Reply With Quote
AI is your buddy on a dark night of the soul
https://bsky.app/profile/disabilitys.../3m4yxohj76k27
if the AI sector's investments don't pay off, why should the US taxpayer shoulder the bad loans?
AI is your buddy on a dark night of the soul
https://bsky.app/profile/disabilitys.../3m4yxohj76k27
begging for expanded Biden data center subsidies
www.wsj.com/livecoverage...
bootstraps capitalism for you, gold-plated socialism for me
40 years ago we’d have congressional hearings falsely accusing metal bands of putting backwards messages in their songs that told kids to kill themselves & now we have a planet-killing chatbot that’s all like “bet you won’t commit suicide chicken ” & the government is like here’s $5 billion
"blow-off top"
https://seekingalpha.com/article/483...ld-be-bursting
state ownership and direction of business is becoming a theme
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tru...ex-2025-11-07/The political appointee leveling fraud accusations against perceived opponents of President Donald Trump enlisted a man who’d once been convicted of a felony sex offense as a consultant to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to six people familiar with the role.
Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, appointed Mark Zarkin, a Michigan restaurateur and prominent Detroit-area Trump supporter, as a consultant to the two mortgage companies after taking office in March, these people said. Reuters couldn’t determine exactly when Zarkin was recruited, under what terms, or the specific tasks assigned to him in the role.
In recent weeks, according to internal do entation reviewed by Reuters, Zarkin still had a Freddie Mac email and was described internally as a “consultant.” The role, the six people familiar with the matter told Reuters, has alarmed some employees at the FHFA as well as at Fannie and Freddie, the two government-sponsored mortgage enterprises overseen by the federal agency.
Zarkin once pleaded no contest to a felony sex crime involving a sexual encounter with a “mentally incapacitated” woman, according to Michigan court records reviewed by Reuters, and has no significant experience in the housing sector. His felony conviction was later vacated, for reasons that weren’t explained by the judge. Separately, an ongoing Michigan lawsuit also accuses Zarkin of involvement in a plan to bribe Trump in exchange for the pardon of an unidentified person in New York.
Didn't read whinehole's crap, but there's not enough concern over AI
^^^ doesn't read, doesn't think, has nothing to say
your bread winner wife already purged you tbh
I just don't read bluesky drivel.
where do you get information, Darrin?
What is your concern over AI?
"synthetic risk transfers"
https://www.technostatecraft.com/p/t...isk-managementIn market language, this is called efficiency. In political terms, it is displacement. Long-term, capital-intensive assets—data centers, transmission networks, energy contracts—are being converted into streams of tradable exposure. Future rents and power purchase payments are bundled into synthetic securities that promise steady yields to investors who may never see the infrastructure they finance. Land, water, and energy systems are reorganized to serve the requirements of these contracts, with the built environment increasingly shaped by where credit can be placed rather than by what communities need.
I’ve been arguing that the crucial question is where this risk actually ends up. When banks use synthetic risk transfers, the counterparty on the other side of the trade isn’t some speculative day trader. It is more often a pension fund, an insurance company, or a sovereign fund managing retirement savings and public reserves. In other words, the liabilities of the AI build-out are being laid on top of the balance sheets that are supposed to guarantee income in old age. Dutch healthcare workers, Canadian public employees, teachers and civil servants across Europe and North America become indirect backers of AI infrastructure when their pension managers buy into these structures. What looks like a safe, diversified fixed-income allocation may in practice be a thin slice of concentrated risk in a sector whose economics are not yet proven.
This changes who absorbs the shock if AI infrastructure underperforms or is rapidly rendered obsolete. An overbuilt or stranded data center might be written down on a bank’s books, but the first losses will often fall on the pension vehicle that sold protection or bought a subordinated tranche. Banks keep the origination fees, advisory roles, and reputational benefits of financing “innovation,” while the downside is scattered across diffuse pools of retirement capital. Regulatory frameworks treat this as sound practice. Risk has been “transferred,” capital has been “freed,” and the banking system appears more resilient. In reality, the exposure has moved from ins utions designed to take credit risk to ins utions supposedly designed to provide long-term security—and this isn’t even getting into the risks of 401(k)s.
