Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by LeifCarrotson 29 days ago
What was most surprising about all this to me was this line:

> So modern DRAM manufacturing is an extraordinarily complex and expensive process. Building a single state-of-the-art DRAM fabrication facility, a “fab,” will cost you about $15 to $20 billion; acquiring all the necessary equipment, like lithography tools and etching machines, will cost you another few billion; and then it’ll take you a few years of producing substandard and defective memory chips before your yields start to look competitive.

Extraordinarily complex and expensive! And yet I look at all the money being shuffled around between Nvidia and Google and Microsoft and Amazon and Apple and can't help but think that this is a tiny amount in comparison to what they're moving around on the stock market buying shares in each other.

Apple in particular has $20B in its couch cushions and is very vertically integrated and hardware-focused. Apple silicon is currently made by TSMC, but it seems they'd be a prime candidate to spin up their own memory fab.

I suppose the biggest problem to current executives at each company is the "few years" until that investment yields results, in the short term it's better to pay through the nose and buy GPUs with HBM at any price.

14 comments

> it seems they'd be a prime candidate to spin up their own memory fab.

While Apple et al certainly have the money to tilt up their own fab, they're savvy enough to understand the memory market's long history of constant boom/bust cycles. I still remember the huge DRAM shortage in late 80s forcing my startup at the time to delay launching our new product for a year.

People assume Apple cares about vertically integrating cost but they're actually focused on integrating margin. Apple has billions in cash on hand and when they think about what to do with it, a key metric is Return on Capital, especially the margin that capital will generate. Since a core metric public companies are judged on is blended margin, they are looking for ways their bags o' cash can be put to work generating revenue at margins that will pull their current average margin up vs down.

Averaged over time, mainstream memory devices are historically one of the worst margin areas of the semi market. It's super expensive to tilt up a fab on a new node but once you do, turning the crank faster to make a lot more chips isn't too hard because mainstream DRAM tends to be quite uniform. So when a fab on a new node and/or RAM generation first opens, the margins tend to be pretty great. But as the node matures and/or the RAM generation goes from 'new' to 'commodity', competition heats up as everyone gets better at making more faster. Then they're tempted to maximize revenue by cutting prices until their mature fab is at 101% utilization. And that eventually drives margins down until someone's selling near cost to sustain their low-price-enabling volume - with occasional dips below cost when they get stuck holding excess inventory. That's why cash-rich companies with high margins like Apple are delighted to buy DRAM built with Other People's Money. As long as the DRAM market is under competitive pressure, Apple gets to shop their huge orders around to get the absolute lowest price on RAM that was built with other investor's low margin dollars.

> I still remember the huge DRAM shortage in late 80s forcing my startup at the time to delay launching our new product for a year.

That one was caused by manipulation by politicians, not market forces. Micron started a price war with Japanese memory manufacturers, the Japanese cut prices to compete, Micron sued them for "dumping". The saga ended with the 1986 U.S.–Japan Semiconductor Agreement, which, among other things, created production controls that limited the total dram supply. The level was set based on then current demand, and due to the rapid growth of demand at the time it almost instantly caused a massive global supply deficit.

The agreement also caused the rise of the South Korean memory industry, because the Japanese companies offloaded their now surplus equipment for cheap.

I worked in DRAM salvage from 1987-88. It became niche profitable to harvest 4116s from years-old boards (4164s if you could get them) and put them right back into 256K memory expansion boards for PC ATs.

256K bytes of RAM that way made us $128 in sales. I earned $3.35 an hour. Any inventory I accumulated went out the door next morning.

It was a brief moment, but it makes me wonder if we'll see refurbished memory in fashion next year.

BTW the company, OEM Parts, was one of the last great surplus shops, surviving until just recently. Probably there were still cardboard bins with my handwriting for all the TTL chips that weren't in demand.

No joke, at my startup we had to inventory all our unused prototype hardware to see how much memory we could reclaim. Last month.

We are not launching our product this year. We can scrape together enough memory for shareholder and show floor demo units, but we have tens of thousands of people on the waiting list and we simply can't get that much memory at any price. What we can get would mean a $400 price bump.

What the hell do you even do?

> That one was caused by manipulation by politicians, not market forces.

Funny how you then go on to explain it was market _actors_ that drove the politicians to act, but that this is nevertheless totally not an example of market _forces_.

Market forces are usually meant in the spherical cow sense, not that the cow has politicians on their pockets.

Here it's useful to point out that free markets can't exist without an external force keeping them in check.

This has become like opec's best years. Only there's no cartel at least not openly.

But there's another key bottleneck. Even with all the money in the world, getting those machines that etch the RAM could be a multi year ration shop queue. And they're not making those companies every day!

> This has become like opec's best years

Yes, except no DRAM maker is taking this as a signal to go deep into debt to double or triple capacity. It takes a minimum of 3+ years to dramatically increase capacity and no one expects this inflated demand bubble to last that long. Because they've seen this cycle before, they'll bump next gen capacity up a bit more than planned, maybe 15-25% because the current windfall profits are enough to build a buffer to absorb the hit if that excess capacity comes online in the next DRAM demand crash.

In the meantime, they'll just apologize to everyone for the "market conditions beyond our control" while banking as much of these crazy profits as they possibly can while it lasts. But deep down they remember they were starving just yesterday and know they'll be starving again tomorrow.

I understand why everyone's pissed at the "evil DRAM makers" but I also remember boasting about how I scored some crazy cheap RAM sticks not so long ago. None of us were shedding tears when they were selling at a loss just to survive.

> Yes, except no DRAM maker is taking this as a signal to go deep...

Incorrect. CXMT is taking this as a signal to open new fabs, create new products, develop new silicon manufacturing techniques, and enter the consumer market worldwide (except USA).

CXMT is a company with heavy state backing and control that started its current trajectory years and years ago. It has infinity money and isn’t allowed to go bankrupt. CXMT is reading political signals (Beijing wants indigenous AI up and down the vertical) as much as market.
> CXMT is a company with heavy state backing and control that started its current trajectory years and years ago. It has infinity money and isn’t allowed to go bankrupt.

This also describes the U.S.A. steel industry. "Heavy state backing" and "not allowed to go bankrupt" often result in particularly terribly-performing industries. If anything, it's notable that China seems to buck that particular trend.

Not sure "only the Chinese model can solve the normies pain" is a great look.

Lately consumers are told capitalism is cheap TVs, phones, and computers while housing, healthcare, education, energy, and food climbed further out of reach. The "bread" part of bread and circuses has shrunk dramatically, "but at least you're getting cheaper circuses" is what they've been saying.

Now you're saying only a heavily state-directed Chinese model is still willing to aggressively finance new fabs and meet demand to provide that? "Capitalism demands we don't expand capacity and don't meet demand' is kinda a tough sell after capitalism has been sold as expanding access. "Consolidation, maximal extraction, shareholder preservation, and AI" isn't going to be a winner. I get it makes business sense and wouldn't be a big deal in the past, but the rapidly changing dynamics hitting nearly every part of daily life across the entire economy feels destabilizing.

We're down to wearing dystopian sci-fi level cheap clothes, can't afford chips/sodas, candy/sweet treats have been enshitified to no longer be fulfilling, we can't afford to call an ambulance. Media is polarizing instead of mass media calming. Heck thrift stores are becoming unaffordable to the low end as the middle now resorts to them.

"You don't have the foods you are used to, decent clothing, shelter, health, or social cohesion but you have a sweet 6 year old phone and flock cameras keeping you safe". Jesus it feels... not good. Even cyberpunk dystopia understood you needed to at least jack people into something.

> Incorrect.

Okay, you got me. I was reflecting the prudent way long-term players generally interpret the market. But from time to time external macro-economic and/or geopolitical factors may shift. Those changes may persist over time or eventually swing back like tides. Other times someone thinks they've got a new angle or a new technology (the RDRAM format was a notable attempt). Occasionally, the people who always say "But this time it's different" are lucky enough to actually say it one of the rare times it IS different.

