Customers can benefit from scale too

Hmm, how starnge that AWS then seems to be the most expensive option around. I've saved loads of money by using Hetzner instead. I can also easily move to other providers should I want thanks to open standards and open source.

They can't benefit from high prices

The latest US GDP print is the Q3 2025 Initial Estimate, showing real GDP grew at a 4.3% annual rate

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/us-economy-grew-thi...

That is an annualised figure, which means they took the Q3 figure by itself and multiplied it by 4. US annualised growth in Q1 would've been -2%.

Between Q1/2/3, US growth has been about 1.6%.

Wait until the whole year figures come out.

And you have to wonder: if they do come out, are they truthful or are they fabricated.

Holiday spending was up 6.8% YoY and the highest spending on record. About 67% of GDP comes from consumer spending.

It's very unlikely the US doesn't have strong GDP numbers for 2025.

K-shaped economy and all that

There is a lot of talking past each other when discussing LLM performance. The average person whose typical use case is asking ChatGPT how long they need to boil an egg for hasn't seen improvements for 18 months. Meanwhile if you're super into something like local models for example the tangible improvements are without exaggeration happening almost monthly.

> The average person whose typical use case is asking ChatGPT how long they need to boil an egg for hasn't seen improvements for 18 months

I don’t think that’s true. I think both my mother and my mother-in-law would start to complain pretty quickly if they got pushed back to 4o. Change may have felt gradual, but I think that’s more a function of growing confidence in what they can expect the machine to do.

I also think “ask how long to boil an egg” is missing a lot here. Both use ChatGPT in place of Google for all sorts of shit these days, including plenty of stuff they shouldn’t (like: “will the city be doing garbage collection tomorrow?”). Both are pretty sharp women but neither is remotely technical.

Random trivia are answered much better in my case.

Burning bunker fuel releases a lot of sulfur emissions and comparatively less carbon. SO2 has a strong cooling effect on the climate, both through directly reflecting incoming sunlight and by acting as cloud condensation nuclei. This increases the formation of reflective clouds.

The problems with the post soviet economy had nothing to do with FDI.

At a certain level it can lead otherwise competitive companies to rest on their laurels.

On another level, it would be game over without them. For example, US shipyards would simply stop existing without protection. There is no management strategy or measure they could implement that could compete with Asian shipyards.

The theory is that in both cases (ie. with and without tariffs) shipyards are going to die sooner or later. It is better for the society to let them die as soon as possible and direct efforts to things we are better at while taking advantage of cheaper ships produced elsewhere.

Some industries are of national security or other strategic value, so protecting them even if that means some stagnation is desirable over the offshoring of said industry.

The question is: how do you define "national security" and "other strategic value"? At the end of the day both really mean economic interest. Especially in case of US.

So if someone says "national security" is above economic interest of US, I would say these people mean _their_ economic interest is above economic interest of US and use both terms as a cover.

Insofar as the country being conquered and Americans being slaughtered wholesale would be against our economic interests lol

There are clear national security reasons for the government to prop up shipbuilding and semiconductors.

> Insofar as the country being conquered and Americans being slaughtered wholesale would be against our economic interests lol > There are clear national security reasons for the government to prop up shipbuilding and semiconductors.

Are you saying countries without shipbuilding facilities or not producing semicondutors are being conquered and their citizens being slaughtered?

I'd say that is fear mongering done by the people doing business on "national security".

> Are you saying countries without shipbuilding facilities or not producing semicondutors are being conquered and their citizens being slaughtered?

Yes that is a clear risk. For most of human history, powerful leaders have unleashed violence on their neighbors to increase their wealth and prestige. For about 70 years, the cold war balance prevented very catastrophic wars between powerful nations but we now seem to be having an atavistic throw back of powerful nations being led by expansionist leaders. You either need to create your own manufacturing capacity or be at the mercy of others.

You can call it fearmongering but I can point to the whole of human history and tell you that not only has it happened, at a certain point it is inevitable. I can point at Ukraine, right now, as an example of what happens when one country appears much weaker than an aggressive neighbor.

The United States is the greatest power the world has ever seen. While the oceans protect us, the truth is that even the White House was once burned down in a war.

There's not much economic interest in losing 100 billion dollars trying to keep shipyards going.

There are no customers who want an oil tanker built in the US. Or Europe.

The economic interest is the US ability to as rapidly as possible convert those shipyards to military shipyards during a large scale prolonged war. The US did not make (relatively) many ships before WW2 and then during WW2 was briefly the largest ship builder in the world.

> The economic interest is the US ability to as rapidly as possible convert those shipyards to military shipyards during a large scale prolonged war.

Nah, that doesn't add up. US needs _ships_ and SOTA military equipment to make sure that any military conflict is as short as possible (ie. US wins). Losing money on unused production capability does not make sense because in case of prolonged conflict there is time to build the capability (as it happened during WWII).

In reality, what you call "prolonged military conflict", is nothing more than normal international competition. One could even argue US is in prolonged military conflict since WWII. In which case making rational decisions based on hard economic criteria (ie. not losing money) is the key to success.

just don't outsource your means of defense!

With current military technology it is not really possible, is it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdppYYfQJgg describes it really well.

So the question is more about what part of means of defense you outsource. And what parts of means of defense are outsourced by your enemies.

You don't want to base your defense on inferior shipbuilding capabilities, do you?

Sure I can see the argument for national security. And to balance out Chinese companies own rent seeking.

OTOH still strategically it’s not great. As the Asian companies have an actual market, this will lead Asian manufacturers to have better ships than comparable US ones.

Berkshire stock could fall 99% and he would still have outperformed the S&P. Insane.

Interesting that his performance was essentially identical to the S&P over the past 30 years (Sortino 0.72 vs 0.69): https://testfol.io/?s=jJ4P0GrZxLi

I wonder how much is due to the market becoming more efficient, vs Berkshire's size / market impact?

Probably a bit of both. Berkshire's size means he was limited to the largest companies which are pretty well analysed.

During that period he did some different things which some of his personal money like buying stock in Dae Han Flour Mills, a Korean flour miller that was like 2 times earnings in 2003 but was probably too small a position to make sense for Berkshire. (https://www.netnethunter.com/warren-buffett-cheap-stock-pick...)

How do you figure? The portfolio looks to have performed roughly the same as the S&P.

BRK total return from inception to 2025: about 5,502,284% (55,000x gain)

S&P500 total return over the same period: about 39,054% (390x gain)

$1 in BRK would be $55k today. $1 in S&P500 would be $390 today. Therefore, following the hypothetical 99% drop, 1% of Berkshire return would be $550, still well above the S&P500's $390.

That is wild.

No, because income equals expenditure. They are one and the same.

AI solved a medical issue bothering my sister for over 20 years. Did what $20k in accumulated doctors bills couldn't.

I'm not even a utilitarian, but if there are many many people with stories like her, at some point you have to consider it. Some people use cars to kill themselves, but cars help and enrich the lives of 99.99% of people who use them.

Video games, fast food, and religion are other examples.

They are mostly useful, but occasionally can kill someone who indulges in them too much.

Right now is an incredible time for miners. Diesel is at multi-year lows, bulk ocean freight is relatively inexpensive, and almost the entire metals index is soaring. Through happenstance, I know someone at Bridgestone's mine truck tire division, and they are having one of their best years ever. Wonder if we will see $1m salaries for explosive engineers like we did in ~2010

Yes mining and everything supporting it is booming.