When a company makes a deal in exchange for shares or something, those shares are being used as money and must be included in any currency-neutral calculation of the money supply. However, most shares don't flow like money. You also have cryptos, which flow more than shares but less than government bonds and cash. It could be that the total of all money has expanded, even as the US dollar specifically stabilizes and slightly contracts.
Everything else is just executives doing a bit of dance for their investors ala "We won't need employees anymore!"
Sorry, I'm pessimistic as recent experience is one of hyper concentration of ideas, capital, talent, everything.
We need more wealth concentration, simply because opposite of this is the prevailing normie zeitgeist. You can just write it off based on how popular it is to hate wealth.
The normies may have much less power, but it's never zero. Wealth isn't the only form of power. There's law/politics and there's military power. Whenever a group oversteps, you get the Magna Carta, you get secularism, you get civil wars and your Second Amendment. This is why the French Revolution and The Civil War(s) are in the textbooks.
When Venezuela's economy collapsed, a South American friend said that they deserved it. Every other South American country fought corruption and died for independence.
We never want violence, but it is there as an option. Laws and economic policies are there to make sure the violence is never the best option. Non-democratic capitalism doesn't work because it puts the law and the wealth in the hands of a few and leaves force as the only option. The world didn't suddenly convert into communism because Marx and Lenin were handsome demon lords; they converted because capitalism pushed them into a corner.
When you have this decline, it's because a society had weak and corrupt lawyers, statesmen, and economists. These may not be your normies, but they're pretty close to the middle class.
But you don't get to praise capitalism for the cheap air conditioning and then criticize it when low costs push production overseas. You can't negotiate for the high salaries then blame greedy CEOs when you get replaced by someone cheaper. You don't get to charge "as high as possible" and then wonder why your doctor is charging your life savings to save your life. The normies built a culture around winning and lopsided power, then are shocked when power is used against them.
Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
~Winston Churchill
If there is something subjective and if you cannot find a critique of it, it’s usually a super power to assume the opposite is true barring obvious exceptions.
How original and well thought out.
- socio-democratic countries are the norm in Europe, namely Norway, Denmark and Sweden.
- Ordoliberalism: Germany, Switzerland
- cooperative economics: Japan, Spain
- market socialism: China, hungaria
- Parecon: brasil, Argentina
- Ubuntu: South Africa
- Anarcho-syndicalism, The third way, Islamic economic…
In this case communism's obsession with talking about Capitalism as a proper noun as distributed process as if it was a monolithic discrete object with clear intentions and something which can be 'abolished' with no idea as to what the particulars would entail.
Are you going to be the one to tell the teacher's or police officer's union they have to divest their pension and buy fiat currency? No more stocks allowed!
Any power centers outside that decentralizes power.
We'd love to be able to have reasoned discussions about economics and the pros and cons of wealth concentration vs redistribution here. But this is not the way to do it, and the comment led to an entirely predictable flamewar. Please don't do this on HN, and please make an effort to observe the guidelines, as you've been asked to do before.
The icing on the cake is when all their competitors say "so will we".
However we could also argue that most things in human society are less moral than moral (e.g. cars, supermarkets, etc).
But we can also argue that dropping some hundreds of millions in VC capital is less immoral than other activities, such as holding that money in liquid assets.
* Glares at Apple cosplaying Smaug *
I don't think its as simple as calling them immoral. Rather the immorality comes on them being poorly regulated. With regulated term limits on patents and copyright we create a world where an artist can create licensed product and protect themselves during the course of their career, and people are them able to riff on their works after some decades or after they pass on.
I think if behavior needs to be regulated by government in order to be moral, then it's immoral behavior by default
The regulation doesn't make it moral, the regulation only limits the damage by limiting how immoral you're allowed to be
I have a hard time arguing that it's a net positive.
Without copyright it was hard to assemble high quality educational books/manuals, because they take a lot of effort with relatively little reward/return. In fact the first 'modern' copyright act in 1701ish was titled something about improving education.
