Maybe I'm reading a bit too much in it, but the top comments seem to have a bit of discriminatory tone: China = pyramid scheme or money laundering. When 1997, 2007, SF real-estate, unicorns with no earnings, all happen(ed/ing) in the US, in addition to Bernie Madoff. The original article topic is industrial companies buying tech and the arbitraging of valuations.
Yes, I see it too. On the other hand, the Saudi-Softbank deal is viewed as a way to diversify and not to launder money.
I think maybe you are reading too much into it. Adding "value" to a company's bottom line by purchasing assets COMPLETELY outside of the core competency of the company tilts the scales toward cooking the books and away from creating actual value.
Why? Berkshire Hathaway did this in the past. Holding companies can be well diversified.
No, I'm saying is: you're right "1997, 2007, SF real-estate, unicorns with no earnings, all happen(ed/ing) in the US" - and now there is a similar thing happening in China too.
SF is really productive these days (much more than even a few years ago), and, per George, productivity increases are captured in land value.
look at all that money flowing into SF, those guys are super productive