Oh yeah, they are def doing that. I think this theory answers the question of why they’re doing what they’re doing. Why they piled up money in various tire fires since the Great Recession, the latest one being AI. And if the ROI doesn’t show signs that there’s ungodly money to be made in AI, the money would move elsewhere, by selling off AI assets, thus crashing AI asset prices (NVIDIA stock, OpenAI valuations, etc.) Once that occurs, if it occurs, is where my hypothesis begins. I’m basically saying that there isn’t an obvious thing for them to throw money at, at similar rate they’re throwing it to AI. If there’s nowehere for them to throw money at as they take it out of AI. Nothing will grow until they find something new, since we know the rest of the economy isn’t growing.
BTW, perhaps less obviously, if AI actually shows it would return the huge ROI the market is expecting, I really don’t see how that ROI actually going to materialize. At first there will be high returns as firms displace workers with AI, partially (more work per worker, layoff some) or fully. But as more and more firms do this, I highly doubt the economy would be able to quickly find jobs of equivalent pay for all those laid off workers. That means rising unemployment and/or deskilling/downward mobility/lower pay. Which means lower aggregate demand. Which means at one point there won’t be enough demand to buy the output of the firms displacing workers with AI. At that point they won’t be able to get further returns on their AI investment. That would also likely produce an economic crisis and social unrest as it has in the past.
We’re a lot more comfortable these days though. I think more people are struggling and stressed, but what counts as poverty is still better than the poverty of 1900s recession, as living standards have risen. It’s when people get hungry that violence begins and I don know that enough people are hungry to cause violent upheaval. It’s a good thing, but a lesson to the ruling class about the limits hey can push.
However, with Trump in control, I don’t know that those limits will be as precise or as considered. So, we may speedrun to it.
As a counter arguement (not necessarily in the US context), commoners in say 1100 had it way worse than than commoners in 1900.
By 1900 there were already certain moral standards and expectations, nothing like we have now especially in more developed countries, but in comparison 1900 is much closer to 2025 than to 1100.
Yes, and it’s all relative to what we see and expect. There has been a general trend of improving living standards. However, since the boomer generation, there has been a continued rise in standards but their kids are the first, in the west, that didn’t necessarily have a step up in standards apart from technological advances. Food and shelter being huge and sanitation being effectively solved.
Oh yeah, they are def doing that. I think this theory answers the question of why they’re doing what they’re doing. Why they piled up money in various tire fires since the Great Recession, the latest one being AI. And if the ROI doesn’t show signs that there’s ungodly money to be made in AI, the money would move elsewhere, by selling off AI assets, thus crashing AI asset prices (NVIDIA stock, OpenAI valuations, etc.) Once that occurs, if it occurs, is where my hypothesis begins. I’m basically saying that there isn’t an obvious thing for them to throw money at, at similar rate they’re throwing it to AI. If there’s nowehere for them to throw money at as they take it out of AI. Nothing will grow until they find something new, since we know the rest of the economy isn’t growing.
BTW, perhaps less obviously, if AI actually shows it would return the huge ROI the market is expecting, I really don’t see how that ROI actually going to materialize. At first there will be high returns as firms displace workers with AI, partially (more work per worker, layoff some) or fully. But as more and more firms do this, I highly doubt the economy would be able to quickly find jobs of equivalent pay for all those laid off workers. That means rising unemployment and/or deskilling/downward mobility/lower pay. Which means lower aggregate demand. Which means at one point there won’t be enough demand to buy the output of the firms displacing workers with AI. At that point they won’t be able to get further returns on their AI investment. That would also likely produce an economic crisis and social unrest as it has in the past.
Agreed, much of the American-style faux-optimism is based on the ignorance of history.
Push the plebs too far and there is some risk that they will rebel. No LLM or smartphone is going to change that.
We’re a lot more comfortable these days though. I think more people are struggling and stressed, but what counts as poverty is still better than the poverty of 1900s recession, as living standards have risen. It’s when people get hungry that violence begins and I don know that enough people are hungry to cause violent upheaval. It’s a good thing, but a lesson to the ruling class about the limits hey can push.
However, with Trump in control, I don’t know that those limits will be as precise or as considered. So, we may speedrun to it.
As a counter arguement (not necessarily in the US context), commoners in say 1100 had it way worse than than commoners in 1900.
By 1900 there were already certain moral standards and expectations, nothing like we have now especially in more developed countries, but in comparison 1900 is much closer to 2025 than to 1100.
Yes, and it’s all relative to what we see and expect. There has been a general trend of improving living standards. However, since the boomer generation, there has been a continued rise in standards but their kids are the first, in the west, that didn’t necessarily have a step up in standards apart from technological advances. Food and shelter being huge and sanitation being effectively solved.