The AI Investment Boom

Reading this makes me willing to bet that this capital intensive investment boom will be similar to other enormous capital investment booms in US history, such as the laying of the railroads in the 1800s, the proliferation of car companies in the early 1900s, and the telecom fiber boom in the late 1900s. In all of these cases there was an enormous infrastructure (over) build out, followed by a crash where nearly all the companies in the industry ended up in bankruptcy, but then that original infrastructure build out had huge benefits for the economy and society as that infrastructure was "soaked up" in the subsequent years. E.g. think of all the telecom investment and subsequent bankruptcies in the late 90s/early 00s, but then all that dark fiber that was laid was eventually lit up and allowed for the explosion of high quality multimedia growth (e.g. Netflix and the like).

I think that will happen here. I think your average investor who's currently paying for all these advanced chips, data centers and energy supplies will walk away sorely disappointed, but this investment will yield huge dividends down the road. Heck, I think the energy investment alone will end up accelerating the switch away from fossil fuels, despite AI often being portrayed as a giant climate warming energy hog (which I'm not really disputing, but now that renewables are the cheapest form of energy, I believe this huge, well-funded demand will accelerate the growth of non-carbon energy sources).

While I agree with your essential conclusions, I don't think the automobile companies really fit. Many of the early 1900s companies (e.g. Ford, GM, Mercedes, even Chrysler) are still among the largest auto companies in the world.

There were hundreds of failed automotive companies and parts suppliers though. I think the argument is that many will die, some will survive and take all (most)

But that happens in every bubble. Over investment, consolidation, huge winners in the end, and maybe eventually a single monopoly.

There isn't a rule as to how it plays out. No huge winners in cars, no huge winners in rail. Lots of huge winners in internet.

There were huge winners in cars. Ford and GM have historically been huge companies. Then oil companies became the biggest companies in the world mostly due to cars.

GM went bankrupt. Ford would have without government intervention. Each have had periods of profitability but they weren't ever anything like microsoft/google etc. Ford has underperformed the stock market average since it went public like 70 odd years ago. GM got so big in the first place via acquisitions, not because the business of cars lent itself to a dominant player.

Huge by itself isn't the same as huge winner.