Videos
.Bill Ackman did something almost no public company CEO would ever do. $PSUS $PS He finished his earnings call, then hoped on an X Space and let anyone ask him anything. He took every question and then told a room full of anonymous accounts that they make him a better investor.
Patrick F. Feeley362,409 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat
From 1870 to 1900, the median American working-class person more than doubled their real wealth. Joe Lonsdale told Dave Rubin that AI is early innings of that kind of industrial revolution again. His point is simple. Productivity growth is finally turning up in the parts of the economy that are scaling fast. The only durable way societies get wealthier is by doing more with less. When Rubin presses whether that surge is basically tech and AI, Lonsdale does not hedge: the productivity story is AI, applying better ways of doing things, and we have already lived through these transitions before. If that is right, a lot of the market debate is aimed at the wrong spot. People keep arguing about whether AI is good or evil, or whether robber-baron eras were moral failures. Lonsdale is saying look at what happened to the median worker in one generation. Schools still teach that period as a villain story. The historical pattern is that these transitions are massively good for the average person, create jobs as well as destroy them, and this cycle may move even faster than the last one. From my seat the screen is simple. Prefer companies that convert AI into measurable output per worker, not narratives that treat automation as pure demand destruction. Prefer sectors where better methods are already showing up in smaller, fast-scaling pockets of productivity, because that is where the Fed-relevant data and the equity compounding show up first. And if Lonsdale is right that this accelerates over the next couple of years, the mistake is pricing AI like a cultural crisis instead of pricing it like early industrial-revolution productivity growth.
Patrick F. Feeley74,960 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen
Here's what the AI job collapse narrative gets wrong about the productivity boom. Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 told Lenny Rachitsky the last 50 years ran at half the pace of the prior era and a third the pace of a century ago. Almost no real technological progress in the economy. Remarkably little job turnover as a result. Even if AI triples productivity growth, a massive deal, job turnover only returns to the 1870 to 1930 rate. People living through that period did not experience collapse. They experienced a world awash with opportunity. New careers. New products. New services. A huge part of the modern world was invented and scaled in that window. Tripling the pace of change does not produce mass unemployment. It produces faster economic growth and faster job growth. Some task-level and job-level substitution will happen. It will be swamped by the macro effects of growth and innovation. Hiring blooms follow.The panic assumes dynamism destroys work. History treated that same dynamism as the engine of new work.
Patrick F. Feeley48,517 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen
Keine weiteren Inhalte verfügbar