Something nobody's talking about: OpenAI's losses might actually be attractive to certain investors from a tax perspective.
Microsoft and other corporate investors can potentially use their share of OpenAI's operating losses to offset their own taxable income through partnership tax treatment. It's basically a tax-advantaged way to fund R&D - you get the loss deductions now while retaining upside optionality later. This is why the "cash burn = value destruction" framing misses the mark. For the right investor base, $10B in annual losses at OpenAI could be worth $2-3B in tax shields (depending on their bracket and how the structure works). That completely changes the return calculation.
The real question isn't "can OpenAI justify its valuation" but rather "what's the blended tax rate of its investor base?" If you're sitting on a pile of profitable cloud revenue like Microsoft, suddenly OpenAI's burn rate starts looking like a pretty efficient way to minimize your tax bill while getting a free option on the AI leader. This also explains why big tech is so eager to invest at nosebleed valuations. They're not just betting on AI upside, they're getting immediate tax benefits that de-risk the whole thing.
> For the right investor base, $10B in annual losses at OpenAI could be worth $2-3B in tax shields (depending on their bracket and how the structure works). That completely changes the return calculation
I know nothing about finances at this level, so asking like a complete newbie: doesn't that just mean that instead of risking $10B they're risking $7-8B? It is a cheaper bet for sure, but doesn't look to me like a game changer when the range of the bet's outcome goes from 0 to 1000% or more.
It all depends on the actual numbers. Consider this simplified example: If you are offered a deal that requires you to lay down 10 billion today and it has a 5% chance to pay out 150 billion tomorrow, your accountants will tell you not to take this deal because your expected return is -2.5 billion. But if you can offset 3 billion in cost to the tax payer, your expected return suddenly becomes $500 million, making it a good deal that you should take every time.
I get that this example is simplified, but doesn’t the maths here change drastically when the 5% changes by even a few percentage points? The error bars on Openais chance of succes are obviously huge, so why would this be attractive to accountants?
That's why you have armies of accountants rating stuff like this all day long. I'm sure they could show you a highly detailed risk analysis. You also don't count on any specific deal working, you count on the overall statistics being in your favour. That's literally how venture capital works.
(I think) I get how venture capital works, my point is that the bullish story for openAI has them literally restructuring the global economy. It seems strange to me that people are making bets with relatively slim profit margins (an average of 500m on a 10b investment in your example) on such volatile and unpredictable events.
AI has a lot lower bar to clear to upend the tech industry compared to the global economy. Not being in on AI is an existential risk for these companies.
The existential risk is in companies smoking the AI crackpipe that sama (begging your pardon) handed them, thinking it feels great and then projecting[1] that every investment will hit like the first, and continuing to buy the <EXPLETIVE> crack that they can't afford, and they investors can't afford, and their clients can't afford, their vendors can't afford, the grid can't afford, the planet can't afford, the American people can't afford, and sama[2] can't afford, _because it's <EXPLETIVE> crack_!
The wise will shut up and take the win on the slop com bubble.
What if your 10B investment encourages others to invest 50B and much of that makes it back to you indirectly via selling more of your core business?
I may be way off, but to me it seems like the AI bubble is largely a way to siphon money from institutional investors to the tech industry (and try to get away with it by proxying the investments) based on a volatile and unpredictable promise?
This reminds me of the scene in Margin Call [1] when the analyst discovers that their assumptions for the risk of highly leveraged positions are inaccurate.
I'm pretty the armies of accountants would have rated it higher if the cashflow was positive than negative. Negative can't be good even while accounting for taxes.
Those 150 billion will be taxable at the same (hypothetically 30%) tax rate, reducing the expected return by 45bn * 5% chance. The expected return is still negative; all this bet does is shift tax liabilities in time, which admittedly would matter to some people who subscribe to short-termism.
Thank you, that made perfect sense and in a very simple (simplified but relevant) way. Besides the idea that such risks get aggregated over a portfolio, I can also imagine how the raw numbers flipping from - to + may be useful to paint as acceptable to accounting a bet you want to take anyway for strategic reasons.
I guess the reasoning assumes that you have multiple eggs in your basket. A 95% chance of failure is bad if you're pinning the whole business on it, but if you have a variety of 5% chance deals, then it can make sense to pursue them, which is basically what venture capitalists do.