Time will tell if CXMT's gambit will pay off. Even if it doesn't maybe their state sponsors will absorb the losses for other strategic reasons.

Isn’t that the point?

Everyone knows the commodity market (outside HBM) is going to be margin crushed within a few years… by CXMT, demand swings, and so on.

So nobody cares to fully meet the demand today. They are perfectly happy telling customers (those not willing to sign a 10 year contract paying up front at least) to go pound sand.

They don’t even need an OPEC like arrangement. They are effectively perfectly coordinated already in dismissing customers.

Yes, there are a bunch of bizarre comments in here. "Why aren't they rushing to make more fabs? Don't they know China is using this moment to the enter the market in a big way?" Yes, they do! And building more fabs would make that worse. The last thing you want to do before a state-backed player enters the market in a boom cycle is load up on debt to produce more capacity just before the bust.
To reframe your great comment:

Is it fair to conclude that DRAM is basically a commodity that can be specified well enough by a set of parameters?

If so it won’t allow you to get any competitive advantage in your products and thus wouldn’t be a business you want to be in as Apple.

Yes, that's what I meant by "Mainstream DRAM". The basic parameters are specified by standards like JEDEC, so the most common types can be used in many systems thus reach high volumes. This can be less true for specialized RAM like HBM or the highest performance grades.
The competitive advantage is having access to it.
The only reason I can see Apple do this is if it enables them to sell entry level devices with vastly more ram than the competition can afford. Say entry level MacBook Pro with 256GiB ram to facilitate running frontier level local models. If that is an edge they want to have.
In what world would 256GB of RAM be “entry level”?
In the same world 8GB used to be unfathomably huge not that long ago?

Hell, an 8GB hard drive was unfathomable when I was a kid in the 90s. I remember getting a 30 megabyte drive for our Mac LC.

The first computer I ever used had 512K, which was a great deal back then, and by the time I was old enough to learn to type it had 10MB disk too.

My childhood best friend and neighbour had the same kind of computer except they only had something like 384K of memory and I tried to convince them their computer was broken when it didn't count up all the way.

> The first computer I ever used had 512K

Mine had 4K of RAM and an 800 KHz CPU - and I was living in the future, man. No way I could use that much memory. After all I had to type in whatever program I wanted to run every time I turned it on. Then I got a manual audio cassette recorder and thought "Woah, I don't think it gets better than this!"

And that Mac LC only had a max of 10MB of ram.
The same world where a MacBook Pro G4 12" came base level with 256MB of RAM.

The same world where a classic Mac came with 128KB of RAM.

We might someday live in a world where entry-level is 256TB of RAM.

That is the timeline I want to live in. Probably.
A world where Apple has invested in their own fabs, so they can sell devices with drastically more RAM than their competition at entry-level prices.
I'm no business expert and Apple is of course in a unique position, but owning your own fabs has rarely worked out long term. They require eye watering amounts of CAPEX that needs to be amortized over a timeframe that's longer than apple's products. Today's bleeding edge fabs become tomorrow's "cheap" fabs that pump out chips that don't need to be bleeding edge for the components that go into everyday products like microwaves, cars, etc.

One of the reasons Intel fell behind is that they couldn't give access to their competitors for business reasons, and therefore could never scale as high as TSMC could.

There are many other reasons, but accounting is a huge one. Unless there is a huge ROI or something else we don't otherwise know, I don't see Apple adding such expensive deprecating assets onto their books as chip fabs.

A more realistic scenario that surely must have been considered is this:

They make a strategic investment in the DRAM maker. It's the same idea as buying an equity stake or entering a JV with a flat-panel maker. Or deploying cash to provide the latest EUV tooling to TSMC.

Large famous-brand computer maker has no expertise in running a fab.

I could punch holes in this idea right away. But it seems better than "tilting up your own fab".

The point of my GP post was that due to being one of the world's biggest and longest-term buyers, Apple is already paying very close to actual manufacturing costs + amortized capex because RAM is an undifferentiated commodity. Owning the factory themselves doesn't reduce the actual manufacturing cost + amortized capex that Apple would have to pay their own factory. Apple is already buying RAM at the lowest possible margins. It's similar math to deciding whether to spend your own cash or get a loan. If the loan's interest rate is low enough, it's better take the loan and put your cash to work where it can return a higher margin. And at the incredibly low margins Apple pays for RAM, keeping that cash in long-term investments will actually earn more money than putting it into building RAM factories.

If Apple could go back in time 3.5 years and decide to build their own factory, that would put them in a great position today. But deciding to do it now won't increase their supply 3.5 years from now more than just increasing their long-term orders with existing suppliers. Those suppliers will start building new factories based on Apple's increased orders and they'll do it faster and cheaper than Apple can because they don't have to build some factories in the U.S. for political reasons or worry as much about environmental regulation, permitting and ensuring Apple employees in Penang get benefits similar to employees in Cupertino.

Isn't one of the points of the article that memory manufacturers leave demand unmet for their own financial safety? In which case, nobody (including Apple) is paying close to manufacturing costs. There isn't enough memory to go around and prices are extremely inflated.

You're talking about the "best" things Apple could do with their money, in terms of investment returns, but I think that misses the point that Apple literally can't buy enough memory at any price.

Why would they sell a device with 256GB of RAM as the lowest-spec device rather than making 8 32GB or 16 16GB machines as their entry-level?

Apple’s not exactly famous for their low pricing on spec upgrades nor competing based on being the price leader…

If 256GB of RAM enables them to run on-device AI models that (for reasons) are a key feature differentiator?

Personally, I think there's no way memory heavy inference moves on-device (vs cloud) due to the economics, but it's not impossible technology + platforms go that way for currently unforeseeable reasons.

And yet, Apple had to drop base configs from their lineup. They weren't selling $599 Minis at cost. They could take someone over and inflict damage on competition.
And what happens if the market settles back down or the leading memory tech pivots away from what you invested all this capital and time chasing?

You'd need a very strong, very particular forecast to make such a costly bet. And conversely, it may say something about their internal forecasts that they're not making the bet.

> And conversely, it may say something about their internal forecasts that they're not making the bet.

Idk if you can read into it that way.

All these companies have cafeterias but you don't see them investing into farmland so they can get their bananas a few cents cheaper.

But also why bother spending 20B on a fab when you can invest 20B into TSMC and let them build the fab?

Because having every major company in America’s eggs in one basket is as insane as it gets, especially with China bearing down on Taiwan.
That’s an entirely different framework, one that doesn’t concern investment decisions of Apple or Google.

I do agree that USA and EU could foot the bill and subsidize a couple billions in such industrial infrastructure, perhaps taking back a cut of the profit rather than privatizing all of it.

But they’re not doing it, or are making pitiful efforts at that

It's just an insane amount of money to invest with the long-term effect of you oversaturating the chip market.

Throwing 20B into a chip fab in the EU would be politically a very unpopular move, if it's done as a public company or worse directly state owned, you'll royally piss of Taiwan, South Korea and China and it's likely they'd retaliate by e.g. subsidising their auto industry more in order to give the death blow to the EU auto industry.

They'd more likely split themselves laughing.

The solution to threats to global economic integration is to address the threats to global economic integration. It's not to cannibalise our own full-employment high value economies, by diverting enormous capital and labour into duplicating vast swathes of lower value jobs we don't actually have the work force for anyway, just so we can pay unaffordable prices for the resulting goods.

We probably both agree it's an absurd fantasy, and the people trying to make stuff like this happen are implementing policies that ensure that it won't, such as putting tariffs on the inputs they need to build out this domestic manufacturing capacity in the first place.

The issue with national investment in the EU is that it might be attacked as state sponsored activity where one can complain that public money are used for market moves or if it is EU wide initiative, then the governments will squabble whose economy will get the money. The framework is not mature enough to allow for delegating to someone to solve the problem for everyone and to balance the beneficiaries in the long term.
It shouldn't be a politically unpopular move. Other countries can get pissed off, but those other countries also cannot guarantee that Europe will get chips when times are tough. If you want to build modern drones and missiles you need access to a large amount of computer chips. In a crisis will those still be available to Europe?
Probably for strategic reasons.

