> For example, the "lottery economy" aspect (where there is one company that ends up dominating a market and the size of that company is dictated only by the si

> For example, the "lottery economy" aspect (where there is one company that ends up dominating a market and the size of that company is dictated only by the size of the market) comes from zero marginal costs: once a software firm has built a solution that satisfies a market, there is nothing stopping it from expanding to serve the whole market far faster than any competitor can enter. I'm not sure what you mean, this is 100% covered in general economic theory with barriers to entry. > Google & Facebook's dominance also stems from this zero-cost-of-production property. When your cost of production to provide the good or service is zero But it's actually not 0 or even close to it. There are still economies of scale at play, if Facebook were to lose millions of users their costs would grow per user, which is what a marginal cost curve represents. Just because the curve is different doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm pretty disappointed with Gate's post, because every academic economist I know is mocking it...since it's not well represented or thought out. It ignores so many principles and theories in economics for the sake of being "ground breaking." Even though most of the theories are hundreds of years old and still apply completely.