The whole thing will crash in the next few years. The economy will have its Wile E Coyote moment, all these "valuations" will evaporate overnight, the Shitcoins will instantly go to zero, the music will stop, and the bagholders will look down to find themselves in possession of their shiny new bag of pet rocks. (A few lumps of coal.) All of these mental flipflops people are using to attempt to justify current insane valuations will be revealed as the evidence of intellectual bankruptcy that they are.
Apparently you've never lived through the crash of a 'currency' which is based on a flawed mathematical concept. You'll get to experience what that's like (for the first time in history!) when it's revealed there is some kind of subtle flaw in SHA-256 which renders it worthless as the basis of anything important, let alone a 'currency.'
How do you sell your 'coin' to anyone when the market disappears at the speed of news? Yes, it will go to ZERO, INSTANTLY.
Guess what happens when the crypto crash is combined with a) collapse of the real estate bubble, especially commercial real estate; b) the ongoing IT crash that is only just getting started; c) whatever damage the (current, red-flavored) orangutan in the White House manages to accomplish in his 3+ remaining years of hell; d) fear of looming war; e) economic fallout from COVID which is still ongoing and expanding (hint--many destroyed businesses and people out of work); f) a thousand other icebergs, minefields, and financial hazards confronting us in the near future? Buckle up!
I don’t really see what’s relevant about crypto nonsense in this context. We are really talking about the overall economy especially in the tech sector.
Even if every cryptocurrency becomes worthless overnight, that doesn’t represent the market going to zero.
I see you’ve edited your comment with more doom and gloom. It’s easy to view everything as a bubble when you’re in a negative mental space.
> a) collapse of the real estate bubble, especially commercial real estate;
Any proof of this bubble? Housing construction continues to lag demand. Offices are largely RTO and Covid-era remote jobs are basically legacy and grandfathered. Every remote employee I know who was laid off in the past couple years had to get a hybrid/in-person job. You can’t just assume 2008 is going to happen again without some real data that shows real estate instability. Where are the poorly qualified borrowers?
> b) the ongoing IT crash that is only just getting started;
That’s one industry of many. One specific industry struggling doesn’t mean much.
> c) whatever damage the (current, red-flavored) orangutan in the White House manages to accomplish in his 3+ remaining years of hell;
Lame duck presidency, he can’t crash shit. Congress will be unfriendly next year and already isn’t even very supportive within his own party.
> d) fear of looming war;
In what universe is any impending war impacting the American economy? You mean the one where defense contractors are hiring and the US is selling weapons to the nations who are doing the fighting?
> e) economic fallout from COVID which is still ongoing and expanding (hint--many destroyed businesses and people out of work);
You are gonna need to explain this one and back this up with some numbers that make sense.
> f) a thousand other icebergs, minefields, and financial hazards confronting us in the near future?
Sounds like internal anxiety demons that are not tangible.
Look, I’m in full agreement that AI will face some kind of correction or crash, but predicting once in a century catastrophe is a losing game.
> A 95% chance of failure is bad if you're pinning the whole business on it, but if you have a variety of 5% chance deals, then it can make sense to pursue them
This is only true if the probability distributions for the values of the individual deals are rather uncorrelated (or even better: stochastically mostly independent).
Venture capitalists never take on a single deal. The same way you shouldn't put all your life savings into one stock, even if it has a 90% chance of working out. That's not how any of this stuff works.
You cannot just scale down the numbers and pretend like the world around you doesn't exist. There isn't much I'll do with 1 dollar. There's a shitload Microsoft could do with 10 000 000 000 dollars.
This applies to any spending Microsoft does. What does it have to do with OpenAI?
Also, classifying business expenses as "cost to the tax payer" seems less than useful, unless you are a proponent of simply taxing gross receipts. Which has its merits, but then the discussion is about taxing gross receipts versus income with at least some deductible expenses, not anything to do with OpenAI.
The taxes on returning profits to investors via dividends are quite high. You’d be looking at the corporate tax rate (35%) + the dividend tax rates (between 15 and 35%). For any company which may need to raise equity finance later, this is an awful deal - but growing a cash balance doesn’t do the job either.
So MSFT is effectively getting 2x the equity by putting money into OpenAI, it also conveys some financial engineering capability as they can choose to invest more when profits are high to smooth out cash flow growth.
