While there's a popular narrative about a US manufacturing resurgence, the massive capital spending on AI contradicts it. By consuming a huge portion of available capital and accounting for half of GDP growth, the AI boom drives up the cost of capital for all non-AI sectors, making it harder for manufacturing and other startups to get funded.
Related Insights
A recent Harvard study reveals the staggering scale of the AI infrastructure build-out, concluding that if data center investments were removed, current U.S. economic growth would effectively be zero. This highlights that the AI boom is not just a sector-specific trend but a primary driver of macroeconomic activity in the United States.
While aggregate gross investment numbers look strong due to the AI boom, this hides weakness in classic cyclical sectors like residential investment, construction, and industrial equipment. This divergence creates opportunities for trades like long tech/short energy, which capitalizes on the two-speed economy.
The current AI spending spree by tech giants is historically reminiscent of the railroad and fiber-optic bubbles. These eras saw massive, redundant capital investment based on technological promise, which ultimately led to a crash when it became clear customers weren't willing to pay for the resulting products.
The AI industry and the US government both require trillions in funding. This creates a paradox: the more successful AI becomes, the more it erodes the white-collar tax base by automating jobs, forcing the Treasury to borrow even more and intensifying the competition for scarce capital.
The US economy is not broadly strong; its perceived strength is almost entirely driven by a massive, concentrated bet on AI. This singular focus props up markets and growth metrics, but it conceals widespread weakness in other sectors, creating a high-stakes, fragile economic situation.
For 2026, AI's primary economic effect is fueling demand through massive investment in infrastructure like data centers. The widely expected productivity gains that would lower inflation (the supply-side effect) won't materialize for a few years, creating a short-term inflationary pressure from heightened business spending.
Trillion-dollar tech companies are issuing massive bonds to fund AI CapEx, attracting immense demand from yield-hungry institutions. This 'hoovers' up available capital, making it harder and more expensive for smaller, middle-market businesses to secure financing and deepening the K-shaped economic divide.
Markets can forgive a one-time bad investment. The critical danger for companies heavily investing in AI infrastructure is not the initial cash burn, but creating ongoing liabilities and operational costs. This financial "drag" could permanently lower future profitability, creating a structural problem that can't be easily unwound or written off.
The massive capital rush into AI infrastructure mirrors past tech cycles where excess capacity was built, leading to unprofitable projects. While large tech firms can absorb losses, the standalone projects and their supplier ecosystems (power, materials) are at risk if anticipated demand doesn't materialize.
The massive capex spending on AI data centers is less about clear ROI and more about propping up the economy. Similar to how China built empty cities to fuel its GDP, tech giants are building vast digital infrastructure. This creates a bubble that keeps economic indicators positive and aligns incentives, even if the underlying business case is unproven.