31–40 of 288 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who belongs to “all of us”, i vote to not bail us out if shit hits the fan. No need to ask me when it happens, OK? No really, it’s nice of you but we really dont need to be bailed out. You are welcome :)
Replace you with AI, and when the AI math falls apart, use your tax money to bail out AI And they’ll get away with it too
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know if the public would be as accepting of a bailout for AI companies… trillion dollar businesses that pushed technology with the goal of eliminating 50% of white collar workers… that isn’t really mission critical. If they want the reward, they need to accept the risk when the bet doesn’t go their way. If they aren’t willing to accept that, they shouldn’t be making such big bets.
> I don’t know if the public would be as accepting of a bailout for AI companies That's putting it mildly, IMO. An AI bailout would be a poison pill that would electorally doom whichever party was behind it for decades.
It's one of the many reasons that partisanship is foolish - it essentially leaves governments unaccountable. Another is the reason I put "they" in quotes. There will be lots of partisan finger pointing when the bubble pops, but it was both the DNC and GOP that bailed out the banks, and it'll be both of them bailing out big money again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the bank is owed $1,650,000,000,000 and isn't paid, then it becomes the tax payers problem apparently
2008 all over again, but instead of Washington Mutual and Countrywide, we have whatever the heck is going on now.
Well technically they don’t own the debt, the SPVs that own the data centers do. The giants just have long term commitments, but if shit hits the fan, it’s not the tech giants but the banks that lent the money to the SPVs that are at risk. This usually means all of us are on the hook.
Channelling the 1980s for off-balance sheet financing 101.
From an economic perspective there is zero difference between borrowing to buy an asset and entering into a non-cancellable long term (equivalent to its economic life) lease for the asset.
The first option causes an asset and a liability on the balance sheet, affecting debt ratios that appear in financing contracts and so on. The second does not appear on the balance sheet.
You pay every month, like it or not. You call it interest or you call it a lease payment. You need it off balance sheet for reasons, investment bankers will structure that to make it happen for a fee.
Technically, from an economic perspective, it's debt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2008 all over again, but instead of Washington Mutual and Countrywide, we have whatever the heck is going on now.
I don’t know if the public would be as accepting of a bailout for AI companies… trillion dollar businesses that pushed technology with the goal of eliminating 50% of white collar workers… that isn’t really mission critical. If they want the reward, they need to accept the risk when the bet doesn’t go their way. If they aren’t willing to accept that, they shouldn’t be making such big bets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replace you with AI, and when the AI math falls apart, use your tax money to bail out AI And they’ll get away with it too
This the proof that guillotine is useful, if not to be used, to make the elite behave in way that avoid suffering it.
These debts mean nothing if the US government actually views AI technology as being on par with the Manhattan project. They'll just bail them out or nationalise them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t know if the public would be as accepting of a bailout for AI companies That's putting it mildly, IMO. An AI bailout would be a poison pill that would electorally doom whichever party was behind it for decades.
"They" bailed out big banks whose gambling resulted in millions of people losing their homes, and the electoral effect was basically zero. Just invoke 'the other side' come election season and all is forgotten. Third parties fail to the same trick - by 'wasting' your vote on them, you're indirectly voting for 'the other side.' It's one of the many reasons that partisanship is foolish - it essentially leaves governmen…
That gambling actually led to people getting those homes. The people losing them was the correction.
> the electoral effect was basically zero.
because...
> it was both the DNC and GOP that bailed out the banks
These debts mean nothing if the US government actually views AI technology as being on par with the Manhattan project. They'll just bail them out or nationalise them.
> These debts mean nothing if the US government actually views AI technology as being on par with the Manhattan project. They'll just bail them out or nationalise them. According to Wikipedia, the Manhattan project only cost $28 billion in 2024 dollars. That's a completely different order of magnitude compared to what we're talking about here. I imagine the size of the investment here would even be hard for the US go…
Well technically they don’t own the debt, the SPVs that own the data centers do. The giants just have long term commitments, but if shit hits the fan, it’s not the tech giants but the banks that lent the money to the SPVs that are at risk. This usually means all of us are on the hook.
>Well technically they don’t own the debt Channelling the 1980s for off-balance sheet financing 101. From an economic perspective there is zero difference between borrowing to buy an asset and entering into a non-cancellable long term (equivalent to its economic life) lease for the asset. The first option causes an asset and a liability on the balance sheet, affecting debt ratios that appear in financing contracts an…
Isn’t the important difference that it doesn’t trigger bankruptcy on default? Economically it might not be that different but it has some significance legally because the courts have some fast tracks that trigger bankruptcies (IANAL but that’s my layman’s understanding).
If they “default” in this case it will lead to lawsuits that they will almost certainly lose but in the mean time they kick the can down the road hoping to recover on general economic headwinds like lower interest rates. IMO the risks are obviously correlated here but I’m betting short term incentives drove this mess.