Your intuition is exactly correct. An investor with tax to offset can essentially access the same future upside at a discount
However, this discussion will be a perfect introduction to "finances at this level", where about 60% of the action is injecting more variables until you can fit a veneer of quantification onto any narrative.
That just doesn't sound right. This kind of thought process only works if you think you are guaranteed more than that the next year. It only works in crony capitalism where your friends in government put money in your pockets. It's where we are right now, but definitely not something that is sustainable or something to aspire to.
If that $7-8 billion is spent on Azure, then it's basically a way to invest in data center capacity while also getting a big piece of Open AI ownership at the same time.
Är the same time, MS revenues are looking real good, causing the stock price to go up. It's a win win win maybe win huge situation.
This comment makes even less sense than jotras’ comment.
Pension funds buy shares in businesses such as Microsoft. The money going into the pension fund is not typically a function of the tax paid by companies such as Microsoft, but rather from a combination of actuaries’ recommendations, payroll tax receipts, and politicians’ priorities.
Therefore a pension funds’ equity holdings, such as Microsoft, doing well means taxes can be lower.
Most countries' broadest defined benefit pensions are just simple wealth redistribution schemes from workers to non workers as opposed to being paid from funds that were previously invested.
In the USA, Social Security defined benefit pensions are cash from workers today going to non workers today, same as Germany's national scheme (gesetzliche Rentenversicherung?).
The other defined benefit benefit pension schemes are what are usually invested in equities, and the investment restrictions section in this document indicate Germany's "occupational pensions" can also invest in equities. (page 12)
>So just a loss for governments, or in other words, socializing the losses.
How's that different than any other sort of R&D incentive? Would you rather that companies return as much money as possible to shareholders, future growth be damned? What about other sorts of tax incentives, which by definition also "just a loss for governments"? Are tax breaks for people with kids also "socializing the losses", given that most households don't have kids?
Amazon already has not been paying any sort of income tax to the EU. There was a lawsuit in Belgium but Amazon has won that in late-2024 since they had a separate agreement in/with Luxembourg.
Speaking for EU, all big tech already not paying taxes one way or another, either using Dublin/Ireland (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, ...) and Luxembourg (Amazon & Microsoft as far as I can tell) to avoid such corporate/income taxes. Simply possible because all the earnings go back to the U.S. entity in terms of "IP rights".
The EU doesnt collect income/corporate tax, the individual countries do.
These big corps use holdings in low tax jurisdisctions like Ireland and Luxemburg, funnel all their EU subsidiaries’ revenues there and end up paying 0 tax in the individual EU countries.
This system is actually legal, EU lawmakers should pass laws to prevent this.
No, but EU should somehow mandate products and services that are built within EU and used within EU or elsewhere, should receive the benefit(s) in terms of taxation.
To give an (absurd) example; You work in country X, but the parent company is in country Y. Imagine your income tax is not going to where you reside but where you work, (usually the opposite) in this case, country Y. (~20-40% of the gross salary).
One day, your basic needs (electricity, water, etc) stops working. You call the relevant government department asking what's the problem. They reply with saying they do not know and cannot afford to figure our or fix because they do not have the money to do so.
But you've been paying at least 20% (and up to 46%) of your salary as the income tax. Where the money go? Why do you work here but someone else in the other side of the world getting that slice for free?
And let us not forget the millions and billions the global IT corporations pay in the EU in form of social security taxes, income taxes, the jobs they create, and the further millions and billions in the form of purchases from local delivery companies, consultants, DC vendors, office suppliers, taxi companies, delivery companies, food and catering and all the other local EU-based companies who benefit from having these giants walking among us.
If that's a substitute for corporate taxes, why even have them at all, instead of there needing to be schemes so specific that they have their own Wikipedia articles to describe them [1]? Either you think that corporate taxes should exist, and therefore companies shouldn't just get to opt out of them based on whether they can make a claim to benefiting the economy via trickling down, or you don't, in which case you might as well just state that directly.
Those taxes are paid by the individuals, not by the companies.
