i'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me, i too would like technology to be defined properly. i think the common understanding of technology would be confined to things like gadgets, software, automation. economists seem to use more of a civ version of the word, which includes things like writing, buddhism, plastic. if technology is not framed as "everything else", i'd be curious to know what kinds of things are used in the production function but don't fall in one of the three buckets. however, i'm more curious to know which bucket ai ends up in. i think most people would call it a technology, but i could be persuaded to stick it in capital (tool) or labor (brain).
this is an interesting topic, thanks for the great post. i find it frustrating that economists use some non-standard definitions for common words (i'm not looking for precise definitions but consistent definitons would be helpful). in the context of the solow-swan model, i think the definitions/buckets would be something like:
input: raw materials, energy, timecapital: tools, infrastructure, liquid assetslabor: people, effort, skillstechnology: everything else (including things like research, entrepreneurship, political institutions)output: consumption goods, services
is this right? i think "technology" is the term that's farthest from its common usage.
I'll add that for competitive games, you want to encourage your opponent to use more luck and less skill, for example by praising his superior dice rolling abilities, and reframe your skillful moves as totally lucky, no way that could happen again!
In poker, you'll sometimes see a player get upset and criticize his opponent if he loses a hand because the opponent made a lucky draw or call (how could you call that, only one card could help you!) Rational players understand that having the opponent call with a bad hand is the only way they make money, so they'll praise the lucky draw (great call, I just can't seem to beat you!)
If I can summarize your question as something like "can I beat the returns on an index fund by only investing in companies with new/useful technologies", I think you'll find this question is similar to "which version of the EMH is true", and you'll also find a lot of good discussions about this, for example here: https://www.themoneyillusion.com/are-there-any-good-arguments-against-the-emh
For the two stories presented, I would say Story 1 is trivially true and Story 2 is probably false, although it's not phrased super well (for example, is "advances in technology" company specific or general economic growth?). Trying to read between the lines, it seems like you're wondering something like "if my choice to invest is between two companies, and Company 1 has current cash flow of $1-million and future cash flow of $1-million (no growth), and Company 2 has current cash flow of zero but future cash flow of $1-trillion (lots of growth), should I always invest in Company 2?" And my answer is "no, unless you think weak EMH is true and there's a specific inefficiency that you can uncover through your research" ( and even then, your research might determine you should sell rather than buy Company 2).
To improve the framework, I suggest the following distinctions/assumptions:
Using this framework, you could change your question to something like "assuming weak EMH is true, what sorts of public information about a company's new/useful technologies would allow me to value a company more accurately than the average investor". Then you could search for studies that try to answer this question or something similar.
Thanks, I loved this post. Its obviously hard to distinguish luck from skill when it comes to investment returns, I don't think focusing on money and track record would be enough to convince me of skill. I think I would need to also rationally evaluate the investment strategy to determine if it can be reasonably expected to beat the market. Common strategies like "we do what everyone else does but better", or "we invest in value/growth" would probably not convince me (risk premiums, liquidity premiums, animal spirits probably affect market prices but probably not in a way that can only be reliably predicted by a "chosen one"). Strategies like "we have a data connection that's 1 millisecond faster" or "we hide microphones in every lawyer's office" seem like they have a chance to beat the market, but they're hard/expensive to pull off. With respect to covid, it wouldn't be enough to say "I knew stock prices would go down" without explaining how you knew, what your confidence was, how you determined your confidence and your prediction accuracy/confidence calibration (the lack of confidence estimates on predictions is a huge red flag for me). My sense is that when someone says "my intuition tells me stock prices will go down due to covid", what they mean is something like "the market price currently implies the risk of a global pandemic is 20%, but my intuition tells me it's closer to 50%, therefore stock prices should go down half the time and my returns should be positive after 2 or 3 global pandemics". However, even with hindsight, it seems hard to determine if the actual risk of a global covid pandemic in Feb 2020 was 20% or 50% or some other amount, so focusing on outcomes doesn't look reliable. It seems like evaluating the prediction process rather than the outcome would be an easier approach ("we hide microphones in all WHO offices" seems like it would work).
Have a look at www.blinkist.com, it sounds like what you're looking for, there's a website and a phone app. "Founded in 2012 by four friends, Blinkist now connects 6-million readers worldwide to the biggest ideas from bestselling nonfiction via 15-minute audio and text."
Also, this Atlantic article had a good comparison of Blinkist vs Wikipedia vs Reading The Book: www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/please-be-brief/417894/