←back to thread

AI capex is so big that it's affecting economic statistics

(paulkedrosky.com)
337 points throw0101c | 2 comments | 18 Jul 25 19:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jonas21 ◴[18 Jul 25 21:09 UTC] No.44609857[source]▶
I don't know... 1.2% of GDP just doesn't seem that extreme to me. Certainly nowhere near "eating the economy" level compared to other transformative technologies or programs like:

- Apollo program: 4%

- Railroads: 6% (mentioned by the author)

- Covid stimulus: 27%

- WW2 defense: 40%

replies(18): >>44609903 #>>44609914 #>>44609929 #>>44609942 #>>44609978 #>>44610058 #>>44610176 #>>44610526 #>>44610627 #>>44610705 #>>44610847 #>>44611010 #>>44611147 #>>44611151 #>>44611385 #>>44612266 #>>44612358 #>>44614934 #
1. arthurofbabylon ◴[18 Jul 25 21:47 UTC] No.44610176[source]▶
You're looking at dots on a graph when you should be looking at lines and curves (and slopes of curves). The author makes this argument:

* Movement of capital from other fields to "AI". * Duration of asset value (eg, AI in months/years vs railroad in decades/centuries). * "Without AI datacenter investment, Q1 GDP contraction could have been closer to –2.1%".

replies(1): >>44612425 #
2. roxolotl ◴[19 Jul 25 03:47 UTC] No.44612425[source]▶
To state a bit more simply: the rate at which this spending has gone from about 0% to 1.2% is extremely fast which is point the author is trying to make.

The Q1 GDP comment is stunning because what it says is that if the same Q1 had happened just two years ago there’s a very good chance we’d be looking at a modestly sized recession. Now of course things aren’t zero-sum and it’s impossible to really make a useful claim like that but it’s still striking.