Money flowing in a circular manner is the definition of economy.

This is the reason we moved to using money instead of a barter system.

This is a much tighter circle than any of us should be comfortable with. There are some horrible examples of companies investing in their costumers and then losing big when those customers fail.

▲

fooker an hour ago | parent [-]

It’s a medium risk high reward strategy. You only fail here if all the customers fail, which admittedly there’s a chance of.

If one succeeds, and grows 10-100x, you are profitable. If a few succeed, you double your market cap.

	▲	krupan 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Businesses fail long before all their customers fail. If Nvidia's sales decline and they lose their billions of dollars in investments at the same time you better believe their stock will tank. I'm not sure how you decided this is only medium risk. Especially when they have invested in customers with no profits (OpenAI) and/or severely depressed growth (Intel)

▲

pigpop 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This dig at the relationships between these companies also seems odd to me. Isn't this fairly normal practice for companies within an industry? There are lots of examples of joint ventures, partnerships, alliances, investment and mergers and acquisitions between lots of other corporations that are in competition with each other. I don't see how it could be otherwise unless each corporation was entirely vertically integrated so that they never had to work with any other.

	▲	krupan an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"There are lots of examples of joint ventures, partnerships, alliances, investment and mergers and acquisitions..." And the deals Nvidia are making are different from all of those. Buying OpenAI stock so that OpenAI can buy Nvidia's products is very risky. Buying the management team and IP of Groq is a very weirdly structured deal. What was the benefit to Groq? What is the purpose of this Intel deal?