Mainland China is one concern.

Another is AI being the commodity compliment to semiconductors.

Meta spent more on the Metaverse, it’s all the most certainly something they can afford to take a hit on and they won’t because memory and CPU usage is only going to go up from this point on.
> And conversely, it may say something about their internal forecasts that they're not making the bet.

It says they are no longer worried about being punished for monopolistic behavior and have bet a “ballroom donation” will exempt them from another round of punishment.

I feel like folks around here have already forgotten about the last time the memory suppliers quietly agreed to keep raising prices and stop competing with each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing_scandal

I’m of the (possibly unpopular) opinion that ~80% of these new data centers are never going to see the light of day.

None of the economics or supply needs of these things make any sense. The water is generally not there, electric transformers are next to impossible to acquire. I just read about one in Utah that’s supposed to be 2.5x the size of Manhattan?? https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/933687/u...

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of this was planned by software guys who are used to brute-forcing their way through “impossible” problems. But those were software problems, where the limits are mostly theoretical. In the world of atoms, limitations are real.

Neither transformers or water are the limiting factor, cash is. Right now the big 3 are taking all their profits and building data centers. If there's not an ROO they'll stop.

Transformers aren't so complex that production can't increase. Most water is used for agriculture and right now the data centers can pay more for it.

Why should society care about people making profits? Society would greatly benefit from cheap abundant ram than FAANG shares going up. I'm kinda sick about only caring that some billionaire makes more money and would rather you know... actually improve conditions to better society.

This is why China is eating the West. Quite easy to start an electronics company when you have such an abundance of suppliers, compare this to America where there is maybe one or two players in the entire nation.

Quite pathetic, but we live in a pathetic world so it tracks.

You think Chinese businesses aren’t in it for the profits?
While these private companies exist and are in it for the profits, they don't control the government, meaning any potential price gouging is strictly regulated. The Chinese government actively prevents private companies from becoming too powerful or dominating an industry in the public eye. Instead, they foster competition by promoting and building up alternative companies.

A great example of this is how they handled digital payments. While Visa and Mastercard maintain a monopoly in the West, China faced a similar situation when private mobile payment systems began dominating the market. In response, the government stepped in and forced the ecosystem to open up to competitors.

I wouldn't characterize it as forcing to "open up". It's true they put an end to some of the most egregious anti-competitive practices, but the Chinese tech ecosyatem, including payments, is still notoriously non-interoperable. For example, there's no way to transfer money between WeChat Pay and Alipay.

The relationship between Tencent/Bytedance/Alibaba is what happens when there are no monopoly laws or they are ineffective: every company fighting tooth and nail to corner every market with a single "super-app". No specialization at all and many races to the bottom, like the recent war between Alibaba, JD and Meituan over instant delivery that made every company involved lose a lot of money.

I don’t get the example, any payment in China is basically a duopoly between WeChat and Alipay, meanwhile in US there are visa, mastercard, American Express and discover counting credit card payment only.
In the US, Visa and Mastercard control the backend infrastructure, giving them the power to decide who can use their services. This is why we see them blocking legal platforms or creators simply because a corporate board disagrees with what they are selling.

In China, this kind of corporate driven censorship doesn't happen. Tech corporations like WeChat and Alipay don't control the payment routing that is run by the state's central network. A merchant just needs a bank account and a QR code, and any customer can use it to pay them. The private apps cannot arbitrarily decide to block a legal merchant based on corporate politics or moral stances.

But not open up to competitors like Visa.
Credit card processors are, as a natural aspect of their purpose, a deeply useful surveillance network.
Correct. A level playing field for all companies regardless of other factors is explicitly a non-goal.
They are but the difference is that China doesn't want to encourage monopolies and have zero qualms in jailing or executing bad business leaders.
There absolutely are monopolies. There are, in fact, many state run enterprises. Where do you get these ideas?
My understanding is that the Chinese government prefers to have multiple successful companies in each field and they don't like it when one company becomes too powerful.
State run is better than a private for profit monopoly or few-o-poly which is what we get.

People all over the world have often revolted to get some enterprises state run (nationalizing) and were often punished or even bombed for it.

But those are mostly companies who provide a public service, or am I wrong?
In China the desire for profits serves the society. In the US the society serves the desire for profits.
Oh sure, Chinese investors and business people share their profits with everyone out of the goodness of their heart. Nice fairy tale.
> This is why China is eating the West.

Nothing to do with cheap labour.

Labor has very little to do with it and more about a political class that has to increase the material needs of a nation if they still want to stay in power.

What has the US government done for American's lately outside of forcing people to buy healthcare and providing monetary support for families for a small window during covid? All we have is a political class that wants to fuck Americans raw until they pump every cent out of us.

Also the US has one of the most weakened labor classes in the world, come the fuck on. Corporations convinced our governments to sell out labor at every opportunity. You're acting as if it was the 1930s where there was a national strike every month until the Wagner Act.

Why are you stating China competitiveness isn't related to labor, and then pivot to US labor?

Before you go there, you should answer: what has the Chinese government done for the Chinese lately? Is everything well in their society, labor and economy wise?

No, nothing to do with that. Even Steve Jobs said so back 20+ years ago, about why Apple can't just get out of China manufacturing.

He said the labour cost is neghigible and not qualitatively different to the US. It's the availability of every part and tech you need in nearby supply centers and factories, the huge supply of appropriate resources, including the ability to have tens of thousands of expert workers on command for a fast new production run.

Of course you do not talk about cheap labor when you are exploiting it, from which all the speed, all the availability-at-any-time come from. The closest quote I can find is

The story is told of when Apple did a last minute design change on the Iphone. As soon as the parts came in, 8000 Chinese workers were immediately called in at midnight to start a 12 hour shift. An Apple executive is quoted as saying that the “speed and flexibility are breathtaking.”

Currently the reality on Chinese assembly lines is those expert workers are working 12 hour shifts for 1 day off every 14 days, and earns about $800-$1,000 a month.

It's a huge problem in China actually, those 996-esque working schedule is everywhere now, normal 955 or even 965 schedule is almost non-existent among domestic private employers. The sad thing is that sometimes some Act (like EU supply chain law) forces factories to 955 schedule but those line workers are not happy, because that means they don't get overtime and are making minimum wages like $300 a month, not even enough to live a life. Chinese got five day work week because of WTO, yet now many have lost it.

I'd buy that if you're talking about developing new products/new production lines, it's cheaper to have suppliers and know how hand - and it's great for margin optimization, because they have other production lines.

But that margin isn't funneled to pay wages and improve living standards.

To say wages don't play a role it's more of a corporate narrative to wash those decisions.

If wages aren't a factor, why don't they raise wages and living standards for those workers?

We're also eagerly taking advantage of their cheap labour and we're taking advantage of plenty of people here at home, sometimes to the point of literal slavery (it's okay when they're prisoners or immigrants)
No, we’re past the cheap labor. They’ve already taken the lead on 3-D printing, drones, robotics, are very close to making their own CPUs and GPUs, their lead on EV cars is pretty much unassailable, they’re in the process of building an electrostate with 100% redundancy and dirt cheap electricity, their bullet trains are on par with Japan’s, they are supplying the entire world with everything solar. I could go on and on. China has arrived and all our geriatric government cares about is creating a white ethnostate and propping up oil and gas companies.
Chinese labour isn't very cheap anymore.
I own FAANG stock because I own the S&P 500 in my retirement accounts, and so do managed pension funds. There's a lot more than billionaires who benefit from FAANG shares going up in value.
It's true that the current pension provision depends on this. But if pensions are mainly funded by companies which extract monopoly rent, then it would actually be more efficient and be less distortionary to the competitive market to fund them directly out of taxation - one big, simple rent instead of 100,000 different ones clogging everything up.
Are US retirement accounts largely growing on the back of “companies which extract monopoly rent”?

That seems outlandish. My iPhone isn’t “rent”, neither is an Nvidia GPU, or an Instagram ad.

