The trouble with Keynes is that it's only fully true on the time scale of the heat death of the universe, and in that context it's fully nihilistic. Whereas most economic theories do operate on timescales where the finding out comes within the lifetime of the people fucking around. And to the extent that it doesn't, it generally comes within the lifetime of their kids. Meanwhile that quote is used to justify every piece of short-term thinking that screws the next generation to juice this year's numbers.
> When first generation EPYC was launched, it didn't reach academic or local datacenters, because AMD sold all production to Hyperscalers and Dropbox back in the day.
When first generation EPYC was launched, it broke Intel's effective monopoly on performant servers that everyone was eager to get out from under, but the first generation was being fabbed by Global Foundries using the decaying infrastructure being sustained only by the few uncompetitive Opterons nobody had really wanted in years.
It's the example of the thing you're saying doesn't happen. The following generations were fabbed by TSMC who has dramatically more capacity than GF and expanded it even more since EPYC launched, to the point that AMD's share in servers this year is almost 50%, up from ~0% the year before EPYC launched.
> Money is always more valuable today than tomorrow, so if you can pay today, you'll get massive discounts.
The real issue here is capacity planning. It costs billions of dollars to build more fabs so they only do it if they're confident the demand isn't going to crash. But cash-rich customers willing to pay in advance are a good way to do that. You give them a contract that says they pay you now and agree not to dump the hardware into the market if the bubble pops (e.g. customer agrees to maintain possession of the hardware for 3 years after delivery and use only for AI) and then the AI companies are the ones taking the risk instead of the hardware companies, which makes the hardware companies willing to build more fabs. Which in turn is what gets the price back to something ordinary people can afford.
You got this completely backwards: Keynes argument is that economic policies cannot just rely on the fact that things are going to be fine “in the long run”, because the “long run” may be something we never see. He was in fact arguing against economic theories that are “only fully true on the time scale of the heat death of the universe”, not the other way around.
And there are no valid theories that are only true if you wait until the heat death of the universe, because by then everyone is dead and there is no one to constitute an economy. There are, however, many theories that could be valid even though they take decades or more to shake out, and that quote is used especially against those to rationalize exactly the short-term thinking that lets people ignore that even when they are dead, we, i.e. humanity and its future generations, will be holding the long-term consequences of whatever we choose to do right now.
If the quotation is misused that is hardly the fault of Keynes:
> The Tract is the source of Keynes's famous remark, "in the long run we are all dead." This occurs in the context of noting that price level should vary in direct proportion to money quantity if other variables return to their former values, but the short-term dynamics of this process have practical importance.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Tract_on_Monetary_Reform#Leg...
The economic pain that Britain was experiencing in the 1920s due to its ill-conceived idea of sticking with the Gold Standard, especially at the wrong level, could have been solved through policy tools that the Bank of England had at the time rather than waiting for this to stabilize 'in the long-run'. I.e., he did not want to wait for eventual stabilization, he wanted to alleviate people's suffering now: it's no use to you if things stabilize when you're dead.
This is the same guy who said it's better to give people jobs digging holes and filling them back in than to have them be unemployed, thereby giving every fool with a bad plan cover to ignore the false dichotomy and thereby the opportunity costs of doing something wasteful instead of something more efficient or productive.
And I tend to agree with /u/bayindirh that the original optimism of /u/Dylan16807 is baseless. We don't know have things will turn out, but it's absolutely not guaranteed that we'll ever return to “normal” (“normal” being what happened in a very narrow time period where computing power was so cheap it was available for the masses to own).
And the entire time, better manufacturing pushed prices down at least every few years. Including RAM going up multiple times. We would have to buck that entire trend on top of having a failure of supply and demand to end up with the current prices being permanent.
(And don't be dramatic. Even at current prices, computers are available for the masses.)
The “personal computing for the mass” era hadn't even started when I was born, and I don't even consider myself old yet.
> And the entire time, better manufacturing pushed prices down at least every few years.
It's not because something happened before that it will necessarily happen again.
> Even at current prices, computers are available for the masses.
Computers are still available, but for the first time they are significantly less affordable than just a year ago. And nobody's saying the personal computer era is over yet, we're arguing that it's a possibility in the near future, and you won't convince me otherwise by saying “but it has always been like that” because it's not how it works, and because I'm just old enough to know it hasn't.
The “personal computer” has already been mostly replaced by locked-in terminals in the general public, so it's not like this worry is coming out of nowhere.
And the manufacturing improvement and price drop ramp has been going for 65 years. It's not guaranteed but better lithography machines keep being built and it's still happening with CPUs and GPUs.
