AI stocks slide as Texas governor result raises data center risks
cnbc.comTo a public already apprehensive about what A.I means for their jobs and their future, the shady and irresponsible way the industry went about the Datacenter build-out convinced them that the industry is not to be trusted. Can't say I blame them. If they don't get their act together, datacenters will be the least of their worries. With what happened today, many Republicans will be thinking twice about standing in the way of choking regulation.
Loudoun County, Virginia is about to get even richer.
Yeah don't hold your breath.
The heavy anti-datacenter campaigning was primarily aimed at scaring votes out of old people and other low-information voters, and was largely successful. With that mission accomplished it's back to business as usual.
I personally observed old ladies gossiping at the polls. A lot of them don't even know what data centers are, just that they are bad and will steal their electricity and make their arthritis worse.
All politicians regardless of party are bought and paid for.
Literally every instance I've seen where the angry townspeople fought against a data center, the town council unanimously ruled against them without a vote, like the kangaroo court in The Godfather Part 2.
Then those who believe specific datacenters need to be built should provide better arguments.
If anything the pro-build people should be for regulation so that citizens can know a local buildout means no power outages, water shortages etc. - preventing communities from rejecting DCs for purely defensive reasons.
It's clear the AI companies have not managed the message here, they have fumbled the politics. This is a deserved loss on their part.
I don't think the debate is so much about whether to build data centers as much about where to build them. In an ideal setting, the government identifies land suitable for industrial purpose, carves out dedicated zones, provisioned with necessary power and utilities, where industries can go and setup without intruding into somebody's status quo. The data center buildout at this time is happening at such a pace that they've has exhausted most of the existing zoned options, and unwilling to wait for new zones to be planned, are going out purchasing ad-hoc pieces of land and covertly having them rezoned for industrial purposes. This might sometimes might mean industries popping up behind somebody's residence or in an already resource constrained area. If you look deep, it's actually a fight between those who want to bypass urban planning in the interest of speeding up industrial development versus those who insist it is necessary.
You're expecting a nuanced debate from an electorate that has had this distilled into a purely Boolean issue: bad or good
Again, you are framing this as something done to the DC builders, rather than a discourse they are part of.
They have had 3+ years to make this argument, and they knew they needed to advocate for their own businesses. So why did they instead join in on the chorus of "we're going to take your jobs, teeheehee"?
It's an absolute own goal. If you want DCs built, direct your ire at the AI companies for reckless messaging.
US needs its own Narodniks, cf.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodniks
LOL at AI chuds thinking they're part of the intelligentsia
The position of a pro-build democrat is untenable, when their running mates have successfully painted datacenters as dark portals to the ninth level of hell
> The heavy anti-datacenter campaigning was primarily aimed at scaring votes out of old people and other low-information voters, and was largely successful.
That doesn't explain data center's being explicitly rejected by local voters[0] who, in many of those places, also voted for their districts candidates that supported data centers, such as in FL and OH.
> All politicians regardless of party are bought and paid for.
Unnecessarily cynical but even if it were true the major parties have different ideas on holding their elected accountable.
I think you are oversimplifying the situation. The problem were not data centers per se, but Mr. Paxton, who, except being a rather horrible person (his own party tried to get rid of him) was taking money from lobbyists and then was trying to push their agenda without taking into account any concerns.
I should clarify: I'm not talking about Texas; this trope was used across the country this election cycle, even at the most local of local elections.
Dog-catcher candidates were taking disingenuous anti-datacenter stances if they thought it could get them votes.
It will be interesting to see if and how people who campaigned on broad "anti-datacenter" platforms actually make it happen. I imagine it's easy to take a stance but getting the real political capital together, especially as a governor who will almost surely need their legislature, when it means turning down jobs—few as the ongoing ones might be—and real economic development. I hope it works because it potentially sets a precedent and maybe a legal framework for a state to actually say "we don't want this kind of business here" for things that aren't just data centers.
I'm not sure there being fewer jobs for a handful of datacentre engineers is going to be much of a problem for the voter base. Unless profits made from these datacentres are going to be directly helping the public somehow (if they even can make profits), there's fundamentally no reason for anyone to want DCs in their area. People might want to do things that require DCs, but that's different from wanting one near you. What arguments can you even make to ordinary people as to why they should want datacentres? It's the easiest populist slam dunk ever.
