Randal O’Toole (the author behind it.org) is often a crank, but in this case, I think he’s got it mostly right.
> federal funding of most of the cost of buses has divorced agencies from the need to be cautious in their spending
To be even more accurate:
> federal funding of most of the cost of <x> has divorced agencies from the need to be cautious in their spending
… and of course we should apply this infrastructure used mostly by private vehicles as well. One of the reasons transit has trouble standing on its own in North America is that we shovel public money land, and resources toward its competition.
Regardless where demand comes from, it takes time to spin up a hard drive factory, and prices would have to rise enough that, as a producer, you would feel confident that a new hard drive factory will actually pay off. Conversely, if you feel that boom is irrational and temporary, as a producer you’d be quite wary of investing money in a new factory if there was a risk it would be producing into a glut in a few years.
I bet the same thing happens when the AI bubble pops.
"but this time is different, it's not a bubble, there's real value there"
Economists use the term “bubble” to describe an asset price that has risen above the level justified by economic fundamentals, as measured by the discounted stream of expected future cash flows that will accrue to the owner of the asset.
I think there's little argument that is happening, the question is more about to what extent is it a bubble.
The entire global software industry is worth less than $1 trillion dollars. Or in other words smaller than the current valuation of just OpenAI + Anthropic.
Planned capital investment this year by the Magnificent 7 alone is $600B. More than 2/3 of the total global software industry. In one year. Good luck buying any computer hardware this year, there will be a shortage of everything, including electricity.
That's not how you should measure "worth". In that world, you'd have a P/E ratio of 1. Comparing to a bond, it would be like expecting to get paid the face amount in a single year. Many people are quite happy with 5-10% interest as a risky benchmark, so 10-20 P/E isn't wild. That puts the market cap for tech itself at 10-20T as a reasonable baseline.
The entire global software industry is worth less than $1 trillion dollars. Or in other words smaller than the current valuation of just OpenAI + Anthropic.
Apple, Microsoft, Google are all worth 3-4x the global software industry just for some context.
Is Microsoft 3x more important than OpenAI and Anthropic combined? Personally no. I think the value generated by OpenAI and Anthropic will surpass Microsoft.
Going off what I could find easily from Google + ChatGPT [1]:
But arguing about the details is kind of missing the point. Microsoft's value is also inflated by the AI bubble and can't be used as a point of reference.
I don't think MS value has been inflated by AI, if anything it's value has decreased from it's AI investments. MS has mostly been on it's same growth path for the last decade.
I think you haven’t been paying attention to the market then over the last couple years. Despite getting hammered recently, it is still up 100% from 2023 lows.
Am I crazy? MSFT has was up about 100% in the prior three years before 2023 as well, and again for the three years before that.
AI has had very little to do with MSFT growth. Pretty sure the 2023 lows were a response to the massive AI spending, and the recovery mostly due to continued Azure services growth.
Two years. Basically the period when people were stuck at home during COVID restrictions and were willing to spend extra money to make that experience more comfortable. Prices fell precipitously after restrictions were lifted and people had desires outside of the home again.
The problem is "markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent". It doesn't matter when the bubble pops if the governments (especially the US') bail those companies out.
The damage is already being done, whether you are a 401k/IRA holder with a position on the S&P 500 way too overweighted by the Mag7&co and their circular dealings, or just needing to buy computer parts way over their market value because some companies are over-leveraging to outcompete you for that hardware (or electricity), or even at a smaller scale by increasing software costs because everything is "AI-powered" now and of course you wouldn't want only "deterministic" software that just works and doesn't have a slop machine integrated.
1) the only reason any part of the economy is growing at all
2) the only reason US banks aren't bankrupt due to the commercial real estate debacle they got themselves into
In other words, if this is a bubble, if this pops, we're back in the 2008 situation. Where banks will go bankrupt one after the other like dominoes (in the sense that this amount is large enough that large banks will fail their financial obligations). And you can argue as much as you want based on "real" valuation metrics but none of your investments, not even cash dollars or even gold, will come out of that one intact.
Fortunately, there's the counterargument: you know what else is higher than ever? The revenue produced by the software industry. To the point that at the moment you can say, as crazy as it sounds: if revenue of the big software firms keeps growing the way it IS currently growing, this is not enough investment.