The argument works at the margin as well, though. Suppose companies deliver value X and also extract rent Y, and defend Y on the basis that it would threaten the value of pensions to prevent it - this is rebutted in the same way.
I agree, the sentiment that billionaires are the only beneficiaries of share value increases is misinformed, but the mentality of profit chasing is a long term security risk not just to the nation, but to the continued rise in value of said shares. Once China has enough of a grip on their domestic attempts at semiconductor fabrication, these company's supply chains will be completely compromised, allowing China to practically swap out any of these FAANG companies for Chinese counterparts over time. As long as the US, UK, EU and FAANG continue to do next to nothing to develop domestic chip fabs and supply chains, it is only a matter of time.
This is a general argument in favor of protectionist tariffs and against free trade.
Aren't you worried about the circle-funding these companies indulge in when your pnsion depends on it? For example Nvidias's dubious deals with Huangs charity? If something goes sideways there, $5T are at stake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUbJDrL6ZfM
Congrats, what about the other 80% of Americans that can barely afford rent and pay for healthcare? Fuck them right? As long as your shares go up, people must die.

What a great economic system with great morals that create moral societies.

Increasing FAANG stock prices actually make it harder for me, personally, to afford housing - because I live in the bay area where all the FAANG companies have major offices and when people with lots of FAANG stock get richer, one of the things they spend it on is buying housing in the bay area, bidding up the price of that limited resource for everyone else. Building more housing in the bay area would help with this, but there's a lot of local political pressure not to do that; and this is a bay-area-specific problem because of the physical locations of (most of) the FAANG companies.

Anyway a lot more than 20% of Americans are beneficiaries of some kind of pension or 401k or other source of income that is ultimately funded by the US stock market. And shares of the US stock market going up do not kill people who aren't having part of their income funded primarily by the stock market. People who think this is true and that society is therefore immoral badly misunderstand what the actual problems with producing goods and services for people are, which is the thing that actually matters for human health and flourishing.

Society should care about people making profits because otherwise those people do something else instead of providing goods and services. What happened in Communism is instructive on this point. Now if you want to argue that the pursuit of maximum profit as an end is a problem, there's a case to be made. The US had something like a marginal tax rate of 90% around the 1940s/1950s, if I recall correctly, and it obviously didn't hurt innovation, but people got paid in perks and corner offices and status instead of just money.

I think people are misled by Marx and derivatives, and misdiagnose the problem. I don't think people are upset by the CEO making lots of money as much as they are by the HBS management style of using people as a tool, or even as interchangeable "resources". However, the philosophical materialism of Marx & Co. pretty much makes this inevitable. (The secular view is also materialism, so you get it on both sides.)

> I don't think people are upset by the CEO making lots of money as much as they are by the HBS management style of using people as a tool, or even as interchangeable "resources".

How about both? Both are pretty terrible for society IMHO. Some shithead's making 6000x of what average worker at their company because they're on top and they're treating everyone under them as interchangable tools with zero compassion. If they were limited to only making like 3x then they'd be on a much more equitable place with their underlings and might even be more likely to see them as fellow humans instead of disposable work units.

Perhaps it’s not capitalism that’s the problem but the unboundedness of the greed of a few, with respect to the other needs of humanity.

Also Adam Smith implied that unbounded avarice is irrational and disruptive to society.

The assumption is that morality survives grotesque wealth accumulation, we see many examples proving otherwise

"unboundedness of the greed of a few"

Lots of people claim "greed", but the stereotypical Tech billionaire doesn't simply roll around in gold like Scrooge McDuck, doing nothing and demanding more. They invest and reinvest it into new enterprises.

Of all the ways of dealing with massive wealth, this is probably the second least disruptive one. (The first one would be just giving it to honorable causes.)

They claim greed because they always choose the path that makes them more money even if it has clear, evidence-based proof of societal harm.

Ya know, just like the Sacklers and pushing oxycontin.

"Capitalism is the problem" by itself is like saying "unix operating systems are a problem". There are so many flavours, so many parameters (laws, tax, etc.) that I do not see value in generalizations.

I think morality is quite hard to define and any system should take into account unboundedness of some human attributes (being greed, stupidy or other) in some humans.

Capitalism is the only known system that aligns natural, normal individual greed with the benefit and advancement of the society.
Call me crazy but society should care about giving people meaning, providing healthcare, and an education. You know the three things that lead to productive humans.

Notice in my comment I mention nothing about taxes? Maybe people are mislead about neoliberalism? All it has done was sell out American jobs, get civilians addicted to drugs, and manufactured a political class that cares about donations over material needs.

This is an economic system that isn't even 50 years old and you're already going with the Marx scare quotes as if US branded capitalism hasn't already killed 10s of millions of Americans in the pursuit of profit.

Let's not even peel back the founding of this nation, a colonial white slaver state with minority protections baked into the constitution to impede people's chances of progress with every life.

>Call me crazy but society should care about giving people meaning, providing healthcare, and an education. You know the three things that lead to productive humans.

Things that are paid for by economic surpluses. No profits, no investment, no taxes.

It's very much a matter of balance, you're not wrong that those services you mention are vital as are many others generally provided by governments. However it's all funded by a dynamic efficient economy.

The question of private wealth is the hardest, but private wealth by itself isn't a problem. The question there is, who should own and run productive economic activity. If it's not the state, it's private individuals. The wealth of billionaire industrialists doesn't consist of one big pile of money they wallow in, like Scrooge McDuck. It consists of their ownership and control of companies that do things in the economy.

Taking away that wealth means taking away those companies, and doing what with them? if you sell them to other private individuals, now they own and run those companies. If you can just take companies away from people like that, why would anyone build or buy them? If you take the companies into public ownership, now they're run by civil servants and politicians, but you'd have to pay for the companies, right? If you just seize assets, nobody is going to invest in anything that can be seized.

I do think inequality is a growing problem, but there are no easy answers.

You don't understand the point of capitalism. It's not about making rich people richer. Capitalism is about producing stuff. To create a large variety of (useful) products for society.

You need capital to make pretty much anything. Somebody has to come up with a large amount of resources (money) put upfront into the venture. Capitalism creates the incentive for that - if the gamble pays off, then the investors get more value back. If it doesn't work out, then investors lose money. Most businesses fail early and do not provide a return for the investment.

The point of capitalism is to keep this system running. As a result of it we have made an ungodly amount of technological and quality of life improvements. Some people have become filthy rich from this, but typically they also provided the world with goods or services that people like and use. Tesla made Elon filthy rich, but it also made electric vehicles popular.

> You don't understand the point of capitalism. It's not about making rich people richer.

Making the rich richer isn't necessarily the point, but it is an unavoidable consequence.

> Capitalism is about producing stuff.

Humans have been producing stuff well before the concept of ownership was invented, and certainly well before the massive wealth accumulation that is the hallmark of capitalism.

And almost for the entirety of that period, humans lived in abject poverty. The rise of capitalism perfectly correlates with the most spectacular increase in human flourishing and prosperity in the history of our species. Even in the last fifty years, liberalizing economies, private ownership, and contract law have lifted tens of millions out of poverty, mostly in SE Asia.
And yet many in capitalist society lived and still live in abject poverty, despite the fact that there are enough resources so that no one should be left wanting. Nevertheless, you've somehow convinced yourself that those people either (a) don't matter, (b) deserve it, or (c) can't be helped.

If the goal is to reduce poverty, I fail to see how the existence of billionaires is a positive outcome, either now, in the form of Musk and his ilk; in the form of the robber barons of the late 18th century; or in the form of the noble lords of the feudal period to owned a lot but contributed nothing.

Society shouldn't. But it's not society making that decision, it's the corporations and people with lots of wealth that want to get even more wealth.
> Why should society care about people making profits?

The people making profits are the ones providing food, shelter, and phones to you.

Well I am still waiting for my google home and my meta steaks.

Reality is, those companies don't give anything back, just siphone all profits into tax havens so owners can take as much cash out of it as possible, in one form or another.

Their goal is to provide nothing back as much as they could. Look at their actions, not some empty PR statements.

