I won't pretend to fully understand the paper, but I did try to read it.

A few notes:

1. This assumes that there is notable ROI on 'AI labor'. That is still up for debate.

2. This assumes that the interests are currently falling, unless I misread the paper.

3. This affirms that we are in an over valuated, speculative bubble which will inevitably correct; but it needs to "correct" at the exact right time defined by multiple factors.

First, "correction" can be an euphemism for a disastrous financial crisis. It could take years and years for most people to see the end of the tunnel. I don't know if the end justify the means.

Do we really need to engineer a financial crisis to build more energy facilities? And will they be built the 'right way', using renewable energy for example? What if we invested half of those trillions directly in socially impactful measures, instead of having the money flow through a speculative bubble first?

Finally, I am not an economist, but I wonder how accurate a mathematical model is to the real world - i.e. what happens to the model when Donald keep changing the opening hours of the Hormuz?

It does feel a bit like trying to read tea leaves to me. This reminds me of Hari Seldon's psychohistory:

> In Foundation (1951), famed mathematician and psychologist Hari Seldon has developed the science of psychohistory, which uses sophisticated mathematics and statistical analysis to predict future trends on a galactic scale. He has predicted the unavoidable and relatively imminent fall of the Galactic Empire, and intends to establish the Foundation, "a repository of crucial, civilization-preserving knowledge" that will enable society to revive itself more quickly and efficiently [...] [1]

---

[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_universe#Psychohist...)

▲

andsoitis 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> What if we invested half of those trillions directly in socially impactful measures

There’s no real “we” in this case. The money is coming from private coffers, people looking for ROI on their hard-earned money. The money isn’t coming from a central planning process.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As noted elsewhere in these comments, it was that long ago before the biggest thing propping up capital investment in the USA were the assets backing union workers' retirement funds. That very much wasn't "people looking for ROI on their hard earned money" and was very much closer to a "central planning process" (though admittedly, not all the way there).

▲

trescenzi 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is a we though. Society might not act collectively or via central planning but culture can function as such to a degree. The culture in the US is currently that it is ethical to seek returns on your capital regardless the source. This didn’t always used to be the case and it doesn’t have to be the case.

▲

AloysB 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Fair point.

Yet, "we" will suffer the potential consequences.

▲

andsoitis 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Can you tell us more?

▲

wpasc 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

not OP, but i believe the commenter is referring to how GFC in '07 had wide ranging negative effects for a lot of people who had nothing to do with investments in mortgage backed securities

	▲	andsoitis 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> GFC in '07 had wide ranging negative effects for a lot of people who had nothing to do with investments in mortgage backed securities GHC '07 can be directly traced to a (in retrospect) failure of regulations AKA the government AKA "we". Our democratically elected government has the ability to strike, what they think, is the right balance. The companies and investors cannot be expected to take the broad view, so it is the WE who are responsible in a way, are we not? In a way, "the people" have, on balance, decided what level of regulations. We would be tempted to complain that the lag and fidelity of choices by "the people" cannot be faithfully represented by the government. However, there's no better solution than what we currently have that I can think of, but I would love to hear about a scalable approach that caters to more individuals' specific wishes on a very very long list of policy decisions and that has short turnaround time.

▲

10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]