RAM at this level of profit is unstable.
You are embarrassing yourself. «Ce qui est excessif est insignifiant»
> It's not guaranteed but better lithography machines keep being built and it's still happening with CPUs and GPUs.
The price of the said machine has been exponentially increasing, to the point there's only a single actor able to manufacture the smaller nodes (TSMC).
And even if supply continue to grow, there's no guarantee that this supply is going to be sold to consumers. If the hyperscalers are able to make more money from these chips than consumer electronic brands, they are going to be priced out (this is exactly what's happening right now), and gone is personal computing if that happens.
Or you could not be an ass.
I think you're saying it would take an unreasonably extreme threshold to make that statement true? It does not. Note that "could" is different from "sufficiently motivated". Even with the limited abilities of computers then, 15% of US households had one by the end of that period, let alone the 46% and 37% numbers for school and work use. If computers were as useful as they are today, the household number would have been well over 50%.
> If the hyperscalers are able to make more money from these chips
There's a limit on how much volume they can absorb.
You realize it's like saying that automobile became mainstream in 1900-1950 and using figures from the late 50s to justify your the range you picked?
> If computers were as useful as they are today, the household number would have been well over 50%.
What are you doing here? The question is “how long personal computers has been a mass phenomenon”, not “how much people from the 19th century would have bought one if it existed by then”…
> There's a limit on how much volume they can absorb.
And there's a limit in manufacturing capacities. Nobody will invest to build a additional $50B fab to satisfy a demand that pay less than the (hyperscaler-driven, in my scenario) market price.
Again, I'm not saying it's what will happen, I have no superpowers to know the future, but neither do you.
Oh that's where the miscommunication is.
I'm treating "so cheap it was available for the masses" as the ability to purchase. Is there a reason I shouldn't? And yes they did exist. What didn't exist was an internet to plug them into.
They became mass affordable in that period, and tens of millions of people did buy them even without online access.
The number of actual purchasers is significantly less important than the number of possible purchasers, because we're taking about price regressions on modern day computers, not actual computer use 50 years ago.
> And there's a limit in manufacturing capacities. Nobody will invest to build a additional $50B fab to satisfy a demand that pay less than the (hyperscaler-driven, in my scenario) market price.
Why not? Most of the existing fabs were built with the expectation of, let's say 50% markup over costs. And they got similar investment.
The price is now 4x higher or whatever, for 500% markup. Even if a new entrant can't get any of that hyperscaler money at all, just being able to sell RAM at 1.5x the old price to consumers would give them >100% markup. That should be able to get billions of dollars of investment shouldn't it?
It isn't a misunderstanding. Even in the original context, the proposal is to be impatient with something that takes time even if it eventually works. Worse, the quip has memetic fitness (people think it sounds edgy) even though it expresses no limiting principle and can thereby be used in service of every incitement to do something stupid immediately because the smarter thing takes a minute.
It's sometimes true that acting quickly is the better option, but by giving no indication as to which times that is, it's an ambiguous statement masquerading as a conclusive determination and an invitation to do the wrong thing in the common case.
Keynes said that when somebody complained that his theories didn't work in the long run. And the true rebuke is, we're now in the long run and Keynes is dead
Seems accurate though, I've already noticed no-name Chinese manufacturers stepping it up, throwing caution and capital to the wind and leaning in as hard they can. Following the typical Chinese model of how they get involved in markets, we're just a couple years away from memory being a market with skyrocketing prices and limited availability to a market where various nations are considering bailouts and tariffs to protect their local manufacturers from dirt-cheap Chinese exports to keep their memory producers from going through what domestic solar panel producers went through (a near extinction level event).
I specifically didn't say disk mfg as well only because I haven't yet noticed a new big spinning HDD Chinese brand. But they're definitely active in the lower end of the DDR5 market.
For proper long term cold storage, you want tape.
There's a niche in between where hard drives are good on their technical merits, but it's not a huge niche.
I love this baseless optimism. Reminds me of the economic theory (forgot who put it forward): Everything will be fine in the long run.
...and it's rebuked by Maynard Keynes: "We're all dead in the long run".
Yes, by the time capacity & prices will improve, we'll be all dead.
> I don't see why hyperscalers would be so much better at handling price increases.
I'm pretty sure that you don't know how much discount they can get when they order "I'll buy the whole production in Y2027". When first generation EPYC was launched, it didn't reach academic or local datacenters, because AMD sold all production to Hyperscalers and Dropbox back in the day.
Money is always more valuable today than tomorrow, so if you can pay today, you'll get massive discounts.