4 ms·
I think it is much simpler than you described. Investing in Musk would drive technology up. Technology is great multiplier, if you have infrastructure to multi
by TrainedMonkey 13y ago
I think it is much simpler than you described.
Investing in Musk would drive technology up. Technology is great multiplier, if you have infrastructure to multiply it with.
Investing in Gates would drive up quality of life and help to build infrastructure in the first place.
It is obvious that investing in both is optimal strategy as investment in one increases eventual value of other investment.
- Zelphyr 13y agoI agree that investing in both is optimal. I'm unclear, however, how quality of life builds infrastructure?
- sukuriant 13y agoWhen you're no longer stressing about where you're going to get food for the next day, researching big ideas seems a lot more reachable
- ipsin 13y agoPeople who aren't struggling to survive have the luxury to spend time working on other things, like infrastructure. There's no guarantee that will happen, though.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- netcan 13y agoHow much cheaper or more accessible will the future version of the connected tablet be in 1-2 generations (25-50 years)? 20 years ago mobile phones were rare, expensive and not very good. What if the availability of energy takes a huge leap. Those things can have a profound effect on the productive capacity of a people born into it. Can the third world brands of 'education as a major challenge' be solved to the point where most kids have a decent chance by our standards? If those kinds of changes happen, part of that increase in productive capacity almost certainly will go into building infrastructure. Honestly I think that part of investing on a horizon like this and betting on either ambitious charities, companies or even in scientific research is that it's hard to know. Some people leave their endowments to Art and I'm not sure you can really coherently argue against it.