5 ms·
I don't find that particularly insightful. The reality has always been that companies which find the most effective way to either produce or consume electrical
by mbell 8y ago
I don't find that particularly insightful. The reality has always been that companies which find the most effective way to either produce or consume electrical power are the most profitable. Actually I'd argue that power consumption per capita corresponds quite well with prosperity. If you want to 'win big' in the long run, do it in power in one form or another.
- captain_perl 8y agoWhoosh. By electricity, he meant automation with computers.
- brennanm 8y ago;)
- mbell 8y agoAs did I. Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. have found models to convert vast amount of electricity into $ via computing. My point was that this isn't a new thing, it's been true for a very long time that the largest most successful companies have found ways to either produce or consumer vast amounts of energy. It was true of Railways in the 1800's consuming vast amounts of coal, it was true of the steel conglomerates in the early 1900's consuming both coal and electricity, it was true of telephone companies consuming electricity in the mid 1900's and it's true now of computing companies consuming electricity. Of course it's also why energy generation companies have been as large as they have been throughout history. Overall point being: at a reductionist level pretty much all major businesses boil down to either producing or consuming energy, or helping other companies produce and/or consumer energy more efficiently.