Fair point, but I would argue there are some subtle differences this time around.
The industrial revolution was built on Fossil Fuel, and that had some consequences:-
- Ownership of resources was concentrated and unequal.
- Resources were non-renewable, but the main issue was a lag in ramping up supply.
- The lag above created inflation in times of economic growth feeding into many inflation->recession cycles.
- Using Fossil Fuels damaged the environment.
This time around:-
- Resources are more :- renewable, sustainable, global, equal and unlimited.
- Deflation should be a semi-permanent trend, inflation should be easier to control. (Lag in ramping additional supply reduced).
- Geography / resources isn't a major issue - most countries have roughly equal access to sufficient wind / sun.
- There is an opportunity to repair and improve the environment.
- Many countries have a declining birth-rate and an aging population - the labour problem needs to be solved.
- Knowledge and skill are more abundant and widely distributed
- Share ownership is much more widely distributed.
- Many retirement incomes are linked to the share market and in many cases to Fossil Fuels - specifically oil stocks - (Farm estates may have been the 1760 parallel).
Sure in the end, we get a whole new system in both cases, which doesn't match the previous system, the new system brings limitations and challenges.
The size of the disruption and the new opportunities needs to be considered when evaluating the future of all companies. We could argue that tech companies are immune. But the opportunity to start new tech companies is now more global, equal, and available, especially as energy and internet access become more widely available.
I really want to agree with your assertions.
However, there are some major negative consequences as well that are analogous with the Industrial revolution:
Consider GINI coefficient evolution from 1820 to today:
💵 global wealth🌍 ecological inequality💰 income inequality since 1820♀ gender inequality 👉 Check it out wir2022.wid.world👥 World Inequality Lab - WID.world
wir2022.wid.world
Like it or not the income distributions are now becoming even more skewed than they have been heretofore. In short in today's wool the technologically adept have rapidly rising wealth and income, while the illiterates and non-technologically adept are encountering lower income.
For much more diverse data try the OECD:
OECD.Stat enables users to search for and extract data from across OECD’s many databases.
stats.oecd.org
Using OECD dat it is difficult to miss the dramatic differences evolving in the OECD 28 countries:
This paper describes how household wealth is distributed in 28 OECD countries, based on evidence from the second wave of the OECD Wealth Distribution Database. A number of general patterns emerge from these data. First, wealth concentration is twice the level of income inequality: across the 28...
read.oecd-ilibrary.org
In short, the Industrial Revolution installed, for the first time in human history, a working elite who managed enterprises with rapidly increasing scale, then, by consequence, made much of the traditional peasantry into industrial laborers, losing residential and food semi-independence on the way.
In today's technological revolution income and wealth distribution is again becoming more unequal, and the importance of sound scientific and technological education is accelerating. It is no accident that Singapore and Estonia are two notable beneficiaries; both have small populations, superb health care, education and deep commitment to adopting new technologies.
In most other countries the situation is nearing crisis as populations shrink below replacement level (even China!), education and health care become less effective but more costly.
It si all of this that Elon Musk considers when he laments lack of engineering talent and need for raised with rates. For Tesla the consequences are profound:
-from robotaxi to Optimus to Giappress and Octovalve and much more...
-Tesla is moving towards fewer line workers but increased skill levels among those who remain;
-engineering talent becomes the rapidly increasing demand while;
-everything from factories to development becomes less labor intensive and more skill intensive.
That is precisely why Tesla, by mission definition, foresees a world in which the manual labor that has been ubiquitous in human history becomes largely eliminated. What happens then?
Elon argues for universal basic income. The implications go far beyond that, though, as few societies are even perceiving the impact now well on it's way.
Frankly, for TSLA all will probably be mostly sunny, hence HODL.
For traditional manufacturers the future is mostly bleak. Those who resist will fail.
For the fossil fuel industry and large consumers of fossil fuel rapid adaption is possible but unlikely.
As with the landed gentry of the pre-industrial age, many will hang on for a very long time, but increasingly threadbare.
If ever there is an argument for long term success for TSLA, all this macro-development is screaming the bullish story, the basic energy revolution repeating itself. The only question is whether this will happen quickly enough for humanity to thrive.
