The 0.01% Question

Every major leap in technology reshapes who holds power — and who doesn’t.

The Industrial Revolution created a new class of factory tycoons and financiers. The oil age crowned energy barons. The internet minted tech billionaires who’ve reshaped markets, media, and even the way we think. Each time, a new elite has risen, often concentrating power faster than the old one ever imagined.

Now, a new era is upon us: one fueled by artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing, and autonomous systems. And once again, the gains look like they will go to the very top — not just the top 1%, but the top 0.01%. That’s one person in 10,000. And today, that group controls nearly half of the world’s wealth.

It’s a staggering figure. And unless something changes, the future may not look like a Star Trek utopia of shared abundance, but something closer to a techno-feudal society — where access to opportunity, health, and even longer life becomes a luxury good for the few.

The Trap of Permanent Elites

We’ve always believed, or at least hoped, that disruption eventually levels the field. That the mighty can fall and the unknown can rise. And we can cite many examples from the past. However, it seems as if the new generation of business owners continues to orient themselves to the ultra-empowered. So, the question is whether the next iteration of creators can unseat the current group — or if it is even possible to grow new capabilities powerful enough to challenge them.

What if today’s elites are building systems so robust — and so closed — that no new players can break in?

Think about it: AI models trained on massive proprietary data sets, controlled by just a handful of companies. Drug development pipelines funded by trillion-dollar portfolios. Robotics infrastructure, cloud computing, and space platforms — all increasingly privatized. Add to that the quiet rewriting of political influence via lobbyists, media ownership, and social platforms, and you start to see the architecture of something dangerously permanent.

We’ve stopped talking about the American Dream. We’ve started talking about manufactured dominance — influence that’s not passed down through family but constructed from code, capital, and control. We see influence being peddled by multi-billionaires and conflicts among them — George Soros and Elon Musk come to mind — and that influence is echoed and amplified by the press and social media, often to the point where it’s difficult to discern what’s real and what’s not.

One thing we are seeing with AI, though, is a notable exception: an open model where access to large datasets and emerging tools — like ChatGPT and others — is available to anyone with a network connection and a moderately capable computer. This open access may be the key to the future, as it allows almost anyone to build something innovative without a billion-dollar head start.

Could the Cycle Break?

History tells us that no elite lasts forever. The Roman aristocracy gave way to feudal lords, who were ultimately displaced by merchant capitalists. Industrialists eventually bowed to digital moguls. Disruption has a funny way of showing up just when everyone assumes the game is over.

So, could it happen again?

Possibly. But it would take more than just technology. It would take access:

• Open-source AI that can be harnessed by anyone with a laptop, not just trillion-dollar computing budgets.
• Decentralized finance that puts capital into the hands of small innovators instead of institutional gatekeepers.
• Radical education models that teach critical thinking, not just test-taking — especially in places currently left behind. (This will probably take a multinational push to accomplish,)
• Community-led innovation hubs, where ideas are grown locally rather than extracted by coastal VCs.

These aren’t guarantees. But they are signs of permeability — and maybe seeds for a new, more inclusive elite.

Why This Matters — Even If You’re Retired

At this point in life, I’m not looking to start the next unicorn company or to run for office. But I am still invested — emotionally, morally, and yes, financially — in the world we’re shaping.

The systems we endorse and the ideas we support now will shape the guardrails of the next generation’s economy. Our legacy isn’t just financial — it’s cultural, ethical, and intellectual. We’ve seen how quickly things can shift, and we know that unless change is deliberately encouraged, the default path is concentration, not diffusion.

Maybe we can’t write the next chapter ourselves — but we can underline the parts worth keeping and question the ones that need revision. Let’s be the conversation starters at family dinners, the ones who ask, “Who really benefits from this?” and “How could this work better for more people?” And encourage our kids and grandkids to question assumptions. Support policies that widen the playing field.

Even modest influence, multiplied over years and generations, has power.

Final Thought: Power Shifts — But Only If We Push

The 0.01% are not evil. Many are brilliant. Some are generous. But no system should depend on the benevolence of billionaires.

Real change requires friction. It requires competition, access, and the belief that anyone — not just someone already in the club — can change the world.

Much of the accumulation of wealth today stems from how stock is created and distributed. Founders keep controlling shares, and as valuations rise, those tightly held shares become extremely valuable due to scarcity. As a result, value accrues disproportionately — and a structural imbalance is locked in. We may need new models for ownership that rewards contribution and innovation more equitably, rather than just early placement.

And let’s not forget: consumer demand is the fuel for all this. No matter how innovative a product may be, it’s the wide-scale adoption — the buying, subscribing, engaging — that lifts companies into stratospheric value. If we can find ways for consumers to also be stakeholders — whether through cooperatives, decentralized networks, or local innovation — we might begin to redistribute not just wealth but ownership.

The giants of today didn’t emerge in a vacuum. Microsoft wasn’t the only operating system; Google wasn’t the only search engine; Amazon wasn’t the only online store. They won by doing it better, faster, more cleverly. That’s a fair game. But if the cost of entry becomes so high that new challengers can’t even get on the field, we’re in trouble. And with AI likely to be the next frontier, we risk repeating the pattern — unless we act.

I’ve lived long enough to see power rise, fall, and reassemble itself in new forms. The one thing that never changes is the idea that the future can still surprise us.

So here’s the final question I’ll leave you with: What kind of future are we willing to fight for — and what kind of power are we willing to challenge?