I think that at least in the fields you mention, the structure of the markets is problematic. Ubers' value to customers is proportional to the number of rides t

I think that at least in the fields you mention, the structure of the markets is problematic. Ubers' value to customers is proportional to the number of rides they take, and the usefulness of the service. Ubers'value to investors is not proportional/linear. It's more a function of what Peter Thiel (being intentionally provocative) call "monopoly." He means market share, network effects, moats, lock-in, other aggregation benefits... We can see this in a lot of the new economy. Google's search business is worth X. A search business with 1/10th of the volume is not worth 10% of Google search's worth nor does it generate revenue on that scale. This is because Google derives its value from aggregating a large portion of the total. More than the sum of parts is an o understatement. This exists in a manufacturing environment too, the size factor. But, for manufacturing this is "economies of scale" related. Ie, they use price to lower unit costs. In the new economy, it's unrelated to unit costs. The actual revenue (not profit) and market cap effect on the 1+nth unit is higher. ROI is what actually drives the economy. But, if market caps grow while the "real" economic outputs (searches, rides) do not.... This is why Thomas Pickettys work is so popular today. This mechanic can effectively drive increases in the value of capital, without changes in the real economy. I think we can see this quite clearly in the capital markets. Market value grows faster than revenue. Capital grows faster than the economy.