In case you're wondering what exactly that means, not enough investment. Think of it like this: you're selling shoes. If you invest too little in new shoes (or whatever resources you need to sell shoes), then you will have to tell customers coming in "sorry, all out of shoes, take your money elsewhere". Currently it's not enough investment. If this growth rate keeps up for 1.5 years, Amazon will have to close the store to anyone who wants more machines, in fact they are turning away large customers right now at Amazon, Google and Microsoft. That's where the "spend more now" madness is coming from. Is it unjustified?
If I remember during a previous GPU shortage (crypto?), Nvidia (and/or TSMC?) basically knew the music would stop and didn't want to be caught with its pants down after making the significant investments necessary to increase production
Not to mention that without enough competition, you can just raise prices, which, uh (gestures at Nvidia GPU price trends...)
too bad the bicycle industry didn't learn this. They acted like COVID was the new-normal, and it has resulted in many companies disappearing when they learned the hard way that demand for bikes in a pandemic is neither sutainable nor normal.
I believe the TSMC CEO said that in a recent interview. They're aware that their now biggest customer Nvidia has a less broad product portfolio than Apple and the high volumes they buy propably won't last. It's too much of a risk to plan more Fabs based on that.
Silicon Valley is arguing that TSMC isn't investing enough. They should be investing hundreds of billions to build fabs, like how big tech is investing in the AI buildout.
$45 billion for new fabs is peanuts compared to Amazon's $200b and Google's $180b investment in 2026.
Can't really blame TSMC though. It takes years for fabs to go from plan to first wafer. By the time new fabs go online, demand might not be there. Who knows?
According to Elon during his recent Dwarkesh podcast appearance[1], TSMC is limited by resource constraints (fab components, contractors, etc). His claim is that TSMC is building as fast as they can and they are unable to meet industry demand.
Seems legit to me. Nonetheless, I think it's a solvable problem.
If this is actually true, I think you can find a more reliable source than Elon Musk.
I'm not saying you should never listen to a word he says. His actions shape the world after all, so it's important to understand how his words precede his behavior. But I'm baffled why anyone would take Elon at his word, or even slightly hedge their perception of reality based on Elon's claims of fact.
I was leaving an HN comment, not writing an essay. I'm not fond of Elon's personality, but I listened to the context of the conversation and believe him.
Did you listen to the conversation? There was a great amount of detail. Which parts of the conversation seemed unbelievable to you?
Regardless, it's also been reported in the press over the past quarter, and TSMC's previously largest customer, Apple, notably has had to make fab adjustments and form new partnerships with Intel.
No, and I'm sorry for derailing your point. Thank you for the additional links. I skimmed them all but didn't see anyone corroborate the claim that TSMC is limited by its upstream component suppliers, rather than its own factory underinvestment in prior years. Am I misunderstanding, and those two things are the same?
"Silicon Valley" doesn't get to make the decision unless they are willing to send some of those hundreds of billions to TSMC up front. (TSMC isn't going to want future promises of business either since those are worth very little.)
if what Elon recently said is true (if - but he might not be... inaccurate... on this particular thing) they already have and bought the forward production capacity of those new fabs and it still isn't enough.
And if the Big Tech companies think it is so important to get all those compute and/or memory chips sooner and in larger supply, it should be no problem at all for those Big Tech companies to pay for the costs and then have priority access to all (or their portion of) the output for the future years.
OTOH, if they are insisting on not investing their funds or stock, and it is simply pressure on TSMC to take on the risk, TSMC should be very wary of taking on risk for those players (unless TSMC sees another advantage of producing into a likely glut or supply canyon shortly after the new fabs come online).
it all takes years. it takes years for permitting to open up the power plant to run the chips. at the scale the Big 3/4 (google, amazon, microsoft, and meta-ish) are going, we don't actually have the capacity to BUILD the capacity, despite a forecast of just 1% national electricity consumption growth this year, partly because we were expecting electricity demand to slow down and for an orderly shutdown of our fossil fuel plants. we couldn't even fill >100GW of gas/coal turbine orders over the next 5 years if we had to, and we might have to, because some of our grids (notably PJM's) are forecast to be under their safety margin of over-production in the following years.