And the decision how to distribute these (corporate tax) should be done by the government. Essentially, companies evading [corporate] tax decides themselves where to distribute that money. Obviously, they make decisions that drives more profits and income, not the public good. Even if it improves living conditions (ie. delivery service would help elderly), it still requires that person to be user of the product. A layman/citizen cannot effectively utilize the benefits.
A small price to pay for having your democracy subverted by hostile propaganda distributed through social media, your politicians influenced by lobbying, and your smaller businesses killed by giant corporate oligopolies.
Profits of the company, like all other (local) companies do.
> Amazon, as an example, has servers in country X. Country X taxes the transaction or the income from the server company.
Amazon has servers in Germany, Germany is unable to tax the transaction or income from Amazon, because;
1. The user completes a transaction either on Amazon (buying a product) or in AWS (running an EC2 instance)
2. If the user is a business, there is no VAT. Because VAT is applied only to the end user. (To prevent compounding effect also). If it was the end-user, then end-user already pays for their VAT, usually around 18-20% in the case of an EC2 instance. But that has nothing to do with Amazon. User technically pays the VAT directly to the government depending on where he/she is located and where the server is.
3. Obviously Amazon does not sell the products or servers for free, they have a markup or profit margin, let's say 40% for a 100eur EC2 instance. So, 40eur lands into Amazon's bank account. While other 60eur goes to the operating expenses. (ie. Electricity, maintenance, employees' salaries, etc...)
4. In this case, Amazon should be taxed from that 40%, (ie. from the 40eur profit). Luxembourg corporate tax is about ~16-17%. Mind that US federal corporate tax is 21% itself. For the sake of simplicity, let's take 20% as the corporate tax. This would make 8eur going into the government's pocket. while 32eur stays as the profit with amazon.
5. All other companies provide the same service and has no magical entity outside pays that ~8eur to the government. Which in turn used to provide services to the citizens. (For example, Luxembourg has completely free public transportation that works 24/7, subsidized by the taxes)
6. However, Amazon having a magical entity, they declare all that 40eur profit belongs to the US entity due to the IP rights. They essentially say 100% of the things that are produced in Luxembourg, by employees in Luxembourg even owned by the US entity. Therefore, they do not pay any income tax as in fact there is no income on paper.
7. Instead, since they were able to save that 8eur, they can reduce the prices of the services up to that amount. But instead, Amazon usually reduces prices about half, reducing 4eur for customers and other 4eur going into Amazon's profit pocket.
8. It all seems nice so far, since users also benefit from reduced prices, right? Unfortunately, no. In the longer term, it hurts competition as other companies must pay taxes and losing the customers [to Amazon].
9. When there is no competition left, then Amazon can just start syphoning all the 8eur profit back to themselves. Even setting the prices as there is no longer any alternative to go.
10. Not only it hurts customers, it also hurts the random person on the street; as they receive services from government which were subsidized by the taxes. You may say that Amazon can or may invest even better products or services, but that's again not helping the layman unless he/she is an Amazon customer. And mind that a citizen does not need to be Amazon customer to get their electricity and water running.
> Amazon pays delivery drivers in country X to deliver goods, and the driver is taxed through various means (vehicle, fuel, payroll, etc).
Similar to the above, Amazon does not pay VAT or any other service taxes for any of the services they provide. But the driver does! It is even worse for the driver when he/she uses Amazon because on the net balance sheet, the driver pays income tax from his/her salary. Pays VAT for the services they receive. If he/she receives 1000eur salary at the end of the month, they can use at most about ~60% of their salary to receive goods and services. (~20% income tax + ~20% VAT). Hence, there is a corporate tax that balance these scenarios. But evading it causes more harm than good in the long run.
> What is Amazon doing in country X that should be taxed?
All the profits (earnings, surpluses) they receive should be taxed.
You can say amazon doesn't pay VAT but it's just as honest as saying Americans don't pay for tariffs
The consumer pays a certain price for a product and a portion of that money goes to taxes and costs to Amazon (including things that are taxed, like driver salaries and fuel). Those taxes are collected on the way from Amazon to the end user in every country they pass through, more or less.
Amazon is creating commerce that is taxed. They aren't skating by for free.
How can profit be calculated if a significant component of expenses is intellectual property and brand awareness which was paid for somewhere else?
Amazon can add up the costs to install and operate a datacenter or warehouse in country X, but most of the demand for services from that datacenter or warehouse will be due to expenses incurred in country Y.
