This is where you're losing me. You seem to be suggesting that de-dollarization will cause a US financial pain large enough that it will cause significant pain to other countries, AND that it will happen so fast that the de-dollarization itself (which was the impetus for this pain!) will not be sufficient to shield them from it.

>The US is where people put their money because putting it elsewhere was riskier. But now the US might be more risky. So you diversify... to the places that were risky before. So you can only move to risky places. That risk eventually leads to some loss. It's a "least-worst option" situation, but the end result isn't going to be great.

Lots of assumptions here: 1. That the US is in fact becoming a much riskier place to invest (mostly only true for countries at risk of sanctions). 2. Other countries have stayed as risky as they always have been (do we know this isn't the case?). 3. That despite the inherent risk advantages of diversification to a wide range of countries/currencies is not significant enough to overcome the level of risk that the US has increased recently.

>That's now how capitalism works, that's how rich people work. The echo chamber of HN is full of upper-middle-class people with disposable incomes that are happy to waste money to feel emotionally better about their choices. But businesses aren't emotional, they're competitive. They want lower costs and higher profits. That means spending less. If a business can use a model that's 1/6th the price to get approximately the same results, they're going to do that, in order to gain a competitive edge. China is the place you go when you want to cut costs.

It is how capitalism works sometimes. If the cost of using the new technology is very cheap AND top-of-the-line options result in significant productivity increases, most companies will be willing to pay higher multiples of cost for even marginal increases in performance.

If I'm so-and-so software company spending millions on various business costs, I dont care if I'm spending .5% of my costs on claude code when I could be spending .1% on deepseek. I want the best one (even if it's just slightly better) because the costs are marginal anyway.

>That diversification helps everyone else, but will hurt the US, which hurts financial markets, and thus everyone else.

These are huge jumps in logic, I'm not even sure where to begin. I guess the most glaring question is: If other countries are actively diversifying from US assets as you claim, why would they still be so hurt by a US financial market downturn?

>And once they're all divested, the diversification will add risk and losses.

Since when does diversification ADD risk, and how would losses be incurred?

>which of course China is leading the world in, as nobody cares about "better", they care about "cheaper"

Also a huge claim to make. You'll find plenty of people who want the best models and are pretty price-insensitive, especially among those who get the most economic value out of AI.

Yes, we would need to build more refining capacity to use it all effectively, but in a cataclysmic event (i.e. a world war or something) the US would be much much better off than most other countries.

Unless there is some hidden cybersecurity risk of them shutting off panels remotely?

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12536

Just because something more powerful will be out in a year, doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about the one arriving in 6 months.

Outside of nuclear MAD, if the US were in a total war scenario against any other country in the world, the US would win every time with the sole exception on maybe China.

Consider all the labor and capital spent across all the advertising real estate in the world. Commercial, online ads, billboards, labeling. The inputs to make all these things are now greatly reduced. To increase productivity, it doesn't matter that the market is flooded, just that it's much easier to make these things.

Teachers, cleaners, and daycare workers may see 0% gains, but don't be surprised if that is made up for by 10% gains the productivity of tech, law, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, government, etc. (okay maybe not government).

The parking gains are huge though. As adoption increases, parking demand for shopping centers, apartments, workplaces, etc. should all decrease. Say hello to higher density cities. Although I imagine it will take quite a while (decades) for these pressures to have a real effect.

Why is this any different than the sheer size of manufacturing and natural resources to extract other forms of energy?

Oil, natural gas, coal also all take vast amounts of capital investment and resource extraction to implement.

Which do you think is cheaper: installing an acre of solar panels across 300 seperate homes, or an acre of panels in one go on a solar farm?