If there's one area where tech has shown a consistent aptitude for innovation, it's in accounting tricks that make money-losing companies appear wildly profitable.
-
That was Son: he would take a startup like Wework, declare its brand to be worth $1b, invest an infinitesimal fraction of $1b in the company based on that valuation (sometimes with a rube co-investor) and declare the valuation to be "market-based." A whole string of garbage companies achieved unicornhood by means of this unbelievably stupid trick:
https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/27/voluntary-carbon-market/#trust-me
3/
Of course, every finance bro is familiar with Stein's Law: "anything that can't go on forever eventually stops." Sure, the Saudi royals could be tapped to piss away $31b on Uber, losing $0.41 on every dollar for 13 years, but eventually they're going to turn off the money spigot and attempt to flog their shares to retail and institutional suckers.
4/
-
Of course, every finance bro is familiar with Stein's Law: "anything that can't go on forever eventually stops." Sure, the Saudi royals could be tapped to piss away $31b on Uber, losing $0.41 on every dollar for 13 years, but eventually they're going to turn off the money spigot and attempt to flog their shares to retail and institutional suckers.
4/
To make that work, they have to invent *new* accounting tricks, like when Uber "sold" its failing overseas ride-hailing businesses to international rivals in exchange for stock, then declared that these companies' illiquid stock had skyrocketed in value, tipping Uber into the black:
https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/05/a-lousy-taxi/#a-giant-asterisk
5/
-
To make that work, they have to invent *new* accounting tricks, like when Uber "sold" its failing overseas ride-hailing businesses to international rivals in exchange for stock, then declared that these companies' illiquid stock had skyrocketed in value, tipping Uber into the black:
https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/05/a-lousy-taxi/#a-giant-asterisk
5/
Even companies that are actually profitable (in the sense of bringing in more revenue than it costs to keep the business's lights on) love to juice their stats, and the worst offenders are the Big Tech companies, who reap a vast commercial reward from creating the illusion that they are continuing to grow, even after they've dominated their sector.
Take Google: once the company attained a 90% global search market-share, there were no more immediate prospects for growth.
6/
-
Even companies that are actually profitable (in the sense of bringing in more revenue than it costs to keep the business's lights on) love to juice their stats, and the worst offenders are the Big Tech companies, who reap a vast commercial reward from creating the illusion that they are continuing to grow, even after they've dominated their sector.
Take Google: once the company attained a 90% global search market-share, there were no more immediate prospects for growth.
6/
I mean, sure, they could raise a billion new humans to maturity and train them to be Google customers (e.g., the business plan for Google Classroom), but that takes more than a decade, and Google needed growth *right away*. So the company hatched a plan to make search *worse*, so that its existing users would have to search multiple times to get the information they sought, and each additional search would give Google another chance to show you an ad:
https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan
7/
-
I mean, sure, they could raise a billion new humans to maturity and train them to be Google customers (e.g., the business plan for Google Classroom), but that takes more than a decade, and Google needed growth *right away*. So the company hatched a plan to make search *worse*, so that its existing users would have to search multiple times to get the information they sought, and each additional search would give Google another chance to show you an ad:
https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan
7/
But that was small potatoes. What Google - and the rest of the tech sector - needed was a *massive* growth story, a story about how their companies, worth *trillions of dollars*, could double or triple in size in the coming years. There's a kind of reflexive anti-capitalist critique that locates the drive to tell growth stories in ideology: "endless growth is the ideology of a tumor," right?
8/
-
But that was small potatoes. What Google - and the rest of the tech sector - needed was a *massive* growth story, a story about how their companies, worth *trillions of dollars*, could double or triple in size in the coming years. There's a kind of reflexive anti-capitalist critique that locates the drive to tell growth stories in ideology: "endless growth is the ideology of a tumor," right?
8/
But spinning an endless growth story isn't merely ideological. It's a firmly materialistic undertaking. Companies that appear to be growing have market caps that are an order of magnitude larger than companies that are consisdered "mature" and at the end of their growth phase. For every dollar that Ford brings in, the market is willing to spend $8.60 on its stock. For every dollar *Tesla* brings in, the market is willing to spend $118 on its stock.
9/
-
But spinning an endless growth story isn't merely ideological. It's a firmly materialistic undertaking. Companies that appear to be growing have market caps that are an order of magnitude larger than companies that are consisdered "mature" and at the end of their growth phase. For every dollar that Ford brings in, the market is willing to spend $8.60 on its stock. For every dollar *Tesla* brings in, the market is willing to spend $118 on its stock.
9/
That means that when Tesla and Ford compete to buy something - like another company, or the labor of highly sought after technical specialists - Tesla has a nearly unbeatable advantage. Rather than raiding its precious cash reserves to fund its offer, Tesla can offer *stock*. Ford can only spend as many dollars as it brings in through sales, but Tesla can make more stock, on demand, simply by typing numbers into a spreadsheet.
10/
-
That means that when Tesla and Ford compete to buy something - like another company, or the labor of highly sought after technical specialists - Tesla has a nearly unbeatable advantage. Rather than raiding its precious cash reserves to fund its offer, Tesla can offer *stock*. Ford can only spend as many dollars as it brings in through sales, but Tesla can make more stock, on demand, simply by typing numbers into a spreadsheet.