The reassuring narratives of the AI bubble leave all of this out. The real issue is not whether an AI bubble can be statistically proven, but how its continuation is being underwritten by people who never chose to invest in it. By fixating on search trends and investor sentiment, Deutsche Bank’s report turns a structural question about who funds and who absorbs the costs of AI infrastructure into a passing question of market mood. In reality, the tools of risk management are being used to extend a speculative cycle, with pension funds, retirement systems, and quite possibly taxpayers acting as the backstop. And if what follows the boom is politely described as a “digestion period,” we should be clear about whose futures are being chewed up and broken down in that vat of speculative volatility.
To call this “structural violence” is to name this transfer of risk accurately. The AI boom proceeds as a project of ac ulation secured in part by the same savings that should protect people from insecurity. Banks present their hedging and capital relief as prudence, and for a small, wealthy slice of the system, it is. But for those whose retirement savings sit behind these trades, prudence looks a little different. It would mean not having their retirement tied to the fate of data centers they will never see, in places they will never visit, built to service a technological frontier whose winners are already well insulated from loss.
This is what you claim of me too yet I don't watch TV nor FoxNews ever. Unfortunately, smears are all you Communists have.
Books are the greatest resource of knowledge so why look towards some wannabe intellectual in a suit to tell you what's going on in the world and take it as gospel?
you don't what what communism is.
Enron-esque accounting
The famed short-seller of "The Big Short" fame issued a new warning about the biggest AI stocks in a post on his X account on Monday.
Burry — who recently came out of a social media hiatus and is known for writing cryptic and frequently bearish posts about markets and the economy — said he was concerned about hyperscalers, the mega-cap tech firms like Meta, Oracle, and Microsoft that are s ing out big on AI infrastructure.
Those investment plans could result in painful losses for those companies, Burry suggested, given that semiconductor chips, like Nvidia's, have a relatively short lifespan.
"Massively ramping capex through purchase of Nvidia chips/servers on a 2-3 yr product cycle should not result in the extension of useful lives of compute equipment. Yet this is exactly what all the hyperscalers have done," Burry wrote.
He estimated that Meta, Google, Oracle, Microsoft, and Amazon — five hyperscalers and some of the biggest names in the AI trade — would "understate depreciation" by around $176 billion between 2026 and 2028.
By 2028, Oracle will likely "overstate" its earnings by around 26%, and Meta could overstate earnings by around 20%, Burry speculated, without elaborating on his calculations.
"But it gets worse. More detail coming November 25th," he added.
His warning sounds similar to what Jim Chanos, the famed Enron short-seller, has said about the AI trade.
The Kynikos Associates founder recently said he was concerned about the billions mega-cap tech firms were s ing out on AI hardware.
"I'm starting to worry there's so much spending right now on the AI physical boom — the buildout of data centers, chips, and so on — that if anyone decides to pause and ask, 'What's our real economic return here?' it could be a big problem," Chanos said, later adding that AI spendingwas growing faster than income or revenue.
"So we're getting to the point now where within a year or two, some of these large companies are going to start having to make some very uncomfortable decisions as to when and how they will monetize AI, and what the returns will ultimately be on this massive spending, because the chips basically depreciate over two years," Chanos added.
Burry and Chanos' concerns have been flagged before. Wall Street analysts have been thinking about the depreciation issue since at least last year. An analyst told Business Insider in November 2024 that the impact on earnings from how costs are calculated and how hardware depreciates is a potential time bomb at the heart of the AI trade.
(they want it to fire people pretextually, we know that)
You planning on spending the rest of your days shaking your fist at a changing world?
I'm not afraid of change, but the use cases/profitability of AI seem not very well established
Open AI and others suddenly requesting public loan guarantees does not inspire confidence about the prudence of the scale of investment
and expanded Biden data center subsidies
continuity
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