Without copyright it is not worth it for authors to spend nights/weekends flushing out plot ideas for complete sharable works, so you end up with less/lower quality literature as no one can be a professional author. Which has better quality on average, published books or self published? Self published tend to be the 'passion projects' you would still have without copyright, published books tend to be what get's created when authors are compensated for their efforts. Society can't lose from copyright because without it the works would never have existed. If I say 'I'll bake a cake if you will buy a piece' and I bake a cake and sell a piece, society didn't 'lose'. If I don't bake a cake because no one would buy a piece than society was a little sadder, a little plainer that day. There is only upside, there is no downside. Anyone that would release if copyright didn't exist is still free to waive their copyright protection. So having it is the best of both worlds, those that want to release just to release can, and those that want to try and create something that can be sold can.
Without copyright there are no big budget movies, only passion projects because no one is injecting millions when the work will just be copied no sold/screened/rented.
Without copyright the world has less joy, less discussion, less contemplation, less entertainment, less education. Without patents the world has less productivity, less safety, worse health, less food, worse/much less clothing/housing, less free time. The systems in their current forms have been abused and are unfit for the original purpose but when kept to the original purpose with reasonable protection periods they are a HUGE net plus for society.
Patents and copyrights don't cause people to create things
They prevent people from stealing things that other people created
The immoral behaviour being regulated is the IP theft not the IP creation
Regulation is creating rules for businesses to run within. This goes back to rule of law. You can't tell a group of children to "behave" and walk away and expect good results and then call the children "bad" when they fail to behave.
Rather, you must give them systems to understand, to channel their energy, productively, in a way that matches the desires of the parent (government) and their strategies. Then you have to meaningfully punish those who intentionally break the rules in order to give those behaving the knowledge that they have chosen the good path and they'll be rewarded for it.
Free markets are not about "morality"/"immortality", its about harnessing an existing energy to make a self-sustaining system. A system a state is less good/interested at keeping going or unable to act quickly enough to move in. But part of creating that system is putting in guard rails to prevent the worst sort of crashes.
In the new world that's incentive for enough people to create. Let knowledge rein free.. bellowing through the lands.
Copyright is bad like inheritance is bad. Arguing about good and bad industrialists is missing the point.
How is inheritance bad? Imo, estate taxes are more immoral. Why should the state be allowed a cut of my private assets? Gift taxes are also immoral. Why should I have to pay taxes for giving away assets?
A world without private property leads to a world of pure lawlessness. Sure... We could do that, but it would quickly devolve into forever warfare where only might wins, and even that for only fleetingly small timeslices.
History's progression has proven that exploited workers still prefer to exist in that system vs one of continual peril.
Let's consider the most basic form of ownership: that over one's body. By your logic, my life is a spec on the eternal timeline, so why make it a crime to harm or murder my physically?
The obvious issue is that if you don't tax gifts it becomes far too easy for people to dodge taxes (or at least much more convoluted to enforce payment).
Inheritance is much more complicated and controversial. There's an argument to be made that it results in social ills if left unchecked, an argument that estate taxes fail rather spectacularly to address those ills, and an argument that the ills tend to be self righting given how easy it is to lose money. And probably several others.
To prevent family dynasties from building more and more economic power over time and threatening the state in the future due to the forces of compound interest. To be fair, most family dynasties don't do this, but others can wreck exceptional havoc just by wanting to, due to the generational power they've amassed. The damage they can do is further accelarated by them lacking understanding of how people without generational wealth live.
We already see this happening in our society as most media organisations are run by billionaires or multi-millionaires. News organisations are run less and less by journalists or normal people and the headlines are set more and more by people with very keen and niche vested interests.
This specific issue is being played out in real-time in the Murdoch succession as he attempts to leave the propaganda firm in the hands of his most idelogically similar successor. Yet the majority of his children see the world differently from their father and are challenging this. On one side we have natural break up and change occuring due to generational shifts, and on the other the strong desire of the ancestor wanting their legacy to remain unspoilt after their death.
It really depends a lot on how those liquid assets are deployed.
I agree that Apple should have probably done something with their cash hoard like maybe buying or bolstering Intel so that they could have a domestic supply of chips, but apparently Apple has decided that there's just not much else to do with that money right now that would give them a better return? We might not agree with that assessment, but it's hard to call it immoral.
