The final advice is "invest in tech stuff, because there's a lot of opportunities in the old big companies". That's true, but there's some stuff in between about the old big companies being doomed (as in Oil companies going bankrupt). I don't really agree with that reasoning.

The thing I don't quite know is how the tech culture is going to generate a replacement to Johnson&Johnson in the next 20 years.

Unilever bought dollar shave club, right? So that's good for investors. But if all the big companies buy the successful unicorns.... didn't the big companies win? A win/win, sure, but not the "GE is finished" sort of opening.

I think that a core argument here is that SV can come in and eat these conglomerate's lunches in certain verticals. But that's fine! So many of these companies are in so many domains that having one division go to zero is something that's happened at the beginning of time, right?

So there's an argument that going against these huge companies is a Good Idea(TM). But the success of the SV company does not mean the collapse of GE/J&J/Coca-Cola. Not to mention Wal-Mart.

Amazon is a good counter-example to what I'm saying, as it has taken significant market share from so many different industries. I wonder if SV really has the guts to make "real" capital investments like with Amazon again.

Space X happened because a billionaire just through all his money in, but the "traditional" financing companies (banks) are making those kinds of big bets all the time! I think we're still a ways off from capital-intensive startups ("real money") from getting those. Especially with the 20+ year lead time necessary.

I kinda see the argument for oil going to zero, but transportation is only 1/3rd of oil expenditure. I think Exxon-Mobil will still sell stuff for a while.