The government inevitably acts as an "insurer of last resort" during systemic crises to prevent economic collapse. The danger, highlighted by the OpenAI controversy, is when companies expect it to be an "insurer of first resort," which encourages reckless risk-taking by socializing losses while privatizing gains.
Related Insights
OpenAI CFO Sarah Fryer's use of the word "backstop" for potential government support was misinterpreted as a bailout request. The fierce negative reaction highlights public distrust and fears of moral hazard when dominant tech companies seek government guarantees, forcing a public clarification from the CEO.
The call for a "federal backstop" isn't about saving a failing company, but de-risking loans for data centers filled with expensive GPUs that quickly become obsolete. Unlike durable infrastructure like railroads, the short shelf-life of chips makes lenders hesitant without government guarantees on the financing.
When government policy protects wealthy individuals and their investments from the consequences of bad decisions, it eliminates the market's self-correcting mechanism. This prevents downward mobility, stagnates the class structure, and creates a sick, caste-like economy that never truly corrects.
OpenAI's CFO hinted at needing government guarantees for its massive data center build-out, sparking fears of an AI bubble and a "too big to fail" scenario. This reveals the immense financial risk and growing economic dependence the U.S. is developing on a few key AI labs.
Acknowledging a de facto government backstop before a crisis encourages risky behavior. Lenders, knowing their downside is protected on AI infrastructure loans, are incentivized to lend as much as possible without proper diligence. This creates a larger systemic risk and privatizes profits while socializing eventual losses.
OpenAI's CFO using the term "backstop" doomed the request by associating AI investment with the 2008 bank bailouts. The word conjures failure and socializing private losses, whereas a term like "partnership" would have framed the government's role as a positive, collaborative effort, avoiding immediate public opposition.
Drawing from the nuclear energy insurance model, the private market cannot effectively insure against massive AI tail risks. A better model involves the government capping liability (e.g., above $15B), creating a backstop that allows a private insurance market to flourish and provide crucial governance for more common risks.
The system often blamed as capitalism is distorted. True capitalism requires the risk of failure as a clearing mechanism. Today's system is closer to cronyism, where government interventions like bailouts and regulatory capture protect established players from failure.
The current market boom, largely driven by AI enthusiasm, provides critical political cover for the Trump administration. An AI market downturn would severely weaken his political standing. This creates an incentive for the administration to take extraordinary measures, like using government funds to backstop private AI companies, to prevent a collapse.
OpenAI publicly disavows government guarantees while its official documents request them. This isn't hypocrisy but a fulfillment of fiduciary duty to shareholders: securing every possible advantage, including taxpayer-funded incentives, is a rational, albeit optically poor, corporate best practice.
