My reading of the article: 1) "Tech industry" is infrastructure that leads to mass efficiency at scale. When this happens it means that individuals can now com

My reading of the article: 1) "Tech industry" is infrastructure that leads to mass efficiency at scale. When this happens it means that individuals can now compete on a cost basis with corporations. Brands will retain their power as long as they retain their relevancy, but I suspect even branding can be made more efficient through tech. Corporations will have to go 1 of 3 routes: - become infrastructure (reduce goods and services until they become part of the tech industry) - be an infrastructure/goods + service hybrid (develop their own tech infrastructure while keeping their brand) - become a goods and service provider that relies on tech infrastructure (become part of the gig economy) Corporations will benefit from access to volume discounts, but the big winners will be the tech platforms. 2) Tech is already too profitable and will suck the world dry in the same manner as corporations since globalization. It's about what generates the best efficiencies. Previously, economies of scale drove it. Now, tech is driving it and will drive it into the future. 3) Being too profitable is not the issue; being too greedy is. Tech, by nature, will be extremely profitable compared to the rest of society. To restore that balance on a social level, tech should pay more taxes, not less. Otherwise, the rest of society will revolt as history has shown. 4) Government is the mediator that moderates efficiencies and society. It exists to make sure massive efficiencies don't suck society dry, and that society doesn't revolt because of it. It does this by siphoning off the wealth of extremely efficient industries and individuals and redistributing it through basic income. 5) With this view, the world is not split between the lazy and hardworking (which has never really been the case), but the efficient and inefficient industries and workers.