

Wall Street analyst: in 2016, Facebook will have six trillion dollars in annual revenue - byrneseyeview
http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/08/the-six-trillio.html

======
bilbo0s
I believe that some of these 'analysts' are in need of help with a more full
understanding of economics. Particularly the seemingly external factors that
turn out to be fundamentals when thinking about economies. Energy inputs
necessary to generate 'wealth' for example. What population would be necessary
to support that level of economic activity. Keep in mind that the larger your
population, the more of your fixed amount of energy resources you will need to
do simple support of the population outside of other economic activities.

I am somewhat uncertain as to whether this is a misprint, however, I felt
compelled to point out that US$6 trillion is an enormous amount of economic
activity. By way of comparison, WalMart's revenue is about US$350 billion.
Global telecom market sits somewhere between US$1 trillion and US$3 trillion
depending on how we count things. The energy inputs that go into supporting
this economic activity are mind boggling. Keep in mind that these industries
invest a great deal in keeping those energy inputs to a minimum, that is, they
invest in 'efficiency'. Still the inputs are incredulous! I suspect energy
efficiency is not a strength that Facebook is possessed of.

I am fairly confident that this is the point that Warren Buffet would pose a
question like will people need more Facebook than food? Maybe they will. I
just ask that everyone try to keep in mind everything that needs to happen for
Facebook to reach those numbers.

Then again . . . Maybe he is factoring in the crash of the US Dollar . . .

Never mind.

~~~
nostrademons
$6T is roughly half of the total U.S. GDP. Assuming that U.S. GDP grows at
typical 3% rates or so over the next 10 years, this is saying that FaceBook
will account for ~40% of the U.S. economy by 2016.

Something about that seems a little wrong to me...

~~~
bilbo0s
You're right . . .

Even with a crash, this is just asinine.

It's that midwestern courtesy of mine. It obliges me, at times, to simply
point out the deficiencies in arguments for silly positions as opposed to
dismissing them out of hand. It is difficult to imagine a scenario culminating
in the situation that the analyst postulates.

AAarrrggghhh!!!

I just did it again!!!

Listen to nostrademons.

------
henning
Disco Stu: "Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year
ending 1976? If these trends continue -- _eyyyy!_ "

------
Jd
Seems to be some confusion.

Article gives Facebook a ~$6 billion valuation today.

It then says that after we have evolved into transhumans Facebook will have
6,049,602,150 billion dollars worth of revenue. This is actually $6
quintillion, not $6 trillion.

I'm assuming this is something of a joke, or a typo. Probably the former?

------
mynameishere
The six trillian revenue is possible if we have the Weimer-like inflation some
are predicting.

"So, what's it really worth?" is a question best answered with another
question, "...before or after the next flash in the pan replaces it?"

------
rms
If anyone believed that, wouldn't Yahoo have paid facebook the 12 billion they
wanted?

------
epi0Bauqu
The article says 6 Billion not 6 Trillion.

~~~
Jd
Actually, it says 6,049,602 Trillion

~~~
epi0Bauqu
Hmm...when I click on the link, it says "and projects Facebook ad revenue as
$6,049,602,150 billion!" in the middle of the text (end of second paragraph).
Maybe we are looking in different places?

~~~
epi0Bauqu
Oh I see what you are saying. No, I don't think they meant to say that number
and then put another 9 zeros after it. I think they meant it to have it read
as the number printed, i.e. what you would say aloud when reading if the word
billion was not printed. Of course, one of us could actually register and read
(or at least skim) the analyst document :)

~~~
Jd
true true. However, the bit about telepathy led me to think that it might be
tongue and cheek. I don't care enough to go and check, but if you do...

:P