> The EU does not have a direct role in collecting taxes or setting tax rates.
> There was a lawsuit in Belgium but Amazon has won that in late-2024 since they had a separate agreement in/with Luxembourg.
Dec 2023.
> Speaking for EU, all big tech already not paying taxes one way or another, either using Dublin/Ireland (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, ...) and Luxembourg (Amazon & Microsoft as far as I can tell) to avoid such corporate/income taxes. Simply possible because all the earnings go back to the U.S. entity in terms of "IP rights".
Ireland (due to pressure from EU) closed this in 2020. The amount of tax collected by Ireland quadrupled. See Figure 5 and 6 in link below.
> Ireland (due to pressure from EU) closed this in 2020. The amount of tax collected by Ireland quadrupled. See Figure 5 and 6 in link below.
And Ireland fought against this tooth and nail. Yes, a country was fighting to have less income. All out of fear that the companies will leave the little tax heaven. Did they leave? No ...
> See Figure 5 and 6 in link below.
Figure 7 is also interesting if we look at the tax income increase and the outbound.
1. Amazon reports 250bn$+ revenue for entire EU in 2025. (of course, revenue != profit) while all 250bn$+ evaporates to somewhere. Their own page [1] reports 225k employees across EU, meaning that each employee returns whopping 1 million plus dollars! While being compensated less than 10% of their value!
2. In their own article [1], they boast how they invested (translated; smuggled money out) and enabled SMEs 20bn$+ revenue. (Like seriously, less than 10%?! actually goes back into the economy...)
3. Amazon says that they have invested 250bn$ in EU since 2010. It is completely unknown what or where that was invested. I do not see my street lightning being improved by the Amazon's investment or garbage being collected better.
4. Luxembourg's GDP is ~95bn$ in 2025. Amazon has contributed to that with the 0$ corporate tax. Obviously they employed about 4.5k people which they've decided to let go about 10% of them. Where the median/average yearly gross salary stands somewhere around 80k eur, it is hardly anywhere near 1mm+$ total income. I am guessing that they heat up the offices with burning the remaining cash...
For the Ireland, I only knew similarities between Luxembourg and specific laws allowing such loopholes pre-brexit period. The source is certainly interesting and I need to dive deeper to understand better.
this is not accurate. microsoft recognizes openai losses on their income statement, proportionate to their ownership stake. this has created a huge drag on eps, along with a lot more eps volatility than in the past. it's gotten so bad that microsoft now points people to adjusted net income, which is notable as they had always avoided those games. none of this has been welcomed
> OpenAI's losses might actually be attractive to certain investors from a tax perspective.
OpenAI is anyways seeking Govt Bailout for "National Security" reasons. Wow, I earlier scoffed at "Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses", but this appears to now be Standard Operating Procedure in the U.S.
So the U.S. Taxpayer will effectively pay for it. And not just the U.S. Taxpayer - due to USD reserve currency status, increasing U.S. debt is effectively shared by the world. Make billionaires richer, make the middle class poor. Make the poor destitute. Make the destitute dead. (All USAID cuts)
Kindly use the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) - which accounts for government benefits (e.g., tax credits, SNAP), taxes, and expenses like medical costs.
This does not show your "steady downward trend", but has considerably fluctuated over the last few years. It is an increase to 12.9% in 2024, compared to 7.1% in 2020-21. Will need to wait till end of 2026 for the 2025 computation.
> Global poverty reduction has slowed to a near standstill, with 2020–2030 set to be a lost decade - World Bank.
"Slowed to a near standstill" means it's still moving in the right direction.
There may have been some global event in the 2020s that maybe had a bit of an impact on the global economy.
> Please note that if you exclude China, the trend of poverty reduction is laughable.
If you exclude the area of the world that used to be extremely poor but has benefitted massively from the wealth generated by creating products for the billionaires abroad, why would you exclude that?
There's already a lot that the US taxpayer is on the hook for that's a lot less valuable than a best on the next big thing in software, productivity, and warfare.
It shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed someone that doesn't want to work, study, or pass a drug test, and it absolutely shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed another country's citizens half a world away.
> It shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed someone that doesn't want to work, study, or pass a drug test
This would make sense if every person was given similar opportunities, like providing quality education to all of our youngest and making higher education a mission rather than a business as a starter.
