... as hundreds of billions of dollars are flooding into artificial intelligence, there are serious concerns that an AI bubble could trigger another bailout with taxpayer money.

In the interview that follows, leading progressive economist Gerald Epstein, who initiated and directs the Game Changers project at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, talks about AI’s impact on finance and the bailout problem and how a transformative public finance strategy can revive democracy, promote equity and social justice, and build strong and sustainable communities.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 81 points 1 month ago* (25 children)

Yea but we already know that's what they're gonna do regardless of what anyone says.

Just like we already know things are eventually going to get bad enough that killing the epstien-billionare class becomes both moral and necessary.

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    i would argue that it is already the moral choice. they are killing the planet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    How can we know either way without speaking freely about it? I think this is an important conversation we should all participate in. (Fully agree with you btw)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    Yea but we already know that’s what they’re gonna do

    We can change who "they" are though, and this is our best chance since FDR.

    It's not enough to have a progressive president, we need a progressive Congress behind them. But we absolutely can refuse to bail AI bris out and strip the rest of the oligarchs of their wealth.

    People acting like we can't just depresses turnout.

    Republicans won't, neoliberals won't, but if you act like those are the only two options...

    You're just fucking wrong

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    I do think you're a bit naive about it, though. They won't let this happen with just a simple vote. They will defend their positions of power with violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 59 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    There's no industry the US government won't bail out, because the US government is corporate sponsored.

    We bail out banks.

    We bail out farmers.

    We bail out military contractors.

    ... and on and on and on.

    Because they "donate" to bOtH pArTiEs, and they expect a return. They don't do this out of charity.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 38 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Didn't the House denounce Socialism in ALL FORMS earlier this week? Therefore bailouts are no longer possible, right?

    Oh, I forgot the rules don't apply to rich people. Silly me.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    They forced this nation to take massive risks for their personal benefit. These people should be in prison and their companies and assets seized.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 21 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    to be fair, we should not bail out ANY industry. if you fail at capitalism so bad you need a bailout- tough shit.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I feel like that depends on the industry and context. For example if say most of a specific industry is based in one or two areas and gets devastated by a natural disaster then fine. But if it's just economic failure then they should be taken private with either the states or the feds getting controlling shares.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    state control is actually “public” or “nationalized” right? - not to be confused with “publicly traded” which is not the same as “the public runs the business” (as it would if a state ran it, being comprised of the public)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Uhh.... billionaires asking for bailouts is peak failed capitalism.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago

    That’s not how our system works.

    Socialism for the rich, bootstraps for the rest.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    Socialism is TERRIBLE! That's why ONLY Rich people get to Partake in It!

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    No, the taxpayer should not have to pay bailouts. But they will, whether they want or not.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 1 month ago*

    The worst part is that any bail out would only be enough funding for a few months with the rate they are burning money at compared to their CURRENT revenue.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Too late. It's already baked in through the insurance industry reinsurance mechanisms.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Too bad, they already figured out a way to make it happen.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Bwahaha. Taxpayers will definitely bail out this industry, especially if the crash happens during this administration. That will be true whether or not be force some level of public ownership to reap any rewards that might accrue.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    So, GPUs and chips are being collateralized to secure loans and finance underwriting. We’re so fucked.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Bad news: we will be.

    Some people are looking forward to the crash because they think these oligarchs are going to have some kind of comeuppance. To that I say: lolololol

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Short of a complete societal rejection of the global economic regime, there is no way for us to not be. The expensive deals have been inked. The money has been committed. Parties will be in debt to each other for hundreds of billions of dollars. It doesn't matter if there is a law against taxpayers footing the bill or not, that amount of economic pressure will burst into and flood the larger economy and it will harm us all. It's going to happen no matter what. We're not yet angry enough at the severe economic harm that is about to befoul all of us.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, I am rather amazed that it seems so fashionable to want the AI bubble to pop, as if we won't all be in the direct line of fire. It's like people that were wishing for the housing bubble to pop back in the mid-00s...the people at the top doing all this shit are not going to be the ones that suffer.

    I'd rather the AI bubble were to spin down and have a soft landing, but honestly, I have no idea if that is even remotely possible. It seems we cannot just have a stable economy; it's either tulip bulb mania or it's in freefall because the investor class is not making quite as much money as they think they are entitled to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    And it's not even really artificial intelligence. It's basically just very fast computing.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    they've already made some of these companies publicly traded or somewhat public by linking it with publicly traded companies so it could tap into the "most safe investment" aka index funds and now they're tapping it onto peoples taxes? smh

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›