Power is shifting from open participation in a global market to controlling access between siloed communities (e.g., finance, tech, government). Individuals who can bridge these worlds and broker relationships, like operators on a medieval trade route, accumulate immense power and value.
By owning both the launch capability (SpaceX) and the network (Starlink), Musk could exert ultimate control over internet infrastructure. This creates a scenario where he could deny network access to rivals, like OpenAI, representing a powerful and unprecedented form of vertical integration.
For novel hardware like AI glasses, forcing in-person purchase at retailers like LensCrafters allows for guided setup. This strategy minimizes negative reviews from untrained users, ensuring early adopters have a positive experience and become advocates, even at the cost of sales friction.
Assets like launch capabilities, energy access, or media influence may not generate strong cash flows but provide immense strategic leverage. In an era of competing power blocs, controlling these strategic assets is becoming more valuable than traditional financial metrics suggest, a shift that markets struggle to price.
Seemingly strange deals, like NVIDIA investing in companies that then buy its GPUs, serve a deep strategic purpose. It's not just financial engineering; it's a way to forge co-dependent alliances, secure its central role in the ecosystem, and effectively anoint winners in the AI arms race.
For the first time in years, leading-edge tech is incredibly expensive. This requires structured finance and massive capital, bringing Wall Street back to the table after being sidelined by cash-rich tech giants. The chaos and expense of AI create a new, lucrative playground for financiers.
The core conflict isn't just about AI philosophy. Both Musk and Altman possess the rare skill of brokering multi-billion dollar capital flows from finance into deep tech. They are direct competitors for controlling this crucial 'trade route' of capital, which is the true source of their animosity.
Companies like Google were so cash-rich they didn't need Wall Street or other powerful trading partners. This financial independence meant that when they faced political threats, they lacked a coalition of powerful allies whose own financial interests were tied to their survival, making them politically vulnerable.