Depending on your priorities and your constraints, there's a sort of "optimal" time to enter the market. If you look at the technology adoption curve, early ado

Depending on your priorities and your constraints, there's a sort of "optimal" time to enter the market. If you look at the technology adoption curve, early adopters are those with excess cash. If you don't have excess cash, your money is better spent entering the cycle later, when the technology evolution is close to plateauing (when all the major issues have been sorted out, and now the improvements are only marginal). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle For infrastructure, some countries (rich ones) can be early adopters, because early adoption means more cash outlay for technology that is still rapidly evolving and will likely be outdated soon, which requires replacement. But poorer countries might find it more prudent to be Early Majority or Late Majority adopters. Consider subway systems -- early adopters like NYC made it possible for technology to improve. But if you look at subways in Asia, many systems are far more technologically advanced than NY's MTA because they came online later, when train technology had matured and they could afford more with less $. We need early adopters, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be an early adopter.