> Reality is, those companies don't give anything back

California, Washington, and New York are about to find out what happens when they drive the wealthy businesses out of the state.

Massachusetts found out a few years ago. They decided they were going to heavily tax yachts that were built by the yacht industry in the state. What happened is the wealthy bought their yachts elsewhere, and the local yacht industry collapsed, and many thousands of skilled craftsmen lost their jobs.

The tax was rescinded.

No, the real people providing the food, shelter and electronics are the generally the lowest paid in society.
But they are making a profit. Otherwise they'd have to stop providing stuff, because they'd be broke.
> The people making profits are the ones providing food, shelter, and phones to you.

I'm not worried about the guy making my sandwich at the corner deli. He's entitled to my money because he provides a valuable service.

I am worried about the owner of FoodCo, who plays golf all day while his employees run the company. He provides literally no service to anyone at all, but makes more money than any employee. He then uses his profits to buy homes in the area, so his employees can pay back half of their paycheck to him in the form of rent.

Why doesn't a small village have a supermarket? If it's small enough then it won't have any store at all. Why? Because the business doesn't make enough money to justify it and the consequence of this is that none of the inhabitants of that village can "just go to the store to buy some milk". They either need to plan weeks or months worth of shopping in advance or have access to transport that can take them to a town that has a store.

The owner of FoodCo put in a lot of their money upfront to make the company happen in the first place. Your deli guy wouldn't have a job if the FoodCo guy hadn't done what he did.

I know that it's hard for people from rich (and high population) countries to understand, but the high variety of goods and services that exist are a consequence of people investing into businesses. Without them many of these businesses wouldn't exist, because most people are not rich enough to be able to fund a business on their own.

> The owner of FoodCo put in a lot of their money upfront to make the company happen in the first place. Your deli guy wouldn't have a job if the FoodCo guy hadn't done what he did.

This is blatantly untrue in the face of even a cursory thought. If the deli didn’t exist, that worker would have done any number of other jobs. Subsistence farming, doing deli stuff out of his house, maybe even community funding a coop grocery store.

That was how things worked at many points in human history. Instead of “private citizen makes $thing and collects rent” it was some variety of “municipality funds $thing for the community”. That just doesn’t extrapolate to a global economy well, for better or worse.

Your argument amounts to billionaire apologism and has nothing to do with my comment.

If a supermarket cannot be profitable in a small village, an investor isn't going to change that. The investor will invest in businesses that can be profitable.

> Your deli guy wouldn't have a job if the FoodCo guy hadn't done what he did.

People have had jobs since before civilization, and certainly before massive accumulation of wealth became the norm.

Name one CEO of a large company who fits your profile.
Elon Musk is a great example. These days, he mostly writes racist tweets, pretends to play video games, consolidates his own businesses to increase his own apparent net worth, and undermines the federal government.
Nope. They're the ones making those more expensive, via collusion, rent-seeking, monopoly capture, and lots of other ways.
It's a cycle. The zeitgeist moves from communism to capitalism and vice-versa every 30 years or so.
The zeitgeist yes, but in terms of actual politics socialism nowadays is really a vague aspiration rather than any actual policies. Certainly here in the UK our Labour governments since the 90s have confined themselves to just tweaking the settings on the economy Maggie built in the 80s. I'm just about old enough to remember what actual socialist economic policies looked like.
Corbyn tried to make Labour do something different but we saw how we got treated all because he wasn't willing to kowtow towards Israel.
Part of this is a lie high prices for equipment has a lot to do with monopolies in the whole supply chain and one of the major reason I am rooting for China to get parity on node as that would mean it would have been able to break all the monopolies and we get competition on the whole production from uv machines, wafer, on equipment for storing etc. Renewables are rapidly taking the world to very cheap or free energy but it would be bad if the way to best use the energy for production is controlled by a few corporations
China becoming self sufficient in chip fab could be the trigger point for WW3 so lets not root too hard
no we already are going to a world war with the pedophile president and parliament (for some reason people like to pretend he is the only one in the epstein files) being controlled by a mass child murdering prime minister of a racist apartheid country they will attack Iran again and start the world war.
While I think Apple is a prime candidate to do something like this financially, I’ve never had the impression that they ever want to get involved in something “just” for vertical efficiency. There’s always a long-term vision where they can leverage it to gain a competitive edge that their competitors can’t match (the PA Semi acquisition being a perfect example of this).

RAM doesn’t seem like something where simply owning the manufacturing could lead to a disproportionate competitive edge. It would just be a vertical efficiency gamble that may or may not pay off. Of course that could simply be a failure of my imagination.

Tesla is building their own fab

Huge gamble - If they pull it off I wouldn't be surprised if other companies follow

And then everyone will scream unfair when the Chinese roll up the market from the bottom.
$20B a single Fab. And you don't just have one Fab. You need multiple. And again I have to state this every time, the most expensive Fab is empty Fab. You need to fill it, and you need to fill constant and consistently for years.

>but it seems they'd be a prime candidate to spin up their own memory fab.

They will be the prime candidate to work with memory makers for additional capacity. Not to start their own one. Here is a $20B cheque and 5 years guarantee of orders. Go and make me some memory for his price.

I mean this is the same story for iPod and NAND. It seems we are repeating what we should have learned.

You needed to fill it constantly in the “old times” when memory was ubiquitous and cheap to justify the finance payments on the debt you incurred to build it.

When you’re Apple and can build it with cash, and ram is currently so insane it saves you a decade of memory price gouging in a single year, the math changes quickly.

>and ram is currently so insane it saves you a decade of memory price gouging in a single year, the math changes quickly.

Apple is not paying the same insane price most people / other players are paying.

Literally the most overwhelming thought, reading this, is "man, capitalism is a mistake"

The amounts of money circulating whilst some of us struggle to make rent ...

Nothing fair, or just, about this world we live in

> The amounts of money circulating whilst some of us struggle to make rent ...

It may be expressed in terms of money, but these are assets and capital. You wouldn't find a fab a very comfortable or satisfying place to live.

The reason the numbers get so big is the gargantuan accumulated savings that are prepared to fund the similarly gargantuan ventures. The large numbers are supported by maintaining and sustaining the capitalized value by profitable investment and depreciation.

When you talk about rent, while it may be expressed in the same unit (money), the economic function played is very different. Here, it is consumption rather than saving/investment. If the dollar equivalent of all those assets went towards paying rent, while it would secure housing for some time, it would eventually become completely exhausted, and so too would housing security. Large pools of assets are simply not a way to get stable housing, it would only consume the large savings society has accumulated to be able to undergo those big ventures. It would be short-sighted and harm us in the future.

The cause and solution to rental instability is to be found in housing, building, and land policy that restricts the production of housing.

That's right. Housing is not an asset to society or the economy, it's a drain that wastes money on preserving human life. Unlike valuable uses of capital like options trading and cryptocurrency.
Despite your reply obviously not being good faith, I will correct errors for others.

> Housing is not an asset to society or the economy, it's a drain that wastes money on preserving human life.

You are equivocating between asset in the sense of 'generally useful thing', and the sense I used above which is a capital good. Housing is obviously a useful thing and necessary, just as all other consumptive goods like food, clothing, etc. That makes it an 'asset' in the former sense to people (there is no such thing as useful to the economy, which is just an abstraction). But housing, food, and clothing are not assets in the latter sense. I.e., paying for housing is a consumptive act and not a productive act. There is nothing good or bad about either, the distinction is simply a distinction of economic function. Eating is important, but eating uses up resources; it is consumption. Cooking is important, but it is not eating, you don't get anything out of it until you eat; it is production. Both rely on each other, neither can be given up completely without harm.

Thus, a proper balance must be struck, because it would be foolish and self-destructive to only consume. If there was only consumption, then this would simply sacrifice your future and you would not be able to survive after you have used up what was produced before. The question is about whether you want a stable, regular, and lasting way to be able to have valuable things like housing, food, and clothing. To do that, you have to refrain from consuming your entire stock of assets, you have to refrain from using up all the resources you have. But that is what you would to if you took all the capital that companies have saved up and consumed it. The purpose of my original post was to point out that you can't look at production as if it were consumption, they have different roles and if you mistake production as an opportunity to consume, it is self-destructive.

