Wat? Capitalism knows exactly how to deal with this situation. People who still have faith in the companies will keep loaning them money or buying their stock or investing in them in other ways, and people who don’t have that faith will stop doing those things. Eventually each company will either succeed or run out of believers and die. It’s a very common scenario.
One problem with capitalism is that everything is for sale, including the government. The AI industry is intentionally positioning themselves as “too big to fail” so that they can guarantee a government bailout. As for the dotcom bubble, sure the smaller players were allowed to fail, but that just meant more room for the larger players like google and amazon to take over and now they’re definitely too big to fail. With AI, we already have a small handful of huge players and they’ve convinced the government that this is a matter of national security.
On top of that, people’s retirements are more tied to the stupid stock market than ever before, so the government will use that as an excuse to bail out these companies, hence the rush to IPO and enter indexes.
Ok, point by point: First, government corruption isn’t a function of capitalism. Officials in every system find ways to sell favors. I personally knew Russians who bribed their way out of the USSR, which was almost laughably corrupt. Secondly, the AI industry can’t “position” its own value - it is what it is, and as an industry it simply isn’t “too big to fail.” Thirdly, Google (founded in 1998) was still a startup during the dotcom bubble, not a “large player”. We have no “huge players” in AI yet - as I mentioned, the biggest AI company only has 8000 employees.
Based on all this I assume the prediction that the government will use retirement account stock market exposure as an excuse to bail out AI companies is something you heard or read - if you gave a link to that I’d be happy to look at the reasoning.
Wat? Capitalism knows exactly how to deal with this situation. People who still have faith in the companies will keep loaning them money or buying their stock or investing in them in other ways, and people who don’t have that faith will stop doing those things. Eventually each company will either succeed or run out of believers and die. It’s a very common scenario.
Are you seriously suggesting companies live and die by the free market?? Those poor failing companies need taxpayer bailouts.
Yeah, that would be true if there never was a public bailout, or a cheap government loan.
One problem with capitalism is that everything is for sale, including the government. The AI industry is intentionally positioning themselves as “too big to fail” so that they can guarantee a government bailout. As for the dotcom bubble, sure the smaller players were allowed to fail, but that just meant more room for the larger players like google and amazon to take over and now they’re definitely too big to fail. With AI, we already have a small handful of huge players and they’ve convinced the government that this is a matter of national security.
On top of that, people’s retirements are more tied to the stupid stock market than ever before, so the government will use that as an excuse to bail out these companies, hence the rush to IPO and enter indexes.
Ok, point by point: First, government corruption isn’t a function of capitalism. Officials in every system find ways to sell favors. I personally knew Russians who bribed their way out of the USSR, which was almost laughably corrupt. Secondly, the AI industry can’t “position” its own value - it is what it is, and as an industry it simply isn’t “too big to fail.” Thirdly, Google (founded in 1998) was still a startup during the dotcom bubble, not a “large player”. We have no “huge players” in AI yet - as I mentioned, the biggest AI company only has 8000 employees.
Based on all this I assume the prediction that the government will use retirement account stock market exposure as an excuse to bail out AI companies is something you heard or read - if you gave a link to that I’d be happy to look at the reasoning.