10/
So when Tesla bids against Ford, Ford has to use dollars, and Tesla can use shares. And even if the acquisition target - a key employee or a startup that's on the acquisitions market - wants dollars instead of shares, Tesla can stake its shares as collateral for loans at a rate that's 1,463% better than the rate Ford gets when it collateralizes a loan based on its own equity:
https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/07/rah-rah-rasputin/#credulous-dolts
11/
-
So when Tesla bids against Ford, Ford has to use dollars, and Tesla can use shares. And even if the acquisition target - a key employee or a startup that's on the acquisitions market - wants dollars instead of shares, Tesla can stake its shares as collateral for loans at a rate that's 1,463% better than the rate Ford gets when it collateralizes a loan based on its own equity:
https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/07/rah-rah-rasputin/#credulous-dolts
11/
In other words, if you can tell a convincing growth story, it's *much* easier to grow. The corollary, though, is that when a growth company *stops* growing, when it becomes "mature," it experiences a massive sell-off of its stock, as its share price plummets to a tenth or less of the old "growth" valuation.
12/
-
In other words, if you can tell a convincing growth story, it's *much* easier to grow. The corollary, though, is that when a growth company *stops* growing, when it becomes "mature," it experiences a massive sell-off of its stock, as its share price plummets to a tenth or less of the old "growth" valuation.
12/
That's why the biggest tech companies in the world have spent the past decade - the decade *after* they monopolized their sectors and conquered the world - pumping a series of progressively stupider bubbles: metaverse, cryptocurrency, and now, AI.
Tech companies don't need these ventures to be successful - they just need them to seem to be plausibly successful for long enough to keep the share price high until the next growth story heaves over the horizon.
13/
-
That's why the biggest tech companies in the world have spent the past decade - the decade *after* they monopolized their sectors and conquered the world - pumping a series of progressively stupider bubbles: metaverse, cryptocurrency, and now, AI.
Tech companies don't need these ventures to be successful - they just need them to seem to be plausibly successful for long enough to keep the share price high until the next growth story heaves over the horizon.
13/
So long as Mister Market thinks tech is a "growth" sector and not a "mature" sector, tech bosses will be able to continue to pay for things with stock rather than cash, and their own stockholdings will continue to be valued at sky-high rates.
14/
-
So long as Mister Market thinks tech is a "growth" sector and not a "mature" sector, tech bosses will be able to continue to pay for things with stock rather than cash, and their own stockholdings will continue to be valued at sky-high rates.
14/
That's why AI is being crammed into absofuckingloutely everything. it's why the button you used to tap to start a new chat summons up an AI that takes seven taps to banish again - it's so tech companies can tell Wall Street that people are "using AI" which means that their companies are still part of a growth industry and thus entitled to gigantic price-to-earnings ratios:
https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/02/kpis-off/#principal-agentic-ai-problem
15/
-
That's why AI is being crammed into absofuckingloutely everything. it's why the button you used to tap to start a new chat summons up an AI that takes seven taps to banish again - it's so tech companies can tell Wall Street that people are "using AI" which means that their companies are still part of a growth industry and thus entitled to gigantic price-to-earnings ratios:
https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/02/kpis-off/#principal-agentic-ai-problem
15/
The reality, of course, is that people *hate* AI. Telling people that your product is "AI enabled" makes less likely to use it:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19368623.2024.2368040#d1e1096
People - who have had an infinitude of AI crammed into down their throats - are already sick of AI. Policymakers and financiers - credulous dolts who fall for tech marketing hype every! fucking! time - are convinced that AI Is The Future.
16/
-
The reality, of course, is that people *hate* AI. Telling people that your product is "AI enabled" makes less likely to use it:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19368623.2024.2368040#d1e1096
People - who have had an infinitude of AI crammed into down their throats - are already sick of AI. Policymakers and financiers - credulous dolts who fall for tech marketing hype every! fucking! time - are convinced that AI Is The Future.
16/
This presents a dilemma for tech companies, who research the hell out of how people actually use their products and thus must be extremely aware of how hated AI is, but whose leadership is desperate to show investors that they are about to experience explosive growth through the miracle of AI.
17/
-
This presents a dilemma for tech companies, who research the hell out of how people actually use their products and thus must be extremely aware of how hated AI is, but whose leadership is desperate to show investors that they are about to experience explosive growth through the miracle of AI.
17/
The reality is that AI is a very bad business. It has dogshit unit economics. Unlike all the successful tech of the 21st century, each generation of AI is more expensive to make, not cheaper. And unlike the most profitable tech services of this century, AI gets *more costly to operate* the more users it has.
18/
-
The reality is that AI is a very bad business. It has dogshit unit economics. Unlike all the successful tech of the 21st century, each generation of AI is more expensive to make, not cheaper. And unlike the most profitable tech services of this century, AI gets *more costly to operate* the more users it has.
18/
You can be forgiven for not knowing this, though. As Ed Zitron points out in a long, excellent article about the credulity and impuissance of the tech press, the actual numbers *suuuuuck*:
https://www.wheresyoured.at/make-fun-of-them/
* Microsoft
Spending: $80b in 2025
Projecting: $13b in 2025
Actually: $10b comes from Openai giving back compute credits Microsoft gave to Openai, bringing the true total to $3b.
19/
-
You can be forgiven for not knowing this, though. As Ed Zitron points out in a long, excellent article about the credulity and impuissance of the tech press, the actual numbers *suuuuuck*:
https://www.wheresyoured.at/make-fun-of-them/
* Microsoft
Spending: $80b in 2025
Projecting: $13b in 2025
Actually: $10b comes from Openai giving back compute credits Microsoft gave to Openai, bringing the true total to $3b.
19/
@pluralistic Ed Zitron: “Human beings may make mistakes in writing code, but they at least know what a mistake looks like, which a generative AI does not, because a generative AI doesn’t know what anything is, or anything at all, because it is a probabilistic model.” AI has got no intelligence whatsoever.
-
M maiathecyberwitch@helvede.net shared this topic
