So you're saying that when the Economist says "But the Valley’s influence over the future of consumers and capitalism is here to stay. It has become a nexus of

So you're saying that when the Economist says "But the Valley’s influence over the future of consumers and capitalism is here to stay. It has become a nexus of dealmaking and fortune-seeking, a realm of creativity and wild ideas, and it will remain so.", it is wrong? (I wonder if the first comenters actually read the article...)