meanwhile, regional grid operators are faced with Big Tech driving tens of % of total power into private contracts where there's only one customer; they are making the decisions normally reserved for nation-states, right? reopening Three Mile Island sounded like a pipe dream a few years ago. I hear They have something like 50 more experimental, small-scale NPPs they want to fire up across the country in the next few years, too (but despite sounding like a big boon for energy, they're ~meaningless short-term in the face of how much demand we're looking at). -so this power (uh, literally) gets wrested away from the grid authorities and from what was largely the domain of government, to now be managed by techbros and a select few partners who will be reliant on their money; I'm sure that will work out fine.
anyway, part of the reason it does make some sense in the US for the government to push for more coal/LNG turbines, is because they're already there and we need them now; the permitting to un-mothball, prevent mothballing, or expand facilities, is far less arduous than what a company'd have to go through for a new facility (tho again, we don't have capacity to build all the turbines we require inside 5 years anyway). I'm not saying it's a good idea to start sending up more GHGs, but it's maybe better than pricing out electricity for residences and "real" industry. hey, who knows? maybe they'll simply build natural gas pipelines that don't leak this time.
-oh, and then there's the problem with these new datacenters disrupting the traditional power demand curve, because they don't really do as much peak draw anymore; their peak draw is approaching base load, as LLM batching (when a company has a bunch of stuff they want processed and can wait a day for it to run in "off-hours") is sold, and if unsold, that time can be used as training time; so the modern datacenter is a 24/7/365 organ; the heart, powering our society, Moltbook. the importance of this is it makes solar less financially attractive, because now we need to be able to bank more energy since more demand's shifting to overnight. we might also want to consider just getting the moon really, really hot? then we can get a truly substantial haul of lunar light for our panels. you know, we decided against nuking hurricanes again recently; maybe we could build some new ones and nuke the moon, a lot.
> because they don't really do as much peak draw anymore
This is the same for more or less all major industrial users of electricity. Typically it's a boon for a power grid and overall lowers prices due to the stable consumer that helps you achieve very high capacity factors on your generation side. Large industrial users typically pay for a "max usage rate" (e.g. they commit to 200MW and will always pay for 200MW even if they only use 180MW average that billing period) due to the infrastructure needed to serve them - so it's as close to guaranteed money a power grid operator is likely to ever get.
If we want to re-industrialize the nation to any meaningful degree, we are going to need more baseload. AI datacenters may be a bubble, but if we can't somehow leverage the unlimited free money being poured into this space to augment our electric grid and build generation capacity for the first time since the Greatest Generation, we will have entirely failed as a society. The fact we have made it more compelling for folks to work out private deals with nuclear power plant operators to go behind-the-meter vs. just taking it from the grid is utterly absurd and shows how absolutely impossible it is to get anything done these days. These were last-ditch options after operators got frustrated trying to do things the usual way with years to decades of delays.
What is really happening at a very high level zoomed out: As a nation we decided to stop investing in energy infrastructure for over 50 years, and we are now reaping what we have sown. Eventually you run out of the previous generation's infrastructure investments, and also run out of cheap parlour tricks like sending industry overseas and focusing on energy efficiency vs. actually building stuff.
We get to figure out how to build things again or die trying. The AI bubble has only brought the demand forward a few years - anyone paying attention to this sector knew grid instability was effectively written in stone without major changes. Take our electric grid out of the hands of politicians and put it back in the hands of engineers and planners that actually can do things. You can't even build a transmission line of any length or size these days without a decade or more of legal battles and NIMBY. Good luck with the actual size of investment we need today.
tldr; We deserve all the pain we collectively get. You can only ignore problems for so long to take short term gains. Chickens coming home to roost in this arena, among many others. Once you stop investing in the future, the future eventually comes for you.
Somewhat ironically the AI boom means Nvidia would've easily made their money back on that investment though and probably even more thoroughly owned the GPGPU space.
But as it is it's not like they made any bad decisions either.
You're talking about how higher prices can motivate higher supply. The parent commenter was talking about how higher prices shift the current point on the demand curve to the right. If hard drives sold for $1 billion per gigabyte, we wouldn't see even AI companies buying as many as they are, and current production would go idle. Even assuming supply is locally inelastic (as it is given no time or space to scale, or given a lack of confidence that scaling is wise), you should be able to find a price point that avoids supply shortages by manipulating demand.