Oh no all the datacenters will have to be built in Wyoming now
They'll have to get in line behind Louisiana
Legislation or not, good luck getting those permits.
Tell me more about "real economic development"
Is it growing wealth for the country? Will everyone's wealth grow equally or will it mostly concentrate in people who are already wealthy.
Maybe real economic development is something different to you??
I don't see why this is downvoted. It is a reasonable question.
We are told this work will grow the economy. When asked how, they point to companies that are losing money hand over fist. It doesn't make sense and voters are not stupid.
The 7 data center jobs created will surely be a great loss to the community
Musk: "Guess my election-interfering space lasers didn't work this time"
Joking about how you just spent half a billion dollars trying to undermine American democracy (no less as someone with citizenship in 3 countries) is not a great look
however Florida went nearly 100% maga across all seats
so basically wall to wall datacenters and ice-prisons inbound
they don't have to worry about global warming, they'll waive diesel generator permits
or maybe even start new coal plants for them
also charter-schools, new Governor is on his way to becoming a billionaire from "managing" them
The big brain move will be to build them at sea level and then get those federal disaster relief finds when then next hurricane submerges them.
Why do AI stocks rely on corrupt assholes being in charge?
Seems like a moment for "are we the baddies?" style reflection.
The USA's AI companies have embraced regulatory failure as a shortcut to accelerate physical deployments.
Using onsite fossil fuel electricity generation as primary power source, instead of waiting for the grid to catch up (preferably a decarbonized grid), depends on corrupt assholes being in charge.
> Why do AI stocks rely on corrupt assholes being in charge?
Isn't this true about whole US politics, where lobby groups fund elections, so that politician later returns a favor to them?
To make their (lobby groups) job easier, this election theatre has only 2 actors to pick from, imagine how expensive would be if you always had 8-9 real contenders and media didn't control the narrative
It's not all rosy in multi-party systems. Those 8-9 candidates are chosen by party leaders, not open-primaries. There is no such thing as a gun rights democrat or a pro-choice republican.
Not sure exactly what your point is. Off the top of my head Peltola is a gun rights Democrat and Collins is a pro choice Republican. Do you mean in non US style governments this can't happen?
Isn't the whole stock market mostly selfish assholes investing into other greedy assholes?
No the bulk of the public invests in some form and much of industry gets funding. It would probably function better without the assholes.
Imagine unironically believing this indicates a windfall of ethics to come.
This is where third-worlders have absolutely no illusions. They know how the system works.
That's a motivated take. Obviously the party and candidates which promote less regulation are preferable to the stock market. It doesn't require accusations of corruption, and it doesn't mean their opponents are wrong, either.
You have a very shallow understanding of economics. "Less regulation" is great if you can't think beyond next quarter. "Good regulation" is what keeps the economy healthy long-term.
Perhaps, but that's not really relevant as I am not the stock market.
You may not be directly invested in the stock market but you will certainly feel the repercussions to the economy from a crash.
I am in the market. I am not the market myself, so my opinion on the efficacy of regulation is of little concern to the debate. One thing is clear though: the election of a deregulation candidate immediately makes market go up, and the inverse. That’s what’s being discussed here, wheee the OP says “must be corruption”.
Ideally markets should price rationally, unfortunately they are often driven by human-sentiments, exuberance or dejection.
Textbook stock market != economy situation.
Abortion bans, book bans, trans bans, voter ID laws and so forth are regulation. It's "regulation for thee but not for me".
That's a fair observation, and perhaps requires qualifying my initial point with "non-social" regulation. The market doesn't care about those.
Cannabis stocks certainly care about their anti-cannabis regulation.
You know why I can play this game all day? Because the base premise doesn't hold.
Sure, also all the gambling/prediction markets, abortion-adjacent stocks etc. could potentially be down. In terms of the market, though, those industries just don't matter. The lion's share of the economy (energy, finance, technology, tobacco, firearms) benefit from the election of a party that is hostile to their regulation. It's not really debatable. What is debatable is whether that's correct or good, since deregulation allows those organizations to potentially externalize costs to the environment, society, etc.
Republicans are not the party of "less regulation". That's another of these myths they use like "states rights" or "fiscal responsibility".
