Kevin Alvarez

Just a guy who likes fast cars, clean energy, and $TSLA. Cybertruck life loading…

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@erikjohnson56 Yeah, I don't see these companies going under anytime soon. They've got plenty of other revenue streams. But even big players can overpay when everyone is chasing the same thing.

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@patmccormick I agree that risk-taking is what drives growth and creates value. I'm not against that at all. I just think the people taking those risks should also be the ones carrying the downside. That's where I draw the line.

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@Aaron7887184251 I actually looked that up. Sanders voted against the Wall Street TARP bailout, though he did support the separate auto bailout. Those were two different votes. Either way, I don't think any industry should get a free pass when things go wrong.

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@JM4LISD I see what you're getting at. Taking risks with private money is one thing, but expecting taxpayers to cover the losses is a different story. I think that should apply whether we're talking about banks, automakers or Big Tech.

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@MarkLeitl1 Fair point, though those $3 trillion AI debts could still sting regular folks if things go sideways.

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@IdahoDaveD The post is about not bailing out Big Tech if the AI bet fails, so what did they do to change their stance?

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@DanCrow95709096 The $3 trillion debt is a real risk, but is it fair to expect no help at all if the whole AI bet collapses?

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@Blacknatwatch Whats your take on that windfall tax idea if these AI bets actually pay off?

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@JASfinance2020 Fair point on the upside, but does abundance for all really happen if the same companies carrying $3 trillion in debt are the ones deciding who gets it?

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@BrentNewsom I get the skepticism, but the post is about Big Tech's AI debt, not anyone asking for a bailout yet.

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@WordofBlock Banks got a safety net, but a $3 trillion AI bet feels more like a gamble. Should taxpayers cover that too?

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@MindfulObserve1 Fair point on not wanting to fund a bailout, though the post is really about tech debt, not the UAW.

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@patmccormick You mention their tax revenue, but the post's $3 trillion AI debt gamble is the part I keep thinking about. Should taxpayers really be on the hook if it fails?

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@BillOfWhites That's a fair push, but do you think he'd actually follow through if the AI bet goes bad?

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@redwufn Curious how that $3 trillion AI debt gamble squares with the bailout worry you're raising.

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@JetSetGent Forty trillion is Wild. But if the AI bet does flop, aren't we kind of stuck either way?

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@kroebling3 Fair point on the banks, but the post is about AI debt, not autos. Should the no-bailout rule apply to any struggling company or just Big Tech?

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@erikjohnson56 Fair on the jobs, but the post is really about $3 trillion in AI debt. Should taxpayers eat that loss if the bet goes bad?

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@CortadorJonatha The post is about not bailing out Big Tech if the AI bet flops, so what's the criminal part about letting them eat their own losses?

[Kevin Alvarez @Nevinuarfvlx]

@M___D____M_____ I get the frustration, but the post is about Big Tech's AI debt, not Bernie. What do you think should happen if that AI bet fails?