Difficult to call the top with any mania. It is especially more difficult now because many of the private AI companies would have been public already in the 1990s and their financials would have been available for scrutiny. Further, some of the mania has been diverted to Crypto assets, unavailable in the 1990s. I’ve been investing for so long I remember the 1973-4 bear market and the 1966-1982 dead money in equities with high inflation time period. I’ll quote Yogi: It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. Stay diversified my friends.
Some analysts say that the structure of the debt to build data centers is such that the big tech companies such as Meta are ultimately on the hook via lease obligations. If that is true, then is it possible that when the music stops, they, not the public or insurance companies etc. that bought the securitized debt, will be the losers--and their finances will be severely damaged?
Martin - This is a good point, but I'm not in a position to know how prevalent it is. Basically, if the "big tech" vendors are making lease payment or other guarantees (likely), indeed this shifts the risks a bit from the investors to these parties. The good news is that they can afford to pay up (at a great cost to THEIR stockholders), so it wouldn't lead to sudden catastrophic defaults. However, this logic doesn't apply to private AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. If THEY are underwriting the debt in some form, look out below! :)
This article strikes me as of the boy who cried wolf variety. Or she doth protest too much. Nothing to do with Trump Derangement Syndrome. No, no.
Nine months ago it was tariffs leading to 1929 collapse. That didn't happen and now, apparently, it's on to Plan B: over-investment bubble.
On top of Covid lockdowns and vacines that don't work (at the very least), global warming hysteria, mass immigration of hostile groups, etc., liberals might have a bit of a credibility problem. It's almost as if you don't want normal white men to shine. That would be, eek!, racist – and no doubt sexist too.
Trump actually has an interesting idea about getting average wage-earners into the stock market. That way they will directly benefit from normal white men actually making them money. But you're going to have to jettison the race and sex quotas, folks.
Wow, congrats to me -- my first Internet MAGA troll! Given how quickly this went up after the article was published, I seriously suspect it's an LLM, not a real person. It concisely touches all the MAGA hot buttons; it only tangentially relates to the actual subject of the article (which has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump); and it's nearly all complete nonsense. The big giveaway is the implausibility that anyone dumb enough to believe these things could write such a coherent and typo-free response - especially without resorting to ALL CAPS for emphasis now and then! Go Grok! ;)
I kind of agree with your troll that the "bubble" framing is very unnecessarily partisan coded. Seems like people ought to understand that our economy is a recession with an AI gold rush bolted on.
Which is to say nothing of the alignment problem, the possibility of AI consumers as well as producers, etc.
Thanks for your reply, Jerry, albeit the name-calling. What's specifically dumb about it? I've described real things that have occurred. LLM's aren't programmed to be this honest, or blunt, or racist, or sexist, by the way.
President Joe Biden emphatically said, and his Secretary's of Defense and Justice repeated, that the greatest threat to the US is something called white supremacy. If white men excel wouldn't that be supremacist? Simple question, but nobody seems to be able to answer it. I'm genuinely curious about this and your essay begs the question. I didn't bring this up, Jerry. President Joe Biden did.
Wow check it out - the LLM replied, taking the opportunity to make more extraneous "partisan" comments! (Note no attempt to dispel the obvious evidence of its electronic source.)
A serious question for the "real" people reading this: What motivates this? It costs money and effort to program and run these bots, so at the core, there must be some economic motivation. I genuinely want to understand what it is.
Difficult to call the top with any mania. It is especially more difficult now because many of the private AI companies would have been public already in the 1990s and their financials would have been available for scrutiny. Further, some of the mania has been diverted to Crypto assets, unavailable in the 1990s. I’ve been investing for so long I remember the 1973-4 bear market and the 1966-1982 dead money in equities with high inflation time period. I’ll quote Yogi: It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. Stay diversified my friends.
Some analysts say that the structure of the debt to build data centers is such that the big tech companies such as Meta are ultimately on the hook via lease obligations. If that is true, then is it possible that when the music stops, they, not the public or insurance companies etc. that bought the securitized debt, will be the losers--and their finances will be severely damaged?
Martin - This is a good point, but I'm not in a position to know how prevalent it is. Basically, if the "big tech" vendors are making lease payment or other guarantees (likely), indeed this shifts the risks a bit from the investors to these parties. The good news is that they can afford to pay up (at a great cost to THEIR stockholders), so it wouldn't lead to sudden catastrophic defaults. However, this logic doesn't apply to private AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. If THEY are underwriting the debt in some form, look out below! :)
Thanks, agreed!
This article strikes me as of the boy who cried wolf variety. Or she doth protest too much. Nothing to do with Trump Derangement Syndrome. No, no.
Nine months ago it was tariffs leading to 1929 collapse. That didn't happen and now, apparently, it's on to Plan B: over-investment bubble.
On top of Covid lockdowns and vacines that don't work (at the very least), global warming hysteria, mass immigration of hostile groups, etc., liberals might have a bit of a credibility problem. It's almost as if you don't want normal white men to shine. That would be, eek!, racist – and no doubt sexist too.
Trump actually has an interesting idea about getting average wage-earners into the stock market. That way they will directly benefit from normal white men actually making them money. But you're going to have to jettison the race and sex quotas, folks.
Wow, congrats to me -- my first Internet MAGA troll! Given how quickly this went up after the article was published, I seriously suspect it's an LLM, not a real person. It concisely touches all the MAGA hot buttons; it only tangentially relates to the actual subject of the article (which has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump); and it's nearly all complete nonsense. The big giveaway is the implausibility that anyone dumb enough to believe these things could write such a coherent and typo-free response - especially without resorting to ALL CAPS for emphasis now and then! Go Grok! ;)
I kind of agree with your troll that the "bubble" framing is very unnecessarily partisan coded. Seems like people ought to understand that our economy is a recession with an AI gold rush bolted on.
Which is to say nothing of the alignment problem, the possibility of AI consumers as well as producers, etc.
Thanks for your reply, Jerry, albeit the name-calling. What's specifically dumb about it? I've described real things that have occurred. LLM's aren't programmed to be this honest, or blunt, or racist, or sexist, by the way.
President Joe Biden emphatically said, and his Secretary's of Defense and Justice repeated, that the greatest threat to the US is something called white supremacy. If white men excel wouldn't that be supremacist? Simple question, but nobody seems to be able to answer it. I'm genuinely curious about this and your essay begs the question. I didn't bring this up, Jerry. President Joe Biden did.
Wow check it out - the LLM replied, taking the opportunity to make more extraneous "partisan" comments! (Note no attempt to dispel the obvious evidence of its electronic source.)
A serious question for the "real" people reading this: What motivates this? It costs money and effort to program and run these bots, so at the core, there must be some economic motivation. I genuinely want to understand what it is.