As a society we move at the speed of the weakest among us, we only move forward when we start lifting and helping the weakest and most vulnerable.
You also need to realize that not doing that work is also cause for other taxpayer money to be spent elsewhere, such as spending an average of 37k $ per incarcerated person, and that ignores all the damage that criminal might've caused, all the additional police staffing and personal security that is needed to be spent outside prisons, etc.
Those are complex systems, are you sure it wouldn't be better to spend the same gargantuan amount of money that's spent on millions of inmates and fighting crime into fighting the causes that make many fall into that?
Again, those are complex, but closed systems and the argument of "we shouldn't spend on X" often ignores the cost of not spending on X.
The US already spends 38% more than the OECD average on education per student, just lagging Luxembourg, Austria, Norway, etc - if you’re a student in America, you have access to plenty of resources.
You’re right that these are complex systems, and just pouring more tax dollars and more debt into them isn’t working. Portions of our society need to value education, value contributing to society instead of taking, and reject criminality - but those changes require more than blind spending.
Let me phrase it this way for you. The best universities are in the US for a lot of things. But they don't scale.
In another way, the top talent gets Ferraris for their tuition, the rest gets a bike. In a lot of European countries everyone can get the Toyota Camry of education, decent but not world class. That does scale though.
Spending isn't everything, it's how you apply that spending.
That's a meaningless stat in absolute terms, US lags other developed nations as % of GDP spending, and the level of primary and secondary education shows it. US adults lag in cognitive or even reading capabilities.
It is true that throwing money at problems is a lazy and ineffective way to address them. American education is very well funded in general, but very poorly executed. There is absolutely no room for arguments about the lack of money where the US is concerned. It is shameful for Americans to make such arguments.
Much of the problem comes from a poor grasp of what education is and is for, and because of that, money and effort are not allocated properly. One source of the problem are various educational fads. I personally remember when computers were artificially jammed into school curricula for no good reason. There was absolutely no merit to what was being done. But how much do you think the companies selling that garbage made out?
Or consider the publishing industry that fleeces schools and students with 12978th editions of the same poorly-presented material packaged in overpriced books. Financially, education is quite cheap, but there are sectors of the economy devoted to convincing pedagogues and politicians that it isn't, and that what you need to do is buy in order to "change with the times". Sorry, but basic education isn't fast fashion. Materially, basic education is stable and cheap.
Another problem is that American culture is pragmatic to a fault. Americans have a long history of viewing education, particularly the university, with distaste, as some kind of "European", un-American, and aristocratic thing. This explains the appeal of the pragmatic turn of the university: you now go to university to "get a job". Of course, that isn't the core mission of the university, and most professions don't require anything the university might provide, especially not at these absurd costs (hence why GenZ is seeing something like a 1500% increase in pursuing trades).
We have a cultural momentum that must fizzle out or must be reshaped. Where the modern university specifically is concerned, its days may very well be numbered. It may very well be forced to undergo very painful changes, or crumble, with a new crop of smaller colleges taking their place. Where primary education is concerned, parents are increasingly taking their children out of the savage factory known as public education. This, too, may force public education to finally deal with its dysfunction, or collapse.
> … into fighting the causes that make many fall into that?
A morbid thought that would probably address the bulk of this: male birth control.
The backlash would be profound, it’ll never happen. But if there were a way to make a “perfect pill/shot/procedure” boys had maybe at birth to prevent unplanned pregnancies… just think about it.
I’m not even sure I’m advocating for it. Everyone says “education will fix all the things!” I think raising kids where the parents wanted to be parents would fix a whole lot, at least on the incarnation side.
And that wouldn’t be abused? We already means test access to basic necessities; you don’t think “access to producing offspring” wouldn’t be similarly gated?
Wouldn’t it be better for society if it were gated, at least compared to our current system which encourages those least able/suited to have children to have the greatest number of them? If we as a society are uncomfortable with society dictating how/when you have kids, society also shouldn’t be on the hook for providing for them - “no say, no pay”.
As intrinsically social animals, we have general obligations toward other people that precede our consent. How these play out in practice will be determined by the limitations and conditions of the situation. But in general, such obligations radiate outward based on proximity of relation.