Replying by ignoring this distinction and instead making a strawman will not prevent your perspective from being self destructive.

No, capitalism isn't a mistake, unregulated capitalism is a mistake. The solution is simple, don't let companies merge/acquire after a certain size. Capitalism works when there is a healthy competitive market. It doesn't work when there are 1-3 big companies all fixing prices.
> , is "man, capitalism is a mistake"

Man, we need a better term for this criticism.

The US right now is more harsh to live in than the US pre-Reagan, which was more harsh than many countries with a strong welfare state, but all of them are capitalistic.

Perhaps the term you are looking for is corporate feudalism.
Maybe, but you have very similar dynamics in China or other countries. At the root the problem is one of power dynamics, inequality, authoritarianism (whether legitimized by money or politics or both). Or said otherwise, an erosion of democratic and egalitarian ideals.
“Late-stage capitalism” is the normal term for expressing a belief that capitalism tends to eat itself over a long enough time horizon.
> Nothing fair, or just, about this world we live in

We all make different choices, and so have different consequences.

For example, I squandered the proceeds of a business deal on a new car. If I'd bought MSFT instead, I could have bought 100 new cars.

So what you're saying is that we all just need to become better gamblers? That doesn't exactly scream functional society to me.

Besides, this can't work for everyone - if you get 100 cars without an equivalent amount of more work put in then someone else has to do that work without being properly compensated for it.

It shifts the gains away from the marginal investor in Microsoft who was only willing to pay a penny less for those shares (probably an eighth of a dollar when this anecdote happened). Instead of them getting the 100 cars, the buyer who was willing to hit the ask earlier gets them.

That profit comes from owning a piece of a productive company, productive companies often spring from early-stage losses that require investment money from somewhere, seed stage money comes from the high likelihood that later stage money will come in if the venture appears successful.

Your comment does not address the (imho reasonable) criticism that the described system incentivizes gambling as the key to wealth, rather than labor.

There are many problems with a gambling based economy, not least among them that over a long enough time line, all the money ends in very few hands.

I don’t view long-term investing in productive companies as anything close to gambling.
> a long enough time line, all the money ends in very few hands.

You're assuming the economy is zero sum, which it obviously is not.

Gambling: the ROI math means you lose money

Investing: the ROI math means you make money

> So what you're saying is that we all just need to become better gamblers?

It means take advantage of the free education you received. Make an assessment of what you enjoy and what you are good at. Select an opportunity in the intersection of those two endeavors.

People start businesses every day in America.

> Besides, this can't work for everyone

Wealth is not zero sum. If you create wealth, that does not mean someone else must be worse off.

If I'd simply written the correct numbers on last week's lottery ticket, I could do that.

(hindsight stock picking is terrible!)

China going capitalist ( while remaining authoritarian ) has helped lift 800 million out of desperate poverty.

I hope that India too can emulate this in my lifetime. I was born in Kerala and would love to see Indians live in a country that is as wealthy per capita ( PPP adjusted ) as Singapore or failing that even as wealthy as the USA.

Capitalism has it's problems. But you struggling with rent is entirely your self-inflicted problem...

> But you struggling with rent is entirely your self-inflicted problem...

Yeah, that one guy and 70% of the country https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/70-americans-struggle-pay-...

So why aren't those people lining up to try and emigrate to non-capitalistic countries for a allegedly better life?

Instead for the past century we have almost everyone in the world wanting or not minding moving to the hypercapitalist USA.

Ironically almost all the countries with emigration controls and exit visas in the past century were noncapitalistic countries trying to stop their people from fleeing to capitalistic countries.

I don't know what you would define as "non-capitalistic" or why you'd limit your options to only those countries, but the idea that people can just pack up and go to live wherever they feel like is incredibly naive.

The reasons Americans don't just move to whatever country they think they'd enjoying living in the most are often the same reasons most people all over the world don't. They have a life here. Family, friends, jobs and other ties to their community that would be hard to leave behind.

Uncertainty and fear also keep people from moving their lives to new countries. Especially when they're going to a place where they don't have friends and family to help them with things like expenses and childcare.

Americans in particular are unlikely to speak anything other than English and while English is often understood to some extent many places overseas it can't be assumed to be avilable everywhere. Understanding the local language is often a requirement for getting citizenship in a country and not being fluent will be a hindrance even where it isn't explicitly required.

It's also very expensive to move. You'll need to have enough money to live somewhere and feed and clothe yourself the moment you step off the plane. You'll need to store all off your things someplace until housing can be secured and that can take a lot of time. Countries can require thousands in fees to apply for citizenship and people struggling with basics like food and housing aren't going to be able to afford that. About half the country doesn't even have a passport and the expense of getting one (along with the needed documentation) would be an additional burden.

Other countries don't necessarily want you. Immigrating is difficult. Unless you can demonstrate that you've already got someone willing to hire you (and effectively vouch that you won't be a financial burden) or you have some much needed skill or one that a native citizen cannot perform you may not be welcome. No nation is obligated to accept responsibility for you just because you want to live there.

It'd be great if everyone everywhere could just pack up and leave to start a life wherever they felt like it, but there are many reasons why that just isn't realistic. There are tens of millions of people America right now living in places without safe drinking water because of heavy metal contamination. Why do you think they don't just pack up and move to cities with drinkable water? What about the tens of millions of Americans who live within one mile of toxic waste sites that have been linked to infant deaths, cancers, and other serious long-term health issues? Why don't they just move? Forget about America, how about all those starving Africans just move to somewhere with lots of food? The world just doesn't work that way.

Some countries have walls to keep people in, some have walls to keep people out.

> the idea that people can just pack up and go to live wherever they feel like is incredibly naive.

That's how America was populated. In the last 5 years, millions of people walked from South America to the US. Walked!

The tax increases in New York, California and Washington have resulted in an exodus of wealthy people.

Those factors apply to non Americans wanting to move to the US but it's apparent that there is heavy demand to the extent of millions taking dangerous trips and breaking laws just to get a foot into the USA. You cant find such latent demand to the same extent via surveys or visa applications in the other direction.
I would be curious to see those stats that show they are no longer in poverty, as poverty is relative, aka when rent goes up many still can't afford it. Just because they have more money coming in, it doesn't mean they aren't poor. Wealth per capita in the UK, US, Germany, and so on is good but there is still rampant poverty in each where people struggle to afford food, housing, and utilities. The wages don't match the outgoings.
> But you struggling with rent is entirely your self-inflicted problem...

The funny thing about this is that practically every single person in the US between the ages of 25-45 was an early adopter and a big fan for some (or all) of FAANG in the early days, and clearly saw the importance. The fact that they aren't filthy rich and far wealthier than older people tells a story. Not a story of lattes and avocados, but a story where housing and education costs guaranteed that as a group they couldn't save, never had a chance to invest, still can't invest. With certain adjustments the story isn't so different for much of the western world.. maybe education was cheap/free but their domestic labor market was weaker, whatever. They were and are still pretty much guaranteed to be on the outside. Luck, timing, and good connections are nice at any time, but the last few decades it's everything. In another timeline maybe wealthy youth is landlording it over the impoverished oldies, but in the best timeline we'd split the difference.

Even worse, it's a uniquely bad time to be smart and hardworking, because that's the type of attitude that could stick you with a lack of resilience at just the wrong time. People who've coasted may do much better than ones who are striving. Would you rather be a university grad with new debt right now, or be a certified HVAC tech for the last 5 years? If you were a mechanic, would you want to own the shop with loans to pay off in this economy and tariffs to deal with, or would you prefer to be a simple employee that can just bounce once the company goes under? I've met phd's who are delivering pizzas to make ends meet. Blue collar folks not only have better job security at the moment, but going back some years, if they got a mortgage at the right time and place with that stable job maybe they could do normal life stuff like kids, retirement one day.

