Comment by forinti
19 days ago
I know that all investments have risk, but this is one risky gamble.
US$700 billion could build a lot of infrastructure, housing, or manufacturing capacity.
19 days ago
I know that all investments have risk, but this is one risky gamble.
US$700 billion could build a lot of infrastructure, housing, or manufacturing capacity.
There is no shortage of money to build housing. There is an abundance of regulatory burdens in places that are desirable to live in.
Its not due to a lack of money that housing in SF is extremely expensive.
SF is not the only place where housing is expensive. There are plenty of cities where they could build more housing and they don't because it isn't profitable or because they don't have the workers to build more, not because the government is telling them they can't.
It is expensive in those other places for similar reasons as SF -- the government either tells them they can't (through zoning), or makes it very expensive (through regulation, like IZ / "affordable" housing), or limit profitability (rent control), or some combination of the above. All of these reduce the supply of new housing.
Generally the cities where housing is expensive are exactly the ones where the government is telling people they can't build (or making it very expensive to get approval). Do you have a specific example of a city such as you claim?
Which cities, for example?
> US$700 billion could build a lot of infrastructure, housing, or manufacturing capacity.
I am now 100% convinced, that the US has power to build those things, but it will not, because it means lives of ordinary people will be elevated even more, this is not what brutal capitalism wants.
If it can make top 1% richer in 10 year span vs good for everyone in 20 years, it will go with former
What $700 billion can't do is cure cancers, Parkinsons, etc. We know because we've tried and that's barely a sliver of what it's cost so far, for middling results.
Whereas $700 billion in AI might actually do that.
Your name is well earned! "can't cure cancers" is impressively counterfactual [0] as 5 year survival of cancer diagnosis is up over almost all categories. Despite every cancer being a unique species trying to kill you, we're getting better and better at dealing with them.
[0]https://www.cancer.org/research/acs-research-news/people-are...
Treating cancer is not the same as curing it. Currently, no doctor would ever tell you you are "cured", just that you are in remission.
2 replies →
Yes, we're getting better at treating cancers, but still if a person gets cancer, chances are good the thing they'll die of is cancer. Middling results.
Because we're not good at curing cancers, we're just good at making people survive better for longer until the cancer gets them. 5 year survival is a lousy metric but it's the best we can manage and measure.
I'm perfectly happy investing roughly 98% of my savings into the thing that has a solid shot at curing cancers, autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases. I don't understand why all billionaires aren't doing this.
18 replies →