Isn't most of the economy riding on the stock of these handful of companies though?

amalcon 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Most of the growth is. If we removed AI, the US would be in a severe recession right now. Most of the absolute market cap, employment, capital, and other metrics that are not directly coupled to growth paint a better distributed picture.

Of course, growth like this can only continue for so long without changing that.

▲

andsoitis 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Isn't most of the economy riding on the stock of these handful of companies though?

No.

▲

dreambuffer 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, yes, because the US government has staked the future of the country's GDP on AI. They're even divesting from science as a whole and putting it into data centers.

▲

andsoitis 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Saying that AI will drive the future GDP is a very different thing from saying an economy relies on the stock price of a few AI companies.

▲

shimman 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Okay but political leadership of the US are literally are staking the future of GDP on exactly those few AI companies... $1.4trillion so far while universal childcare would only cost $40 billion a year.

It's a sick joke.

	▲	andsoitis 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> political leadership of the US are literally are staking the future of GDP on exactly those few AI companies... $1.4trillion so far Can you explain where you get that number from? The information I have: a) The government took a nearly $9 billion stake in Intel to support its chip-making efforts. b) The Pentagon took a $400 million equity stake in MP Materials, a rare-earth miner. c) Sam Altman has advocated that the US government take equity stakes in AI companies. Sen Bernie Sanders wants the US government to take 50% stake in AI companies! Nothing has come of it though. d) Defense department AI contract value rose to $90.7B in 2026. So I'm super curious where you pulled that $1.4T number from.