31–38 of 38 posts
It's private companies making a bet on the AI boom. What governments do (which is the actual content of the article) is betting on economic growth to exceed the growing debt.
It's private companies making a bet on the AI boom. What governments do (which is the actual content of the article) is betting on economic growth to exceed the growing debt.
It's the private debt which is the problem since individuals and enterprises don't have the capability the governments have to roll it over forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Previously on We Bet On Unlimited Growth, the global financial meltdown of 2008. If I was even slightly less cynical I'd honestly wonder how many times they're going to stick a fork in the same outlet in my lifetime.
There was what? At least three boom and bust cycles involving railroads. Do we have any good reason to believe the computing revolution will be nicer? So far we've had one bust. We now know the topic for the second while the timing remains hard to guess.
It's private companies making a bet on the AI boom. What governments do (which is the actual content of the article) is betting on economic growth to exceed the growing debt.
The problem with public debt is vastly overestimated. It mostly doesn't matter at all. It can be just rolled over forever like it always was. It's the private debt which is the problem since individuals and enterprises don't have the capability the governments have to roll it over forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chinese companies have at least three major advantages: 1. Price of electricity is low because of China's excellent energy policy. Admittedly this should absolutely be a priority of Japan/EU, but it isn't, so first you'd have to start there... 2. Because of #1, China already had massive infrastructure in place for eg. crypto mining that was readily repurposed. Japan/EU never engaged in this fad, so they have to start…
Not really a price thing nor an infra thing. US has really cheap energy and far more compute by a very large margin. The real reason is chinese gov wants to crush US ai industries and own the market. Same thing they have successfully done multiple times in other industries now the difference is this time the US isn't seeming to back down.
I have yet to see any credible evidence that the Chinese government was involved with either the creation of DeepSeek or the open publication of it, in any way. Seems like usual yellow scare discourse, attributing everything to the bogeyman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really a price thing nor an infra thing. US has really cheap energy and far more compute by a very large margin. The real reason is chinese gov wants to crush US ai industries and own the market. Same thing they have successfully done multiple times in other industries now the difference is this time the US isn't seeming to back down.
I'm talking about EU/Japan. I'm aware the US also has cheap energy and loads of compute. I have yet to see any credible evidence that the Chinese government was involved with either the creation of DeepSeek or the open publication of it, in any way. Seems like usual yellow scare discourse, attributing everything to the bogeyman.
There is effectively no divide between private companies and state.
Jack ma being a perfect example.
So unless they think deepseek useless don't kid yourself
Curious: Is there any technologies and their adoption that were successful that Economist was wrong, or right about?
Many. They did an overly generous self examination a few weeks ago. Generally, they are a trailing indicator, like someone appearing on the Forbes millionaire under 30 list (Theranos, FTX). However, they are not always wrong. Think of Economist writers as intelligent interns - people who couldn't make it in the world of finance, and with a particular ideological bent imposed on them by their editors.