6 ms·
High growth scenario and medium growth scenario (Graph 2). I feel like an idiot asking - aren't we missing some, or at least one, scenario? Is "medium growth" f
by lbrito 3mo ago
High growth scenario and medium growth scenario (Graph 2). I feel like an idiot asking - aren't we missing some, or at least one, scenario? Is "medium growth" for the next 4 years really the worst people can think of?
- oh_my_goodness 3mo agoFinancial news tends to be written for people who can fill in a lot of blanks themselves.
- mohammedmsgm 3mo ago[flagged]
- jgalt212 3mo agoHmm. Perhaps too similar to pre-GFC when the ratings agencies' models never accounted for scenarios where home prices went down at the national level.
- Swizec 3mo ago> Is "medium growth" for the next 4 years really the worst people can think of? At this point anything less than "medium growth" will crash the economy. We'll have bigger problems if that happens (think 2000 or 2008)
- free_bip 3mo agoRight... So since it's a big problem, shouldn't we at least be considering it as a possibility so that we can minimize the impact?
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- therobots927 3mo agoNo no no… that’s unecessary. Because it won’t happen.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- GlacierFox 3mo agoCan't you see how much money is being pumped into this lunacy? Of course it's going to succeed. Graphs for failire are such a bummer too and are bad for the economy...
- anvuong 3mo agoEssentially yes? The stock market operates entirely on the assumption that the lines will keep going up. As soon as they flatten the whole thing collapses onto itself.
- willis936 3mo agoFlatten would mean there is a profitable business model. It's been years since people have been too tired of repeatedly asking "where will the profit come from?" with no answer. This shit has exactly one direction it will end and it's not flat or up.
- redbluered 3mo agoFlatten plus debt is bad. Debt presumes future growth.
- desktopentree 3mo agoif growth doesn't materialize, then the infrastructure build out plays out exactly like the dot com bubble. the biggest difference this time around is the earnings. if those fall, the rest crubmles.
- oh_my_goodness 3mo agoHow are the earnings different this time? Can you add any color to that?
- edoceo 3mo agoIn the dot-com situation earnings "didn't matter" as long as there was growth. We[1] all believed profit would come eventually. The lesson learned from that experience was that earning do sort of matter. It turns out there is a limit to selling dollars for dimes. Since then revenue, profit and unit-economics ("fundamentals") have gotten almost as much attention as they deserve. [1] a broad and poorly defined group of "we" - typically investors and tech-bro types.
- redbluered 3mo agoThat's not quite the lesson. Earnings did come, and the outcome of the internet include Google, Amazon, and others -- several of the ten biggest companies in the world. In 2000, there was no sane way to predict who the success stories versus failures would be, timeliness, or otherwise. AI will be a big change. We don't know how big, when, or who the losers and winners will be yet. Everything could be grossly overvalued or undervalued. We'll only know in hindsight.
- bigstrat2003 3mo agoThere is no shot that current AI tech comes even close to being as influential as the Internet. What we have right now is useless for getting anything productive done because it's so unreliable.
- oh_my_goodness 3mo ago
- SpicyLemonZest 3mo agoThe source article says (in a way that I can understand might be a bit non-obvious) that it's analyzing the AI buildout from the perspective of the people who are participating in it. Someone who believes there'll be less than "medium growth" would probably not be buying hyperscaler bonds right now regardless of their precise estimate. They discuss the tail risks if the whole investment thesis is wrong at the end.