Alex Imas

It could be a human intrinsic product.

Right.

Although...

If it's a human intrinsic product, we would want to have it much more in the future than we want it now because the thing it compares against is... So we might want it the same as we want it now in the sense that the marginal utility in a ballerina performance is exactly the same as now, right?

Yeah, right.

But now we're talking about the consumption world, whereas for the investment side of things, there could be just some greedy titan of industry who keeps wanting more and more robots.

And that alone would be enough?

It would.

To increase the marginal value of robots and therefore decrease labor share?

Yes.

Okay.

But why are we not expecting greedy titans of industry to keep existing?

Yeah.

I mean, I guess it is sort of a historical question, but it does seem to me in a lot of cases, what is happening is,

is that as near the end of their life, they either hand it off to their children, who are worse stewards of capital than they are, and they don't even manage to grow their wealth at the rate the economy grows, much less fast than the economy grows, which their parents were doing.

And also they're like, well, I care less about my children having it than me sort of playing this game of accumulating wealth.

And so I'm just going to give it to some trust.

And if people are living longer or if they can figure out some way in which to align,

their trust to this wealth accumulation process.

It just feels like the evolution here is so strong where you just need a couple of agents that think this way for this to be the dominant thing, determining the preferences of the whole economy, because this part is growing much faster than the other parts of the economy.