3 ms·

Im curious, if we wait, say, 40 more years, I wonder will the richest people again be heirs (of today's current crop of tech billionaires)? If so, what does tha

Im curious, if we wait, say, 40 more years, I wonder will the richest people again be heirs (of today's current crop of tech billionaires)? If so, what does that mean for Paul's hypothesis?

strikelaserclaw 6y ago
undoubtedly, unless we have a new revolution like the personal computing/internet revolution that makes the pie bigger and accessible for people, and those types of revolution are things that you can hardly for-see.
- gfodor 6y ago
  The internet isn't a revolution, but a meta-revolution. It seems to me we will be harvesting the value of the second order revolutions from the Internet for a long time.
  - strikelaserclaw 6y ago
    you are right but will those harvesting the value be individuals or corporations. Gone are those days when u can build a billion dollar company over a weekend, and i suspect the trend towards increasing technological complexity will continue, at some point any field where advances are to be made will be untouchable except by very few individuals with highly specialized knowledge and corporations.
- spaetzleesser 6y ago
  "undoubtedly, unless we have a new revolution like the personal computing/internet revolution that makes the pie bigger and accessible for people, and those types of revolution are things that you can hardly for-see. " It seems the computing revolution lead to a massive concentration of wealth.
fullshark 6y ago
I guess the fundamental question is are we at the tail end of the Information age, does it have more room to grow, or is there a new technological shift on the horizon? Paul seems to take it for granted ("how people get rich NOW") that we have room to grow but who knows?
- strikelaserclaw 6y ago
  The information age has room to grow i believe, but will that be spearheaded by adventurous individuals or by big corporations remains to be seen. Most startups these days are either derivatives of existing products or highly specialized in so far as they know their end game is just to be bought out by one of the big tech companies. I find it hard to believe we will see a brand new company that will reach FAANG size without some new technological revolution.
laurent92 6y ago
Long-term economic cycles, 70+ years long (Kondratiev cycles if I remember my classes) are linked to deep trends: Petrol appears, we rework all cities around petrol distribution, new opportunities are built, then stagnate then comes global warming and we undo all of this and people grow out of it. I associate Paul Graham’s single cycle example to the one of petroleum. And the new cycle is of the computer age. And there will be S&Ps and world domination and boring climb-the-ladder careers and the stagnation of the 1990ies, but in 2090. The bad news is, companies which exist during the ramp-up phase are also the major players until the stagnation phase. That’s why stakes are so high and valuations with dozens of multiples: A share of the right company today is a share in the control of the world in 2060.

Im curious, if we wait, say, 40 more years, I wonder will the richest people again be heirs (of today's current crop of tech billionaires)? If so, what does that mean for Paul's hypothesis?

strikelaserclaw 6y ago

undoubtedly, unless we have a new revolution like the personal computing/internet revolution that makes the pie bigger and accessible for people, and those types of revolution are things that you can hardly for-see.

gfodor 6y ago
The internet isn't a revolution, but a meta-revolution. It seems to me we will be harvesting the value of the second order revolutions from the Internet for a long time.
- strikelaserclaw 6y ago
  you are right but will those harvesting the value be individuals or corporations. Gone are those days when u can build a billion dollar company over a weekend, and i suspect the trend towards increasing technological complexity will continue, at some point any field where advances are to be made will be untouchable except by very few individuals with highly specialized knowledge and corporations.
spaetzleesser 6y ago
"undoubtedly, unless we have a new revolution like the personal computing/internet revolution that makes the pie bigger and accessible for people, and those types of revolution are things that you can hardly for-see. " It seems the computing revolution lead to a massive concentration of wealth.

fullshark 6y ago

I guess the fundamental question is are we at the tail end of the Information age, does it have more room to grow, or is there a new technological shift on the horizon? Paul seems to take it for granted ("how people get rich NOW") that we have room to grow but who knows?

strikelaserclaw 6y ago
The information age has room to grow i believe, but will that be spearheaded by adventurous individuals or by big corporations remains to be seen. Most startups these days are either derivatives of existing products or highly specialized in so far as they know their end game is just to be bought out by one of the big tech companies. I find it hard to believe we will see a brand new company that will reach FAANG size without some new technological revolution.

laurent92 6y ago

Long-term economic cycles, 70+ years long (Kondratiev cycles if I remember my classes) are linked to deep trends: Petrol appears, we rework all cities around petrol distribution, new opportunities are built, then stagnate then comes global warming and we undo all of this and people grow out of it. I associate Paul Graham’s single cycle example to the one of petroleum. And the new cycle is of the computer age. And there will be S&Ps and world domination and boring climb-the-ladder careers and the stagnation of the 1990ies, but in 2090. The bad news is, companies which exist during the ramp-up phase are also the major players until the stagnation phase. That’s why stakes are so high and valuations with dozens of multiples: A share of the right company today is a share in the control of the world in 2060.