Last night I watched an interesting presentation by Fred Wilson (New York VC) where he talks (at LeWeb in Paris) about the big 3 technology trends shaping our world. In his view, they are 1) non-hierarchical networks (think Twitter vs. newspapers); 2) unbundling; and 3) smartphones (the most obvious of the 3). It’s a great talk even if you’re not interested in technology per se, because these trends are impacting virtually every industry, from banking to education.

This morning Fred wrote a post on his blog called “The Limits of Capitalism." And I think it’s an excellent follow-up to his talk on the future. I would also classify myself as a capitalist, but I also think that unfettered capitalism will eventually break down. And in the context of the changes outlined in his presentation, I think we need to think long and hard about how we’re going to—not stop them from happening, because they’re inevitable—but best cope with them.

Because already we’re seeing rising income inequality and a complete “bifurcation of the labor market into high-skill and low-skill jobs." And that in turn is impacting our cities. In fact, that bifurcation is what largely got Rob Ford elected here in Toronto.

Earlier this week when I responded to a Globe and Mail article that was arguing condo rents were on the decline in Toronto, I talked about how imperfect and opaque I feel the real estate market is. Today I’d like expand on that.

The reason I call the real estate industry imperfect is because of 2 main reasons: first, there’s a lot of friction when it comes to buying and selling as a result of high transaction costs (amongst other things); and, second, there are massive information asymmetries between marketplace participants. This could be buyers and sellers, purchasers and developers, clients and real estate agents, and so on.

But it’s only a matter of time before these issues get resolved. And I think it’ll happen through better access to data and more transparency in the marketplace. The question, however, is: Where is this big data going to come from?

I was reading Fred Wilson’s post this morning on Large Networks, Big Data, and Healthcare, and I was struck by a parallel. Here’s what stood out for me:

“The question is who will control the input of the patient data, the aggregated data sets, and the results the data science produces. If the answer is the current healthcare system; the insurance companies, the hospitals, and the doctors, then we will have missed a big opportunity to reshape healthcare. If, on the other hand, the data is entered by patients, controlled by patients, and benefits patients, then we would have something new, different, and disruptive.”

In both healthcare and real estate, we have large bureaucratic institutions and bodies that control the industry. And in both instances, we’ve seen that they’ve been slow to adapt to the changing times. Therefore, I think the billion dollar opportunity is the same in both: the data is going to have to come from the ground up via patients and real estate consumers. Only then will we have something truly innovative.

New York VC Fred Wilson wrote a blog post yesterday called “Writing It Down." In it he talks about why he blogs everyday. It’s worth reading. If you’re into tech, you should also read his linked post on Twitter. After reading it, I thought I should come clean about something: He’s one of the main reasons I decided to start blogging. I saw what he was doing and I felt inspired. The other reason is that I started blogging for Dirt and really enjoyed it. I’m trying to also do it daily, but so far I haven’t made any public promises on that front. I’d rather under promise and over deliver. I’ve been an avid reader of Fred’s blog for awhile now. What I find really powerful is that it has become a mechanism for him to get his thoughts out and into the world and to get feedback on them. Sometimes his posts can be a definitive how-to (such as his MBA Monday lessons) and in other cases it’s clear that he himself isn’t sure of the answer, but that he wants to put it out there for discussion. And I think that’s a great way to be. There’s wisdom in crowds. At the same time, when I decided to start blogging personally, I told myself that even if nobody reads my stuff that I’d still be getting value out of it. That’s because writing forces you to think about things to a greater extent than if you, well, just sat and thought about them. I like that. However, I do hope that my blog will end up getting read by others because I’m interested in happenstance. I’m interested in the chance that like-minded individuals will read one of my posts about cities and reach out to me, or introduce me to somebody I should meet.  When you put yourself out there, I think you also open yourself up to opportunities.

Last night I watched an interesting presentation by Fred Wilson (New York VC) where he talks (at LeWeb in Paris) about the big 3 technology trends shaping our world. In his view, they are 1) non-hierarchical networks (think Twitter vs. newspapers); 2) unbundling; and 3) smartphones (the most obvious of the 3). It’s a great talk even if you’re not interested in technology per se, because these trends are impacting virtually every industry, from banking to education.

This morning Fred wrote a post on his blog called “The Limits of Capitalism." And I think it’s an excellent follow-up to his talk on the future. I would also classify myself as a capitalist, but I also think that unfettered capitalism will eventually break down. And in the context of the changes outlined in his presentation, I think we need to think long and hard about how we’re going to—not stop them from happening, because they’re inevitable—but best cope with them.

Because already we’re seeing rising income inequality and a complete “bifurcation of the labor market into high-skill and low-skill jobs." And that in turn is impacting our cities. In fact, that bifurcation is what largely got Rob Ford elected here in Toronto.

Earlier this week when I responded to a Globe and Mail article that was arguing condo rents were on the decline in Toronto, I talked about how imperfect and opaque I feel the real estate market is. Today I’d like expand on that.

The reason I call the real estate industry imperfect is because of 2 main reasons: first, there’s a lot of friction when it comes to buying and selling as a result of high transaction costs (amongst other things); and, second, there are massive information asymmetries between marketplace participants. This could be buyers and sellers, purchasers and developers, clients and real estate agents, and so on.

But it’s only a matter of time before these issues get resolved. And I think it’ll happen through better access to data and more transparency in the marketplace. The question, however, is: Where is this big data going to come from?

I was reading Fred Wilson’s post this morning on Large Networks, Big Data, and Healthcare, and I was struck by a parallel. Here’s what stood out for me:

“The question is who will control the input of the patient data, the aggregated data sets, and the results the data science produces. If the answer is the current healthcare system; the insurance companies, the hospitals, and the doctors, then we will have missed a big opportunity to reshape healthcare. If, on the other hand, the data is entered by patients, controlled by patients, and benefits patients, then we would have something new, different, and disruptive.”

In both healthcare and real estate, we have large bureaucratic institutions and bodies that control the industry. And in both instances, we’ve seen that they’ve been slow to adapt to the changing times. Therefore, I think the billion dollar opportunity is the same in both: the data is going to have to come from the ground up via patients and real estate consumers. Only then will we have something truly innovative.

New York VC Fred Wilson wrote a blog post yesterday called “Writing It Down." In it he talks about why he blogs everyday. It’s worth reading. If you’re into tech, you should also read his linked post on Twitter. After reading it, I thought I should come clean about something: He’s one of the main reasons I decided to start blogging. I saw what he was doing and I felt inspired. The other reason is that I started blogging for Dirt and really enjoyed it. I’m trying to also do it daily, but so far I haven’t made any public promises on that front. I’d rather under promise and over deliver. I’ve been an avid reader of Fred’s blog for awhile now. What I find really powerful is that it has become a mechanism for him to get his thoughts out and into the world and to get feedback on them. Sometimes his posts can be a definitive how-to (such as his MBA Monday lessons) and in other cases it’s clear that he himself isn’t sure of the answer, but that he wants to put it out there for discussion. And I think that’s a great way to be. There’s wisdom in crowds. At the same time, when I decided to start blogging personally, I told myself that even if nobody reads my stuff that I’d still be getting value out of it. That’s because writing forces you to think about things to a greater extent than if you, well, just sat and thought about them. I like that. However, I do hope that my blog will end up getting read by others because I’m interested in happenstance. I’m interested in the chance that like-minded individuals will read one of my posts about cities and reach out to me, or introduce me to somebody I should meet.  When you put yourself out there, I think you also open yourself up to opportunities.