Twitter’s future: What would Hegel and Malthus say?
Q2 results show that Wall Street underestimated Twitter’s earning while the public overestimated it. What will Q3 and Q4 show? More of the same. What about 2015 earnings? Beginning of improvement. Let’s use ideas from 2 of the greatest economic thinkers in human history, Hegel and Malthus: For every phenomenon there is an anti-phenonmenon. The difference between the P and the Anti-P determines the progress of the Anti-P. Translating it to Twitter, it means that Twitter’s success depends on being intelligently different from Facebook. That is analysis 1 (A1) and I don’t see it coming, in fact Twitter tries to imitate Facebook.. Facebook has already established itself as the P. For Twitter to become the Anti-P (like GM became the successful Anti-Ford in the US in 1900), it needs to find out how Instagram, Yik Yak, Whisper and the other social media are emerging. That is Analysis 2 (A2). So, the conclusion is that, philosophically thinking, for Twitter to be successful it needs to be different from Facebook in major ways (Twitter made a mistake last year trying to compete with Facebook by adopting a similar platform) and it needs to make sure the other social media companies don’t emerge as challengers (Buy them?). Twitter may find earnings or actually its identity next year but not next Quarter. It has more problems than Hegel’s or Malthus challenge. For example, it is psychologically stupid to have a Founding CEO on the board and a secondary director as CEO. I call this Boardism in my book on investing. Yet, Twitter’s future is good if it becomes the Anti-P ,not trying to replace the P but trying to get rid of the other SM companies. And, a last thought, in my book when an investor faces a situation like Twitter’s ups and downs, he resorts to a method of investing I call Stocks stacking (see Page 23).