Response#2: Personal Rise of Fake Wealth

Readwriteweb gives an interesting breakdown by Bernard Lunn of two web 2.0 giants Twitter and Facebook recent infusion of investment capital.  I recently started keeping track of my own stock portfolio, by way of my brother who handles most of that stuff.  I am actually using the original stock tracker App on the Iphone and it is strange how the day by day fluctuations of stock prices, particularly Apple (my only stock winner) fascinate me to no end.  The money I had initially handed over to my brother to invest is real but the value of the Apple stock has doubled since then so I have ostensibly fake wealth that I can’t directly get to.

If Facebook ever makes an IPO, I want to be there to pick up a share or hundred because it apparently is turning a profit and while the company’s ad revenue is sure to stabilize as it expands into the less lucrative international markets, I agree with Lunn’s accessment that if there is a bubble 2.0, Facebook will like not fall victim to it.  I know it’s a leap, but is strikes me that what has become the Blogger/Twitter model of sticking it out until you get bought out that Ev Williams stumbled into, and that has become the developer wet dream is not unlike the picking a long-term stock for the next big company and hoping that some day the value of the stock will be high enough that someone wants to buy it off you.  The question I have is, in the stock market, people tend to buy stocks with the expectation that the monetary value will increase not the cultural value (i.e. Twitter).  We are entering an age where the ‘cultural capital’ of social media is gaining more clout over of financial capital, but its even detached from the idea of the market articulated in Cluetrain, as what has value is not actual stuff, but digital representations of stuff.  Markets are quite literally conversations, a bazaar of ideas and not items. More to come. -n


Filed under Responses

2 responses to “Response#2: Personal Rise of Fake Wealth

  1. Good stuff. I’m not sure about the Blogger/Twitter model being the same. Blogger was on the ropes being run out of a living room when Google snatched it. Twitter seems somewhat different, accumulating more and more funding while spurning no shortage of suitors.

  2. nishsuvarnakar

    True. My point about Twitter as is stated in the article is that unlike Facebook that generates ad revenue the only endgame for Twitter is being bought out. Unlike Facebook, which concievably can go IPO, there is no motivation to trade it publically. The motivation to invest $100 million is the valuation is $1 billion. You only get your money if it is bought outright for $1billion+.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s