Not a big fan of the circular observation. It's not the gotcha people seem to think.

If the baker sells bread to the butcher, and the butcher sells meat to the baker then they can still both go to bed with a belly full of sandwich (aka actual utility & substance).

Adding a third party to make it look more circle-y doesn't change that logic.

Round trip financing is mostly an issue if it is artificial (e.g. a circle of loans) and between affiliated parties, not when something of substance is delivered. Oracle is a business partner of nvidia but I'd wager they'll still kick up a fuss if they don't get their pallets of GB200s. They'll expect actual delivery...like you know...in a real sale.

▲

phailhaus 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's the wrong analogy, because the butcher is giving money to the baker for the bread. If we we fix the analogy, then the baker gives money to the butcher so that he buys their bread with that money. The butcher cannot afford the bread without it!

	▲	hn_acc1 15 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		And the baker then tells people to buy his bread, because it's so good, the butcher buys it every day!
	▲	Havoc 13 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>so that he buys their bread with that money. So basically like any business out there reliant on incoming cash to pay suppliers? This doesn't magically create money any more than the rest of the economy...which has believe it or not CIRCULATING money

▲

fwipsy 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If the baker loans to the butcher so that the butcher can buy from the baker, then the baker comes out ahead only if the butcher is good for the money.

You need something of substance exchanged, not just delivered. Nvidia hasn't gotten anything of substance from OpenAI yet.

I don't know shit about AI, but Nvidia could still give me $100b to buy their GPUs. Now I build a datacenter and Nvidia gets to claim $100b worth of sales AND a $100b stake in my datacenter. As I understand it, that's what's earning Nvidia all this side-eye.