Our first obligations are toward our immediate families. As the human race is essentially a large extended family, the obligations dissipate the further out we go. We do have a general obligation to help those in need, but this obligation is prioritized. In classical texts, this is called the ordo amoris or "order of love" (in the older, more technically accurate terminology, order of charity, where "charity" - from caritas - means willing the good of the other).
Now, to address your comment specifically...
> There's already a lot that the US taxpayer is on the hook for that's a lot less valuable than a best on the next big thing in software, productivity, and warfare.
For example? Whatever the benefits of LLMs, I find this relative exuberance unreasonable.
> It shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed someone that doesn't want to work,
In someone able-bodied and of sound mind refuses to work, then we don't have an obligation to support someone like that. This is true. In fact, it would be uncharitable to enable their laziness, because it harms the character and virtue of that person. Of course, in practice, if someone you have determined is able to work is found starving and in danger of death, for example, then it is unlikely they are merely lazy. Would a man of sound mind allow himself to starve?
The manner in which we deal with such cases is a prudential matter, not a matter or principle. We need to determine how best to satisfy the principle in the given circumstances, and there is room for debate here.
> it absolutely shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed another country's citizens half a world away.
If there is a humanitarian crisis somewhere in the world, for example, then there is a general obligation of the entire world to help those affected. How that happens, how that is coordinate, is a matter of prudence and implementation detail, as it were. Naturally, several factors enter the equation (proximity, wealth, etc).
The modern welfare state is the compromise reached by capitalist democracies to stave off communist revolutions. If you’re going to kill of the welfare part, be ready for the uprising part.
That's where the surveillance and the militarized police force(s) come in. Especially the former now has reached extraordinary levels, given that almost all communication now is easily trackable.
Compare that to when we still had revolutions, where it was very hard for government to know what is going on, and to find individuals without a huge effort.
I think revolutions have become next to impossible, unless it is lead by significant parts of the elite that controls at least part of the apparatus.
That's not even counting the far more sophisticated propaganda methods, so that many of the affected people won't even begin to target the actual culprits but are lead to chase shadows, or one another.
We still have revolutions because if enough people go out on the street it doesn’t matter how good your surveillance state is. You can’t kill/arrest 25% of your population. That is why Russia/China/etc are so scared to let any protests begin even with 5 people because if they grow there comes a point it can’t be stopped with violence.
You forgot gun control. Is it really a coincidence that the highest concentrations of rich people seem to be the places where citizens have the fewest rights to own guns?
Can you explain it in another way? What you are saying is that instead of loosing 100% they loose 70% and loosing 70% is somehow good? Or are you saying the risk adjusted returns are then 30% better on the downside than previously thought? Because if you are, I think people here are saying the risk is so high that it is a given they will fail.
Let's say they are paying for "research". The research is very expensive and has a high likelihood of being worthless, but a small likelihood of having value later. So by claiming the financial loss, they can offset the cost of the expensive research by 30%, making it an even more attractive gamble.
Whilst that is an option, it wont cover the share price hit from the fallout, which would wipe out more than the debt as when the big domino falls, others will follow as the market panic shifts.
So kinda looking at a bank level run on tech companies if they go broke.
Sure but if there's no moat would you rather pay 100% or 80% until the credits run out? You reap the 100% spend in the meantime. Not everyone even has the no moat discount.
OpenAI is a corporation, so their losses do not flow up to their owners.
Their investors, if publicly traded like Microsoft do have to take write-downs on their financial statements but those aren't realized losses for tax purposes. The only tax "benefit" Microsoft might get from the OpenAI investment is writing off the amount it invested if/when OpenAI goes bankrupt.
Lmao this is ridiculous. If MSFT really wanted the tax benefits they should’ve just wholly acquired OAI long ago to acquire the financial synergy you speak of.
Correct, for tax purposes corporate losses remain with the corporation. Microsoft and the other owners don't get the benefit of OpenAI's losses. At best, they get to write off their investment in OpenAI if the company dissolves, at which point their maximum tax write-off is their capital investment.
Note: other people seem to be confused because companies can write off investments in corporate subsidiaries before the subsidiary is dissolved or sold...for book purposes. This creates what is known in the accounting world as a book-tax difference. If you have a few weeks to spare, look up tax provisions...