Ok members of one party are proposing rent controls, city-owned groceries, abolition of AI advancement, expansion of the EPA, etc. and the other is revoking long-standing SEC, EPA and other agency regulations. This claim just doesn't hold up.
(I'm a swing voter if that helps.)
Which party created the EPA?
I don't know the history. Nixon? Seems like it was motivated in the 1950s. I don't think Richard Nixon was on the ballot this year, but maybe I just missed it.
Pretend like Nixon was on the ballot.
Tariffs?
Totally disappointing from a citizen (and market?) perspective, but I think you're stretching the meaning of "regulation" to try to squeeze tariffs in. That's like saying war is "regulating" the other country.
They also have a very short-term outlook. Deregulation of derivatives was great for the market, until it caused a massive financial crisis.
Let's hope China are benevolent world superpower, looks like they will win the AI race now with Dems grinding the US build out to a halt.
what race? what are the prizes?
China living rent free in every single American mind is the funniest shit ever. We should study this, most successful propaganda campaign ever.
It's easy to get that constant propaganda when every single item you interact with has "Made in China" printed on it
That's the logical conclusion of globalized capitalism, isn't that what Americans always voted for? Why do they complain about it now? Ah right, they're starting to lose at the game they invented
The average American is ~40. This shit kicked off decades before our birth and double that before we had any real say.
'Data centres bad, they use oceans of water everyday, they said it on the news, defund the police, vote Jihadi Communist Party they will provide growth to our economy'
are you having a stroke
not yet
It's just the extension of the Soviets living rent free in every single American mind. Americans can't comprehend a world in which a perfidious communist menace doesn't lurk behind every shadow, whispering anti-Christian and anti-capitalist lies into the virgin ears of their youth.
> Let's hope China are benevolent world superpower
Don't hold your breath: their human rights record is already in the dumps (see Uyghurs and Tibetans), and they seem to have no problem having all kinda of territorial ambitions (see Taiwan, South China Sea, India and Bhutan, etc).
Add in the authoritarianism and corruption, and I'm pretty sure you have a recipe for a country you absolutely DO NOT want in a position of global power.
Not to justify those problems, but there are direct comparisons of those problems in the US. More recently with the human rights issues with ICE, though this is certainly not a new issue it has been ramped up over the years, but territorial ambitions, though less direct, have been US policy for over 60 years. Recently you have Iran and Palestine of course, but the US has been overthrowing democratically elected leaders in particularly South American countries for a while now. As I say, less direct than sending troops in and taking over literally, but installing a puppet leader in these countries is certainly grounds for "territorial ambition".
As I say, I don't want to dismiss what China is doing as "well the US are doing it too", it's just worth pointing out if that's a red line for a global power
Parent's comment was "Let's hope China are benevolent world superpower" - I provided grounds why they (China) are not, you've provided grounds for why the US is not. The two are mutually exclusive insofar as the US' state of benevolence has no bearing on China's.
Deliberately or not, your comment is an example of whataboutism [0]
> The two are mutually exclusive insofar as the US' state of benevolence has no bearing on China's.
All due respect, I literally said that, twice. I suppose you could still call it whataboutism by technicality, but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
My point was that replacing a benevolent superpower with one that is not is quite a different situation than a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" one, and I was just pointing out that this is the latter, not the former.
By all metrics, PRC objectively, the most benevolent raising power in recorded history.
1. Reeducating/integrating restive minorities instead of actually geocoding them and winning their war on terror without droning all the school children. Nobel Peace prize stuff.
2. Inheriting all border disputes from ROC, then settling 11/13 land, essentially all with more concessions. Even 5 way SCS, PRC first to concede 11 dash down to9 dash. AKA not only did PRC not initiatate any disputes, they settled majority vs reasonable parties and now manages rest vs frankly petulant chidren, i.e. India (bhutan who can't settle because India) and most SCS claimants... TLDR autistic democracies who demand 100% instead of some sort of split - aka utterly retarded position given to losers of wars. This the kind of absurd idiocy PRC magnanimity gracefully handling.
3. We tried flipflop US democracy that still manage to bomb kids under every administration almost every year. I'm sure pretty sure there are better recipes to try.
TLDR: Once you put down the the libtard koolaid, PRC should be getting literally every Nobel Peace prize for how benevolent they've been.