History shows that transformative technologies like aviation created immense societal value without concentrating wealth in a few companies. AI could follow this path, with its benefits being widely distributed through commoditization, challenging the multi-trillion dollar valuations of today's leading firms.

The assumption that AI will create trillions in corporate profit overlooks a key economic reality: only 1% of global GDP is profit above the cost of capital. Intense competition in AI will likely drive prices down, meaning the vast majority of economic benefits will be passed to consumers, not captured by a few monopolistic companies.

Like containerization, AI is a transformative technology where value may accrue to customers and users, not the creators of the core infrastructure. The biggest fortunes from containerization were made by companies like Nike and Apple that leveraged global supply chains, not by investors in the container companies themselves.

A technology like AI can create immense societal value without generating wealth for its early investors or creators. The value can be captured by consumers through lower prices or by large incumbents who leverage the technology. Distinguishing between value creation and value capture is critical for investment analysis.

Drawing on Schumpeterian economics, Andreessen explains that new technologies like AI deliver ~99% of their economic value to users, not creators. This "consumer surplus" is the massive, uncaptured benefit that improves lives and businesses. Competition between tech giants is a battle over the remaining 1% of captured value.

Applying Schumpeterian economics, Andreessen argues that like previous transformative technologies, nearly all of AI's economic value will accrue to its users, not its creators. This "consumer surplus"—the productivity and life improvements for billions of people—will dwarf the profits of companies like OpenAI or Google.

History shows that transformative innovations like airlines, vaccines, and PCs, while beneficial to society, often fail to create sustained, concentrated shareholder value as they become commoditized. This suggests the massive valuations in AI may be misplaced, with the technology's benefits accruing more to users than investors in the long run.

During major platform shifts like AI, it's tempting to project that companies will capture all the value they create. However, competitive forces ensure the vast majority of productivity gains (the "surplus") flows to end-users, not the technology creators.

The most profound innovations in history, like vaccines, PCs, and air travel, distributed value broadly to society rather than being captured by a few corporations. AI could follow this pattern, benefiting the public more than a handful of tech giants, especially with geopolitical pressures forcing commoditization.