How have we gotten to a point in just a decade where multiple companies are dropping annual numbers that are in the realm of "the market cap of the worlds biggest companies" on these things?
Have we solved all (any of) the other problems out there already?
It didnt come from nowhwere, or from Silicon Valleys exceptionalism - It came from changing the value of money, labour and resources. It came from everyday people, deficits and borrowing from the next 10 generations of children.
The public discourse is weirdly unable to adress burning problems that had been formulated almost 150 years ago. Much like the climate change topic originating in the 1970s.
You can swap "LLMs" with "pointless wars over books or dirt" if you want - same same, nothing is new.
The same exact premise was proclaimed about the Internet circa 1999-2003 (boom and bust). Then the entire global economy and nearly all electronic communication was rebuilt on top of the Internet.
For the coming century AI is more important than the Internet.
The parent mentioned inequality and energy transition. But LLMs seem to be about crud apps and influence campaigns.
There's more to value than just quantity. Quantity of what?
It's kind of worse than that: this is actually exacerbating the climate crisis as mega tech corps like Microsoft, Google and Meta are scrambling to secure more energy to power their power-hungry LLMs.
Money printing does not cause inflation equally especially if not distrubuted so.
Jan 2010: 174b
Jan 2020: 1400b (23% growth per year)
Today: 3200b (18% growth per year)
The S&P as a whole grew about 12% a year from 2010 to 2020, and 12.5% a year from 2020 to today
Meanwhile the median wage from 2010-2019 grew 3% a year, from 2019-2023 7% a year
Seems whatever happened in 2020 was good for workers, in that they aren't falling behind owners as much as they were.
For some things it’s even a worldwide consensus, e.g. any groups with a desire to acquire large amounts of plutonium (who don’t belong to a preapproved list).
There’s even a strong consistent push to make it ever more inescapable, comprehensive, resistant to any possible deviation, etc…
Just writing your opinion down doesn’t seem relevant to real life government organization.
I don’t see how there could be “school teachers” above the majority of congressman or regulatory decision makers. The very existence of pork filled bills thousands of pages long and byzantine regulations suggest that couldn’t possibly be true.
e.g. Plenty of countries have huge bills that no one fully reads and huge numbers of regulations.
People are also sick and tired of rules in the AppStore. Or the fact that when their Apple/Google/whatever account is unilaterally blocked they have no recourse. At least with a government there are some checks and balances.
Yes, some governments are more trustworthy than others. Doesn't mean the concept is bad.
Repeating your opinion isn’t going to lead to any productive discussion.
Of course that is a very simplified description. In practice, most societies promote a balance between positive and negative freedom, recognize some limits on the government's ability to use force, recognize some degree to which people can choose to act in ways that don't promote positive freedom/prosperity, etc.
It will take the power away from the workers, such that there will be no power left for people to make demands.
We can hope it’ll be positive, but we aren’t even involved in its creation and the incentives are there to ensure it isn’t.
When expertise is commoditized, it becomes cheap; that reduces payroll and operational costs - which reduces the value of VC investment and thus the power of pre-existing wealth.
If AI means I can compete with fewer resources, then that's an equalizing dynamic isn't it?
but they'll start happening because of the new incentive.
Yes - and those without are compelled to trade their labor for assets.
My point is that the assets themselves mean less when the average person can use AI to design anything - that makes the costs of production go down.
In a world where production is cheap, the money required to produce has relative less value.
I’m not sure which assets you think that devalues; it certainly increases the value of the assets needed to run AI, and also of the assets needed to realize the things that people can design with AI.
> In a world where production is cheap, the money required to produce has relative less value.
In a world where your labor isn't required for production, the assets that are required for production have a much greater value relative to your labor than they do in one in which your labor is required to produce something.
“Cheap” is only a thing relative to some other thing.
Currently VC has a great deal of power because up-front investment is required to hire staff and other expenses until the startup can become cash-flow positive. When a lone individual can start a venture using AI then the payroll costs go down. The investment requirements go down.
Yes, automation means that people with assets don't have to pay other people for their labor.
But it also means that people starting new ventures have less need of significant up-front capital.
