4 ms·

Well, the money doesn't go up in smoke. They end up paying it to their staff, suppliers, and so on. If the project doesn't pan out, it's actually just voluntary

Well, the money doesn't go up in smoke. They end up paying it to their staff, suppliers, and so on. If the project doesn't pan out, it's actually just voluntary redistribution of wealth and the society is better off than if Sam's investors hoarded that money or used it to buy up real estate or make other fairly safe and boring bets. An argument can be made that there is some specific and deliberate way of giving out $10T that's more equitable - say, spend it on education, public transport, or healthcare. But if we could all agree on what to do, nothing is stopping us from doing it without Sam's (theoretical) money.

dralley 3y ago
>If the project doesn't pan out, it's actually just voluntary redistribution of wealth and the society is better off than if Sam's investors hoarded that money or used it to buy up real estate or make other fairly safe and boring bets. And yet, still dramatically worse off than if they had decide to "change the world" by funding access to clean water in rural India / Africa, or something along those lines.
- bamboozled 3y ago
  Investing in renewables and nuclear should really be where it's going. Should've been done 30 years ago. It is hard to argue with, "but AI will make better panels", maybe it's true, but we need to survive the next 10 years to realize the benefits. Where I am today it's 15c above average... Mark has kids so he should know what's at stake.
chefandy 3y ago
Your turn-of-phrase highlighted an interesting point, for me: a lot of that money will pay for a lot of electricity and other energy. Much of it literally goes up in smoke! I still don't intuitively factor in the real, physical, non-renewable materials that go into these things projects, but I really should.
- visarga 3y ago
  > Much of it literally goes up in smoke! Smoke and gradient updates
- nine_k 3y ago
  I bet it can realistically only be solar, and maybe a nuclear plan or two. The solar energy would be wasted anyway unless captured. (Nuclear plants are harder.)

dralley 3y ago

>If the project doesn't pan out, it's actually just voluntary redistribution of wealth and the society is better off than if Sam's investors hoarded that money or used it to buy up real estate or make other fairly safe and boring bets. And yet, still dramatically worse off than if they had decide to "change the world" by funding access to clean water in rural India / Africa, or something along those lines.

bamboozled 3y ago
Investing in renewables and nuclear should really be where it's going. Should've been done 30 years ago. It is hard to argue with, "but AI will make better panels", maybe it's true, but we need to survive the next 10 years to realize the benefits. Where I am today it's 15c above average... Mark has kids so he should know what's at stake.

chefandy 3y ago

Your turn-of-phrase highlighted an interesting point, for me: a lot of that money will pay for a lot of electricity and other energy. Much of it literally goes up in smoke! I still don't intuitively factor in the real, physical, non-renewable materials that go into these things projects, but I really should.

visarga 3y ago
> Much of it literally goes up in smoke! Smoke and gradient updates
nine_k 3y ago
I bet it can realistically only be solar, and maybe a nuclear plan or two. The solar energy would be wasted anyway unless captured. (Nuclear plants are harder.)