What lessons do we think young people will take from all this? Nothing against anyone who is lucky, but a stubborn belief in mythical meritocracy or the legendary American dream is absolutely stone-cold crazy these days. There's just the insiders and the outsiders and there's not much rhyme or reason to any of it.

> it's a uniquely bad time to be smart and hardworking

I think the next decade will be one of the single greatest times to be smart and hardworking. I think we’ll see AI-powered tools evolve to give hardworking humans significantly more leverage than they’ve been able to individually harness before and coupling that with smart (meaning high and good judgment on how to use them) will be an incredibly powerful combination.

> But you struggling with rent is entirely your problem...

Who said anything about struggling with rent? Sounds like you a grasping for a straw man.

> I hope that India too can emulate this in my lifetime

I, too, hope the best things for the people of China and of India. But India, by any metric, is already a capitalist economy, where its wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few.

To the extent that China has been successful is distributing its wealth among many people, I'd say it's the authoritarianism, rather than the capitalism, that has been instrumental. The state sets agendas, quotas, and salaries specifically to produce that outcome. Top-down government control is not a feature of unbridled capitalism.

So we have two large industrializing economies, both capitalist. One (the authoritarian one) has succeeded in drastically reducing poverty; the other has not. And yet you think that capitalism is the driver of equality?

Capitalism produces wealth. You need some other system to distribute that wealth fairly.

> Who said anything about struggling with rent?

The person they replied to, in the very comment they replied to…?

> > > The amounts of money circulating whilst some of us struggle to make rent ...

China also does massive amounts of investment in new technologies and local companies. One of the reasons capitalism concentrates wealth these days is that it’s cheaper to generate enormous capex to prevent paying for labor than to deal with the opex of labor. Ie the road to wealth requires either wealth or investment from the wealthy.

In capitalism, the wealthy provide the capex and reap the profit. In China, the government provides a lot of the capex and claims a lot of the profit (either directly or indirectly). They can then re-invest that, use it to set salaries free from market forces, etc.

The US could do more of that without getting into the contentious issue of raising personal taxes. Ie the government could control the flow of GPUs into the country, asserting that it had the right of first purchase, distribute them to a tightly controlled private company (think power or water company, with margins set by law), and probably make a profit on the cheaper hardware because they’d be a massive purchasing block. We won’t, though, because Google, Amazon, Oracle, etc are currently posed to make a _ton_ of money off doing basically the exact same thing.

China wound not have a ton of billionaires that are living and fleeing China if they had their wealth distributed well
> capitalism is the driver of equality?

Nope. It is the driver of opportunity, though. It's up to individuals to take advantage of the opportunity, or not.

>It's up to individuals to take advantage of the opportunity, or not.

The problem is that after decades monopolies consolidated and you have massive offshoring of labor to cheap countries and offshoring of profits to tax havens, there's not much opportunities the working class individuals can take, as all the opportunities are now geared towards the asset owning rent seeking class.

There are endless businesses you can start with little to no capital.
Capitalism incentivizes risk taking because the payoff is enormous - the most successful risk takers get to own the world 50 years later.

The problem: there's a second phase 50 years later, where the risk takers from 50 years ago own the world and do their best to prevent further rewards flowing to new risktakers. We are in that phase now.

The other problem: when the reward is so great, you do everything to get ahead, even illegal things, because the expectation value (winning*P(winning) + prison*P(caught)) is still positive.

> the most successful risk takers get to own the world 50 years later.

Musk creating wealth has taken nothing from me. How about you?

> there's a second phase 50 years later, where the risk takers from 50 years ago own the world and do their best to prevent further rewards flowing to new risktakers. We are in that phase now.

Did you know that Hackernews is run by wealthy people who fund startups?

What illegal things did Bezos do to get rich? Jobs? Gates? Musk?

"while remaining authoritarian" implies that Authoritarianism is an exclusive trait of Communism, which is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Use any Capitalist country with an Authoritarian leader as an example.
There have been 20,000 communes set up in the US. None were authoritarian. They all failed anyway.
I don't know what this has to do with anything I said.
Courtesy of TFA and capitalism:

"In 1985, if you were a reasonably affluent American, the best computer that you could afford was the IBM PC AT. The PC AT would cost you about $6,000—$19,400 in 2026 dollars—and thus represented about a quarter of the median American’s annual income; and it ran on an Intel 80286 processor, capable of something like 900,000 instructions per second. Today, if you find yourself in a market stall in Nairobi or Lagos, you’ll be able to find a cheap smartphone—like the Tecno Spark Go, manufactured by China’s Transsion—for somewhere between $30 and $120. That phone will run on a processor capable of billions of calculations per second."

This quote has nothing to do with capitalism.

Please note that "commerce" and "capitalism" are not synonymous, and that the former does not imply the latter. Capitalism is in no way a prerequisite for technological development.

"Capitalism" is an ever shifting ambiguity that exists to be a scapegoat to attack but is completely meaningless in its concrete usage by the attackers.

But "capitalism" in its historical and practical meaning means nothing other than commerce, i.e. the society based exchange, the system of production based on exchange. It was only through capitalist accounting methods that businesses were able to conduct commerce in such a way as to contrast costs and proceeds, and therefore create the optimizations that lead to mass computer production or, what is the same, cheap computers for the masses.

> But "capitalism" in its historical and practical meaning means nothing other than commerce, i.e. the society based exchange, the system of production based on exchange

Completely wrong. Many of my comments here distinguish commerce from capitalism.

Commerce, ie the exchange of goods and services, has existed longer than civilization. Even some animals do it.

Capitalism is specifically the substitution of labor with ownership as a means of profiting. This produces an imbalanced market: some people compete for resources by selling their labor, while others compete simply by owning capital: the means of production. The problem is that the latter mode allows unlimited accumulation of wealth, while the former is limited by time and effort.

Imagine if Elon Musk was working a salaried job that paid $60000 per hour. How long would he have to work in order to earn his current fortune?

Every socialist tries to make this distinction and falls to their own guillotine. You do realize that "substitute with" is merely a synonym for "exchange"?

The exchange of labor, to be sure, has existed nearly as long as civilization itself, perhaps longer, as all people cooperate by exchange through the division of labor right down to the family, and it is exchange whether the articles to be exchanged are money or physical things or even intangible, ephemeral things like love, pride, loyalty, or otherwise. Since human society is human cooperation by the division of labor, by your definition capitalism is nearly synonymous with human society itself. Fine by me.

I mean we don't really have any counter examples even China didn't really start advancing in any meaningful way until they started moving towards capitalism.
We didn't have any examples of states without a divinely appointed absolute monarch until we did. Things can change.

And as a matter of fact, there are many examples of non capitalist societies.

Capitalism is in no way a prerequisite for technological development.

Really? Who else builds stuff?

>Who else builds stuff?

The Chinese, famously?

China is a great example of a counter point to the argument. They only started making things once they realized capitalism was better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_and_opening_up

> The reforms [starting in 1976] de-collectivized agriculture, abolished the people's communes, relaxed price controls, allowed foreign direct investment into China, and led to the creation of special economic zones, most prominently the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone and the Shanghai Pudong New Area. Private enterprises were allowed to grow, while many state-owned enterprises were scaled down or privatized. Shanghai Stock Exchange and the Shenzhen Stock Exchange were established in 1990, allowing a capital market system

> Really? Who else builds stuff?

Said the Christian in pre-Englightenment Europe: "Well, of course Christianity is the one true religion. After all, the whole civilized world is Christian."

That doesn't answer my question.
You don't have to demonstrate this kind of ignorance of human history on main. Aren't you embarrassed? Do you value knowledge even a little bit?

When did capitalism begin? How was 'stuff' created and distributed prior to that? How do other, distinct and contemporaneous modes of production create 'stuff'?

Capitalism began when Thag, who was a good hunter, brought home two dinosaur steaks. His buddy Grog was a lousy hunter, but was good at making spears. Thag traded a dinosaur steak for a new spear.
> Capitalism is in no way a prerequisite for technological development.

Communist countries copied technology, their inventions are very few. Capitalist countries routinely exhibit rapid technological development.

