Re: [projectvrm] Dan Lyons Book "Disrupted"

[Guy Higgins < >]

Re companies with multi-billion dollar valuations and no profits ‹
Professor Carlotta Perez¹s book Technological Revolutions may provide some
insight into that phenomenon ‹ from an historical perspective.  She has
identified patterns in investment history:
1.  Investors plow money into new technologies in the expectation that the
stock price will rise (without considering whether or not the company
actually produces anything other than (potentially) infrastructure).
2.  This investment creates a bubble
3.  The bubble collapses
4.  Society figures out how to deal with the new technology (VRM in this
case?)
5.  Investors re-enter the market, this time investing in companies that
leverage the previously created infrastructure and have adapted to the
societally developed response to the new technology
6.  New products arise generating new jobs, wages increase, profits
increase ‹ everybody¹s happy until
7.  The new technology passes the ³knee in the curve² and stops returning
acceptable investments and the new technology becomes the old technology
8.  Investors stockpile money waiting for new opportunities
9.  A new technology is developed drawing investors seeking BIG returns by
investing in the expectation that the companies with this new technology
will succeed and that the stock price will rise, generating gains even
without company profits
10.  A new bubble Š

You get the idea.

Professor Perez depicts a series of cycles with variable length (but in
decades - not years) going back to the early 19th century.

Maybe valid, maybe not, but an interesting idea ‹ one that adheres to the
³all moving parts are connected to all moving parts² paradigm I learned in
1975.

Guy


On 6/3/16, 12:10 , "katherine" 
<
 >
 wrote:

>Has anyone read Dan Lyons' book "Disrupted"?  It is about his journalist
>career interruption as a content writer for Hub Spot.  The book is an
>indictment of the system that generates companies with multi-billion
>dollar valuations and no profits. But the epilogue really gets into
>privacy issues. He articulates the irony that the only way you can
>protect yourself is to opt out but no one wants to opt out of the
>Internet. 
>
>For what it is worth . . . .
>
>Katherine Warman Kern
>
>
>