The problem with this expectation of usual market behavior is that demand from AI will still be unsatisfied even after buying out the current providers' whole supply, so any new manufacturer entering the market will also prioritize high-paying AI companies above consumers.
Sure - the question is how long they can remain high-paying.
Looks like all the money reserves big companies have been sitting on are gone. Circular money deals are in full swing & now it looks like some companies are now looking for loans.
Not sure how much longer this can go on until it comes crashing down.
Outside of a few very rare circumstances, that’s not what “sell” means. 99.9999999999% of the time, “selling for a negative price” is more accurately called “buying”.
Then they'll sell at a profit, but the shipping cost will be inflated to offset that profit and then some. If this is identified and corrected in the law, then the sale will be at an actual profit, but there will be a corresponding price hike in goods purchased in the future through the same partner company. Or, a politician will be bought and it will be made it illegal to restrict shipping goods for destruction, citing damage to rising economies etc, and now it's 2 countries' laws creating a situation which will drag 20yrs in courts, while the goods keep getting destroyed. Or, the goods will be sold already in the first country to a separate entity, shipped through a 3rd country, and tracking will be lost due to unfortunate bugs, nobody's fault, really sorry.
There. 4 scenarios. I could make more.
They need more Italians helping draft these laws, we have a... cultural/genetic knack for figuring ways around regulations :) and I don't even think I'm particularly good at this. But maybe LLMs will make our devious disposition finally obsolete.
The law is naive, but well intended. Maybe with 20-30 patches it will achieve enough of its purpose.
I don't think you can sell at loss in Europe (not sure, happy to be corrected), so might be small but it'll still be positive. The bet is it will be high enough to be a deterrent. The other bet is that at some point the rest of the world will push back being a corporate dumpster.
The physical store is not the "means of production" in urban areas, but a closer analog is the piece of paper that allows a given square foot of floorspace (for any use) the right to exist within the city for a given period of time. You could call this piece of paper a floorspace factory, since it's the limiting factor. Somehow we have decided it's best to have as few floorspace factories as possible.
Depends whether or not the city allows other neighbourhoods to exist/grow/change. If the total floorspace in the city is fixed in regulations, then ofc anything done to improve conditions will hurt people on the bottom. The people who can afford a "revitalized neighbourhood" would happily live in brand new housing built on top of land in the nearby mansion district, displacing no one, but city planners do not allow that - new apartments can only be added to the city stock by destroying old ones, new store floorspace can only be added by destroying old etc. This forces everyone to play musical chairs with too few chairs and the only winners are those who own the chairs.
I heard that in Japan, it's common for condo developers who want to buy out smaller buildings to compensate the owners with an equal amount of floorspace in the new building - not sure how common that practice actually is, but what a way to align incentives!
I think a common thing in Greece was that owners themselves would redevelop their properties much denser, retaining an apartment or two of equal floorspace to their own home, and then leasing or selling out the others to fund the redevelopment of lot.
This sort of flexibility would be really welcome in North America but SFH neighbourhoods are frozen in stone, so when the nearby high street becomes cool, all the little former working class single family homes become million dollar homes that can only be purchased by the rich, and the working class people that may have previously rented them are booted out to who knows where.
Unfortunately city planners are the original "scientific" central planners and they have decided that legal floorspace (residential, commercial, retail, all of it) should exclusive & scarce, with predictable results.
Since only people with a wealthy family safety net have the wherewithal to call themselves artists, these schemes just end up as a transfer from poor to rich (kids)
iirc from previous criticism I saw on this a majority of the trial recipients were retirement age adults, but all the same people much wealthier with the privilege to have time/money to spend doing art. Younger artists? Not established enough.
> federal funding of most of the cost of buses has divorced agencies from the need to be cautious in their spending
To be even more accurate:
> federal funding of most of the cost of <x> has divorced agencies from the need to be cautious in their spending
… and of course we should apply this infrastructure used mostly by private vehicles as well. One of the reasons transit has trouble standing on its own in North America is that we shovel public money land, and resources toward its competition.
reply