[jubilee33]

I don't think there actually is a congnizant argument other than to protect investments. And of course they cant say that. You are using way to much logic in this. You are witnessing powerful people who are operating way outside the scope of their own abilities thrash around. AI isn't being stopped. Definitely not by people who value money. The inertia at this point is probably even too much for those who have some sort of ideological framework against it. To those of us who value ideas and progress, especially a non human-centric idea of what progress could look like, the path looks pretty clear. there is no stopping this. We are working everyday in so many small ways, not to capture value, but to advance the machine. the idea that some decree from an ageing narcissist and a pyramid of lackey bureaucrats is at all meaningful is just hilarious. Of course it's meaningful to the "economics". But many of us could really not care a lick as we don't do it for money.

[munk-a]

> And of course they cant say that.

It's hilarious because at this point it's clear they can say that. We've just had a coordinated talking points push that voter picture IDs should be required because "Olive Garden".

[ux266478]

Well, that's them doing the same thing, yeah? They can't say that they want voter picture IDs for the real reason (partisan electoral strategy), so they have to constantly litigate electoral fraud and the whole parade.

[bookofjoe]

Working so far keeping Chinese EVs out of the U.S.: U.S. car company CEOs say publicly that allowing them in will destroy the domestic auto industry overnight.

[aleqs]

I agree that many of the rich and powerful are not at all as ingenious, creative or capable as they like to make themselves out to be, but I don't see a clear/easy way to escape the economic ramifications of the fact that they own and control virtually all physical resources and all political power. If, say, Chinese develop AGI, and that makes US tech companies obsolete - I see them banning Chinese AGI, even going to war, rather than ceding power (realistically there may be some backroom deal), they would grind the population into dust if it let them retain their wealth and power.

[csomar]

This. Living/Coming from a country like that, when shit gets real the elite will squeeze every inch regardless of how brutal it gets. It happened to the USSR and every other country. The US is not that different.

[expedition32]

Would it not be more logical that US billionaires simply switch sides and move to China? I am not convinced that Americans are as patriotic as they claim and willing to go down with the ship.

You are already seeing signs of this in Taiwan.

[csomar]

In some sense that's happening. A Reichsfluchtsteuer of some kind is happening where wealthy people from Western countries have to pay exit taxes. Americans can't exit without giving citizenship, though.

[bookofjoe]

>Wealthy Americans top ‘golden visa’ surge in New Zealand and applications from China double

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/18/new-zealand-go...

>Turkish Citizenship by Investment Program

https://www.yavuzozdemir.av.tr/practice-areas.html?gad_sourc...

[rurban]

US billionaires who moved to China would simply get executed over their crimes (like tax evasion). Will not happen.

[capevace]

> And of course they cant say that

That’s what I don’t get tho, I think in today’s world they totally could?

„We need to protect US investments as our entire economy depends on this market sector“ seems like something that would be soothing to me as an investor?

It’s not like the big money givers can’t see that china is close, it’s been the news multiple times already. But taking active policy steps to protect against that should boost market confidence, no?

Instead we get alibi arguments to accomplish the same thing in the end?

[aleqs]

I think you are confusing the tiny amount of people who are actually investors or stand to directly benefit from these companies with the overall population - the overall population being generally against AI at this point.

'We must protect VC profits at the cost of the rest of the economy and our entire 'free market' system' probably doesn't sound as good.

[capevace]

No I’m not confusing them. I am very aware it’s mainly policy for a minority of people. But this minority drives the markets.

This administration has done a lot for that minority already so I don’t think anyone would be too surprised? In this case they can even claim to protect the greater economy, a crash of which does impact the majority.

„US good, China bad“ has been a long term talking point by Trump too and this would neatly fit into that to be consumed by his base

[aleqs]

Nobody would be surprised, and something like that is what's bound to happen to some extent. But I think the current tech/VC cronyism and corruption is becoming more and more evident to the masses, and opposition is growing. There's also the economic factor of US tech being dominant in the world, if US decides to ban better tech because it is too competitive, then US companies cannot really compete globally anymore - they can't outwardly signal that they are being outcompeted.

[rixed]

Sounds familiar, I used to think the same about the Internet and free software. Turned out, the old world digested the unstoppable march of progress just fine.

[jeremyjh]

Is that why Linux failed? Just imagine the world in which an open source kernel dominated almost every compute market on the planet!

[rixed]

You mean, a world where we could modify the OS and drivers on our phones?

[dml2135]

Saying you value “ideas and progress” is an empty platitude. What ideas? Progress towards what?

[itemize123]

i think they could - there is an equivalence of trade dumping and trade protectionism here.

[Avicebron]

What does a "non-human-centric idea of progress" even mean here. I have an inkling :) but I'd like to get your actual thoughts