor, even absurd, regulations and the apparent reluctance to pursue justice against powerful individuals implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network. In late 2024, the case of Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon captured public attention when New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation raided Mark Longo’s home, seizing and euthanizing these animals over claims of illegal possession and rabies risks. The operation involved multiple agents and hours of effort, showcasing a swift and decisive response to what many saw as a trivial violation. This incident, amplified by social media outrage, underscores how authorities can mobilize resources to "arrest" or address wildlife-related issues, even when the targets are harmless pets, while seemingly ignoring far graver human crimes.
In contrast, the Epstein case—despite overwhelming evidence of a sex trafficking operation involving influential figures—has seen remarkably little accountability for his clients. Epstein, a financier with ties to politicians, billionaires, and royalty, was arrested in 2019 and died in custody, officially ruled a suicide, though conspiracy theories abound. Court documents unsealed in recent years name numerous associates, yet few, if any, of these high-profile individuals have faced arrest or prosecution. The disparity fuels public frustration: while a squirrel’s fate can prompt a government raid, the powerful men who allegedly exploited minors alongside Epstein remain largely untouchable, shielded by wealth, status, or legal loopholes. This juxtaposition paints a compelling picture of a system that prioritizes the enforcement of petty rules over the pursuit of justice for heinous crimes, leaving society to question where true accountability lies.
The influence of corporate money in politics is a pervasive force that often shapes government inaction on issues like genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Companies like Bayer and Monsanto, with their deep pockets and extensive lobbying networks, have the resources to sway policymakers in their favor. They contribute millions to political campaigns, ensuring that elected officials remain sympathetic to their interests. This financial leverage creates a system where legislation or regulation that might harm these corporations’ bottom lines—such as banning or heavily restricting GMOs—is quietly sidelined. The revolving door between government agencies and corporate boardrooms only deepens this entanglement, as former industry executives often take regulatory roles, bringing their biases with them.
Beyond direct political influence, these corporations have mastered the art of shaping public perception through partnerships with universities and media outlets. By funding research at academic institutions, they can produce studies that downplay or dismiss health concerns related to GMOs, lending a veneer of scientific legitimacy to their products. These studies are then amplified by media campaigns, often subtly sponsored or influenced by the same corporations, to reassure the public that GMOs are safe and necessary for feeding a growing population. Dissenting voices—independent researchers or whistleblowers raising red flags about potential health risks—are drowned out or discredited, leaving regulators with a convenient excuse: the “science” isn’t conclusive enough to justify action.
Finally, the government’s inertia can be attributed to a broader economic calculus that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term public health. GMOs are deeply embedded in the agricultural industry, which contributes significantly to GDP and employs millions. Disrupting this system by cracking down on GMO foods would ripple through the economy, threatening jobs, trade relationships, and corporate profits—consequences no administration wants to face. Politicians, wary of being labeled as anti-business or anti-progress, opt for the path of least resistance, allowing these food giants to operate with minimal oversight. Meanwhile, any evidence of harm to human health is buried under bureaucratic delays or dismissed as anecdotal, preserving the status quo where profit trumps precaution.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) promises a transformative shift by prioritizing transparency and rebuilding public trust in a system that many Americans have grown skeptical of, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. His commitment to "radical transparency" addresses a core issue: the erosion of confidence in federal health agencies due to perceived corporate influence and opaque decision-making. By vowing to dismantle conflicts of interest—such as the revolving door between regulatory bodies and the pharmaceutical industry—Kennedy aims to ensure that health policies serve the public, not profit-driven corporations. This approach could restore faith in institutions like the CDC and FDA, making them more accountable and responsive to citizens’ needs rather than entrenched interests.
Beyond transparency, Kennedy’s focus on tackling the chronic disease epidemic offers a bold departure from the status quo. He has signaled an intent to investigate previously "taboo" or under-scrutinized contributors to poor health—ultra-processed foods, environmental toxins like glyphosates, and overreliance on pharmaceuticals—through rigorous, unbiased science. This proactive stance contrasts with the reactive, symptom-management model that dominates current healthcare. By shifting HHS’s emphasis toward prevention and root causes, Kennedy could reduce the staggering burden of conditions like obesity, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders, particularly among children, potentially saving billions in healthcare costs and improving quality of life for millions.
Finally, Kennedy’s outsider perspective and willingness to challenge entrenched norms could revitalize an agency often criticized for bureaucratic inertia. His history as an environmental lawyer and advocate demonstrates a tenacity for taking on powerful entities, suggesting he won’t shy away from overhauling outdated systems or questioning long-held assumptions, such as the childhood vaccine schedule’s scope. While his skepticism of certain medical orthodoxies has sparked controversy, his pledge to let science guide policy—coupled with a commission to address chronic disease—offers a chance to modernize HHS. If he succeeds in aligning the agency’s vast resources with a mission to "Make America Healthy Again," Kennedy could turn HHS into a dynamic force for genuine health reform, rather than a caretaker of a broken status quo.