However the technology that is expected to reduce labor requirements (and thus expenses) has an uncertain endpoint. It seems plausible that at some point a threshold could be crossed beyond which the human labor that you are able to add on top becomes essentially irrelevant. It is this second occurrence, or rather how society might react to it, that should be cause for at least some concern.
“Immoral”, “should not exist”, “late-stage capitalism” are tribal affiliation chants intended to mark one’s identity.
E.g. I go to the Emirates and sing “We’re Arrrrrsenal! We’re by far the greatest time the world has ever seen”. And the point is to signal that I’m an Arsenal fan, a gooner. If someone were to ask “why are you the greatest team?” I wouldn’t be able to answer except with another chant (just like these users) because I’m just chanting for my team. The words aren’t really meaningful on their own.
If "their" political views have the same value as ones affiliation to a sports team, but your political views are well researched and valid, could you be overlooking something? Edit0: and more importantly, what are they to you? Do they not have the same mental faculties as you? How they able to live and thrive while in total abhorrence to natural law? Or are they all naive children who don't know better?
And yes, in any group you'll find loud idiots. Those are in your group too - you just ignore them and focus on the other group's idiots, while disregarding the valid views that are behind.
Especially in the age of algorithmic social media, it's hard to parse what's actually being said.
Glancing over the last few decades of tax returns it looks like they are claiming a lot of tax credits for R&D, so much so that if someone had a closer look they might find some Fraud, Waste or Abuse.
If the company does get a return, then the R&D wasn't wasteful.
And regardless, the tax code doesn't and shouldn't (IMO) differentiate there, to encourage companies to take risks.
University enrolment is actually set to sharply decline. It's called the Demographic Cliff: https://www.highereddive.com/news/demographic-cliff-colleges...
> We can’t train more people?
Of course people are being trained at Universities. Outside of The Matrix, it takes a few years for that to complete.
But, I wish people would shut up about the printing press in these discussions already. AI disrupting literally everyone’s job at the same time is not the same as a printing technology disrupting the very niche profession of scribe. Or electric lamps putting some lamp lighters out of work.
On balance I'm sure that was very useful progress, but millions of people also died in the resulting wars.
I think that was good, but not everyone agrees.
I just want to point that there's no scientific law that says those two must move together.
A government very often needs to print money, and it's important to keep in mind that there's no physical requirement that this money immediately must go to rich people. A government can decide to send it to poor people exactly just as easily as to rich. All the laws forbidding that are of the legal kind.
I.e. "printing money"
Another complication is academia simply does not have the resources to remotely compete with the likes of Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, etc.
I'm curious if you're one of these AI engineers getting 100m, do you quibble over the health insurance? I mean at that point you can fully fund any operation you need and whatever long term care you need for 50 years easily.
> This is just M2 expansion and wealth concentration
I actually think "throwing ridiculous cash" _reduces_ the wealth concentration, particularly if a chunk of it is developer talent bidding war. This is money that had been concentrated, being distributed. These over-paid developers pay for goods or services from other people (and pay income taxes!). Money spent on datacenters also ends up paying people building and maintaining the data-centers, people working in the chip and server component factories, people developing those chips, etc etc. Perhaps a big chunk ends up with Jensen Huang and investors in NVidia, but still, much is spent on the rest of the economy along the way.
I don't feel bad about rich companies and people blowing their money on expensive stuff, that distributing the wealth. Be more worried of wealthy companies/people who are very efficient with their spending ...
Very few developers are benefiting from this "talent bidding war". Many more developers are being let go as companies decide to plow more of their money into GPUs instead of paying developers.
> This is just M2 expansion
What is "M2 expansion"?
Just for your information.
Is it? This whole piece just reads of mega funds and giga corps throwing ridiculous cash for pay to win. Nothing new there.
We can’t train more people? I didn’t know Universities were suddenly producing waaaay less talent and that intelligence fell off a cliff.
Things have gone parabolic! It’s giga mega VC time!! Adios early stage, we’re doing $200M Series Seed pre revenue! Mission aligned! Giga power law!
This is just M2 expansion and wealth concentration. Plus a total disregard for 99% of employees. The 1000000x engineer can just do everyone else’s job and the gigachad VCs will back them from seed to exit (who even exits anymore, just hyper scale your way to Google a la Windsurf)!