I was just watching "Shock and Awe", a documentary on Amazon, about the development of electrical theory and products.

It was driven largely by people who wanted to make money off of their inventions. None of the progress came from communist countries.

Did you know that Gutenberg invented the printing press in order to make money?

Did you know the Wright Bros invented the airplane in order to make money?

And so on and so forth.

> It was driven largely by people who wanted to make money off of their inventions.

I am getting a little tired of repeating myself, but you're evidently confused so I'll indulge you.

The opposition to capitalist as a monetary system does not imply the opposition to the profit motive. As I've said several times, and which you continue to ignore, the exchange of goods and services in the form of commerce requires the profit motive. Conflating my position with communism is a straw man.

That has little to do with what I said.

A third of the world lives in poverty. That's the fault of capitalism.

About 90% of the world lived in poverty before capitalism.

Besides, America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings.

The fact that some countries (mostly the political west) developed a wealthy middle class post WW2 was not due to capitalism but due to social democracy.

Capitalism by itself does not produce egalitarian wealthy society. The system divides the populace into "capital owners" and "workers" who are in direct conflict.

There are plenty of capitalistic countries where most people are poor. In fact many of the as said Western countries has also high levels of poverty while running capitalism in the 1800 etc until post WW2 social democratic movements.

Once you dismantle those social democratic constructs such as labor unions and start shifting more power to the capital holders you'll see how the society splits apart to rich and poor. The rich use their wealth and power to rig the system to benefit themselves even more and become richer at the expense of everyone else. Ultimately they will remove democracy because functional real democracy is a threat to their wealth.

The middle class emerged in colonial America. During the 1800s, scores of millions of people came to the US with little more than a suitcase. They went into the middle class, and some into the wealthy. We know this because:

1. Average height increased throughout the 1800s

2. Life expectancy increased throughout the 1800s

3. Plenty of photos and paintings of towns that consist of middle class housing

> The system divides the populace into "capital owners" and "workers" who are in direct conflict.

That's what Marx claimed. I've had many jobs. In none of them was I ever in conflict. It was a negotiated relationship, where I provided labor and expertise in exchange for money. I've also been a boss, and if you ever have been you'd know you had no power over your employees. They only work for you because they want to. When they stopped wanting to, they simply disappear, and there's not a thing I could do about it.

In the US, every worker has the power to walk away and start their own business. The wealthy in America did not come from wealthy immigrants, they came from poor immigrants.

People living with room mates working 80 hours a week have a higher standard of living than kings?

Do you even listen to yourself?

Let's enumerate a few things:

1. Today's poor are as tall as rich people, meaning they get plenty of nutritious food. They're taller than medieval kings.

2. Fresh vegetables and fruit from all over the world 365 days a year.

3. Flush toilets.

4. Air conditioning

5. Central heating

6. Infinitely better medical care

7. Endless amazing entertainment at the push of a button

8. Can communicate with anyone in the world, for free

9. Anything you want to know, at the push of a button

10. Far better clothing

11. Cars you can drive anywhere

12. Fly at 30,000 feet in complete luxury across the country

13. Free education, in any field you want

14. Hot and cold running water

15. Hot showers

16. Microwave ovens

I can go on if you like.

> Besides, America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings.

Only if you define the standard of living in a consumerist way.

Would you willingly swap your life (or the life of your child) for that of a medieval king?

I sure wouldn’t.

> A third of the world lives in poverty. That's the fault of capitalism.

So what you're saying is that capitalism lifted about two thirds of the world out of poverty.

Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields.

> Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields.

No, that's thanks to commerce not to capitalism. Capitalism benefits those those who hold capital, which is not me.

The fact that there are more than enough resources for no one to live in poverty should suggest to you that something is wrong with the distribution system.

"It's true, Mr/Ms Rationalist, that our patented Miracle Medical Snakeoil caused a third of your leg to become necrotic and fall off, but be glad for the two thirds that did not fall off!"

> > Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields.

> No, that's thanks to commerce not to capitalism. Capitalism benefits those those who hold capital, which is not me.

Are you toiling in the fields? It seems to me like your attitude is that "If I can't be rich, then no one should be rich."

> The fact that there are more than enough resources for no one to live in poverty should suggest to you that something is wrong with the distribution system.

So instead of two thirds of the world not living in poverty, everyone should live in poverty equally?

The third of the worls that lives in poverty obstinantly refuses to adopt capitalist methods.
Really? What other systems are better at lifting people out of poverty (without killing a few tens of millions in the process?)

There are so many other places where this sort of low-effort high-school edgelording fits in better than here.

> There are so many other places where this sort of low-effort high-school edgelording fits in better than here.

A good sign of low-effort edgelording is championing an obviously broken system by using a straw man to disparage the alternatives.

They are not just shuffling money around though.

Nvidia sells all the stock, prices for GPUs moved up not down.

Companies like Apple don't want to be in every industry. Its risk, its cost, its expertise you need.

And sure you can throw money at it but you need people. Alone hiring all the experts is probalby not that easy. Who knows how to setup a DRam Factory?

It takes years to build this up

For a commodity part, Apple has a history of buying a manufacturing partner a dedicated manufacturing line in exchange for locking down a guaranteed supply at a lower overall price.

It's one of the early moves Tim Cook made after joining Apple to lock down enough flash memory supply to move iPods from hard drives to flash.

> Apple in particular has $20B in its couch cushions

I wonder how long it REALLY took them to move from intel to apple silicon, which they don't even make.

It might be easy, like a consumer deciding to generate their own electricity (pv on the roof)

or it might be slightly harder, like a consumer deciding to generate their own electricity by drilling for oil, refining it, etc...

Well, they acquired PA Semi in 2008, they used their first chip (the A4) in the iPad in 2010, and they progressively iterated using the chip in phones until they announced the switch from Intel in 2020 (concurrently, more or less, with the A14). So it took them 12 years and 10 different chips.
> I wonder how long it REALLY took them to move from intel to apple silicon, which they don't even make.

Apple has much, much more control over their silicon than they ever had with Intel.

With Intel, they were stuck with whatever Intel could supply - and that, particularly regarding power management, wasn't much.

In contrast, for ARM, Apple has been one of their longest-ever partners [1], with Apple holding one of the very rare and probably very expensive "Architecture Licenses" that allow Apple to not just build CPUs out of pre-made IP blocks, but also design their own cores and, and that is the crucial thing, extend the ARM instruction set on their CPUs.

The latter is what made the ARM move feasible, there would have been no way of getting high-performance emulation of x86 without a few specific extensions.

[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2023/09/06/apple-inks-new-deal-arm...

Apple, Google Microsoft Amazon should all set up memory and CPU fabs. I don’t understand why they don’t do it. $400 million ASML machine is chump change and you can almost certainly find/train locals or provide incentives to immigrants to come here as workers to fill the roles there.
30 years ago that's how the industry was structured. IBM was the largest memory manufacturer. MBAs spent decades undoing the arrangement you're now suggesting.
fabs probably was low margin business compared to selling Ads before current AI boom.
Well, isn’t Musk doing something similar with his new solar panels fab?

Frankly it’s ridiculous how we (the West) dropped renewables like a hot potato because it became synonymous with subsidizing China’s dominance in the field.

Now that I look into it, it looks like he is, which is a good thing. For some reason I thought Terafab was like a pie-in-the-sky idea where he was going to do compute in space on satellites or something, but it isn’t that. It’s actually a real fab in the United States and I fully support that even if Elon is a piece of shit.
It’s hilarious that they’ll spend a trillion renting GPUs instead of just making their own.

Even if you were nowhere near state of the art, being able to produce millions of your own cards every year at cost would save you a lot of money.

> And yet I look at all the money being shuffled around between Nvidia and Google and Microsoft and Amazon and Apple

A lot of that is “weird money” created by the act of passing it around between the entities or “Holywood accounting” style money that exists when convenient and will vanish the instant it might be taxed or need to be extracted from the cycle to pay for something tangible. Trying to use a large amount of that money for tangible long-term building projects risks piercing the vail.