←back to thread

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

(paulkedrosky.com)
338 points throw0101c | 4 comments | 18 Jul 25 19:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.731s | 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 #
raincole ◴[18 Jul 25 21:18 UTC] No.44609942[source]▶
Yeah that's my first reaction to. 1.2% doesn't sound much. It's just people making headlines out of thin air. If it lists the water and energy consumption I might be more concerned.

Slightly off-topic, but ~9% of GDP is generated by "financial services" in the US. Personally I think it's a more alarming data point.

replies(5): >>44610013 #>>44610794 #>>44611558 #>>44611598 #>>44613030 #
wnc3141 ◴[19 Jul 25 01:07 UTC] No.44611598[source]▶
Nearly 20% for healthcare causes some reservations -- considering how little we get for our money in America.
replies(3): >>44611619 #>>44612296 #>>44612345 #
pesus ◴[19 Jul 25 03:21 UTC] No.44612296[source]▶
We spend about twice as much on average as other developed countries and get far far less in return.
replies(1): >>44613043 #
1. KiwiJohnno ◴[19 Jul 25 06:20 UTC] No.44613043[source]▶
I have read, but not verified the figures myself that if the United States had Australia's healthcare system - universal, government funded healthcare (excluding dental) then all US citizens would have near free healthcare, would not need costly insurance, and the government would spend a similar amount to what it does now
replies(2): >>44613806 #>>44614625 #
2. ckw ◴[19 Jul 25 09:04 UTC] No.44613806[source]▶
According to O3 US public health spending (state + federal) is 8.6% of gdp. For perspective, here's a list of countries with universal systems which spend less (these numbers include private spending), and life expectancy (US is 78.4 for reference):

  Singapore: 5.6%, 82.9
  Israel: 7.2%, 83.2
  Estonia: 6.9%, 78.5
  Poland: 6.7, 78.5
  Luxembourg: 5.7%, 83.4
  Czech Republic: 8.1%, 79.9
and a couple which spend a bit more, though again, this includes private spending:

  France: 11.9%, 82.9
  Japan: 11.5%, 84
  Portugal: 10.5%, 82.3
  Spain: 10.7%, 83.9
So it seems like we could have universal coverage and higher life expectancy if the US government simply spent exactly what it is currently spending, but on everyone, rather than just the old, poor, and veterans.
replies(1): >>44614376 #
3. shafyy ◴[19 Jul 25 10:53 UTC] No.44614376[source]▶
I think this is also a great chart showing health care expenditures per capita with life expectancy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health...

Interesting to see countries like Spain and Italy, where the spend is one third of the US but the life expectancy is significantly higher.

4. Workaccount2 ◴[19 Jul 25 11:35 UTC] No.44614625[source]▶
There is a factor for the US effectively subsidizing these countries by having our current system. Healthcare companies make their bread in the US and get scraps elsewhere in the world.

This drives an enormous amount of innovation, and the near complete dominance of US healthcare companies in the west reflects that.

The US moving to a universal healthcare model would likely kill the lucrative US market, and while providing cheaper healthcare, it likely wouldn't make them dramatically cheaper while also having the effect of driving up costs in other western countries.

A bit like a balloon, where the profits are swelled in the US and limp elsewhere, squeezing the US will ha global effects.