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.
Related Insights
Speculative manias, like the AI boom, function like collective hallucinations. The overwhelming belief in future demand becomes self-fulfilling, attracting capital that builds tangible infrastructure (e.g., data centers, fiber optic cables) long before cash flows appear, often leaving lasting value even after the bubble bursts.
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.
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 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.
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.
Current AI spending appears bubble-like, but it's not propping up unprofitable operations. Inference is already profitable. The immense cash burn is a deliberate, forward-looking investment in developing future, more powerful models, not a sign of a failing business model. This re-frames the financial risk.
Geopolitical competition with China has forced the U.S. government to treat AI development as a national security priority, similar to the Manhattan Project. This means the massive AI CapEx buildout will be implicitly backstopped to prevent an economic downturn, effectively turning the sector into a regulated utility.
The massive capital expenditure on AI infrastructure is not just a private sector trend; it's framed as an existential national security race against China's superior electricity generation capacity. This government backing makes it difficult to bet against and suggests the spending cycle is still in its early stages.
Michael Burry, known for predicting the 2008 crash, argues the AI bubble isn't about the technology's potential but about the massive capital expenditure on infrastructure (chips, data centers) that he believes far outpaces actual end-user demand and economic utility.
The AI infrastructure boom is a potential house of cards. A single dollar of end-user revenue paid to a company like OpenAI can become $8 of "seeming revenue" as it cascades through the value chain to Microsoft, CoreWeave, and NVIDIA, supporting an unsustainable $100 of equity market value.
