Name: 如果不是泡泡… 那為什麼會是泡泡的形狀！？ (If Not Bubble... Why Bubble Shaped?)
Uploaded: 2025-11-07T05:23:59.000Z
Duration: 11 min 5 s

If you ask anybody what they think about the investment market surrounding AI, they are all going to say the same thing.

如果你問任何人對 AI 投資市場有什麼看法，他們都會說一樣的話。

And it's easy to see why they might think so.

而且很容易理解為什麼他們會這麼想。

The entire market is being carried by a few firms speculating about the future of AI.

整個市場是由少數幾家公司在推動，這些公司都在猜測 AI 的未來。

They are all playing a game of, say, a bigger number every quarter.

他們都在玩著，每季都說數字會更大。

The products they are releasing are a long way from covering the cost they are incurring.

他們推出的產品離回收成本還有很長一段路。

And every day it just looks like this whole game is being held together by tech CEOs passing around the same pile of money to make their numbers look good.

每天看起來都像是科技執行長們在互相傳錢，讓他們的數字好看一點，撐起整個局面。

This is to say nothing of the outside geopolitical risks that could smother this whole industry.

這還沒算上可能扼殺整個產業的外部地緣政治風險。

The more you look into the current state of the market, the less flattering it looks behind the scenes.

越深入瞭解市場現況，背後就越不令人稱讚。

But the most dangerous thing in the world is not what you don't know, it's what you know for sure that simply ain't true.

但世界上最危險的東西，不是你不知道的事，而是你深信不疑卻是錯的。

If everybody has agreed that this is a bubble, then why are informed investors still piling billions of dollars into it every month?

如果大家都同意這是個保麗龍，那為什麼精明的投資人每個月還是投入數十億美元？

Are they dumber than us or do they see something that regular people don't?

他們是比我們笨，還是看到了我們一般人看不到的東西？

Now, I want to say that for the record, I think this whole thing is absolutely cooked.

現在，我必須說清楚，我認為這整件事已經完蛋了。

However, the best way to really understand something is to not seek out information that confirms your beliefs, but

不過，真正理解一件事的最好方法，不是尋找證實你信念的資訊，而是

So to play devil's advocate, how is it possible that this whole thing is not just speculative mania?

所以，為了扮演魔鬼代言人，這整件事怎麼可能不是投機狂熱呢？

We as a country need these investments if we're going to be the leader in AI technology.

如果我們國家想成為AI技術的領導者，我們需要這些投資。

Jensen Nvidia is making $100 billion investment in OpenAI.

Nvidia 的 Jensen 正在對 OpenAI 進行 1000 億美元的投資。

The world's top tech companies are pouring billions into building new data centers in the U.S.

全球頂尖科技公司正斥資數十億美元在美國建造新的資料中心。

it'll be a world of incredible material abundance.

那將是一個物質極度豐盛的世界。

It'll be a world where individual ability impact whatever is just so far beyond what a person can do today.

那將是一個個人能力影響力遠超今日一人所能及的世界。

But the economic impact of these deals, it turns out, is indistinguishable from full control.

但這些交易的經濟影響，結果卻與完全控制無異。

Now, the thing about bubbles is that usually they take some kind of outside force to pop them.

現在，關於保麗龍，通常需要某種外部力量才能讓它破滅。

The dot com collapse was kicked off by a combination of factors, but three really stand out.

網路保麗龍的破滅是由多種因素引發的，但其中有三個特別突出。

Microsoft being sued for violation of antitrust laws.

Microsoft 因違反反壟斷法而被起訴。

MicroStrategy doing a massive revising of their financial results, causing their stock to fall 60% in a single day and getting them into hot water with the sec.

MicroStrategy 大幅修正其財務報表，導致股價一日下跌 60%，並是以陷入美國證券交易委員會的麻煩。

And a single article that pointed out the unviable business model that a lot of Dot com companies were running on.

以及一篇指出許多網路保麗龍公司營運模式不可行的文章。

A few years later, the housing bubble was popped by the subprime mortgage crisis, which itself was kicked off by rate resets and loan originators filing for bankruptcy.

幾年後，房地產保麗龍因次貸危機而破滅，而次貸危機本身則是由利率重置和貸款發放機構申請破產引發的。

So if the AI industry was in a bubble, it's had a lot of things that have come a long way which could have popped it Market instability around tariffs, legislative controls over AI chips, rising interest rates, legal challenges over training data, organizational shocks, infrastructure problems concerning studies over business use cases, and

所以，如果 AI 產業處於保麗龍之中，它已經走了很長的路，有很多事情可能已經讓它破滅了：圍繞關稅的市場不穩定、對 AI 晶片的立法管制、利率上升、關於訓練數據的法律挑戰、組織衝擊、關於商業案例研究的基礎設施問題，以及

what looks like increasingly desperate attempts to generate any kind of revenue.

越來越絕望地試圖產生任何收入的企圖。

That's not to mention that if one article back in 2000 could start unraveling the dot com bubble, surely the daily articles coming out about the problems in this industry should do the same, right?

更不用說，如果 2000 年的一篇文章就能開始瓦解網路保麗龍，那麼每天關於這個行業問題的文章肯定也會有同樣的效果，對吧？

Well, so far at least, the market has pretty much just shrugged all of this off.

嗯，至少到目前為止，市場幾乎對這一切不屑一顧。

And it's been able to do this for three very important reasons.

而這能做到，有三個非常重要的原因。

The first is where all of this money is actually coming from.

第一個是所有這些錢實際上是從哪裡來的。

Over the last decade and a half, big US tech companies have slowly built up an enormous pile of cash.

過去十幾年來，美國大型科技公司慢慢累積了巨額現金。

Outside of insurance or financial firms, which are legally mandated to have cash on hand for compliance reasons, tech companies like Microsoft, Meta, Apple and Alphabet have more cash than any other companies on the planet.

除了保險或金融公司，因為法規要求必須保留現金以符合規定外，像 Microsoft、Meta、Apple 和 Alphabet 這樣的科技公司，擁有的現金比地球上任何其他公司都多。

After saving it away for the better part of two decades.

在將近二十年的時間裡，他們一直把錢存起來。

They had been doing this for two reasons.

The first was that before 2017, tax laws heavily incentivized shifting cash into offshore accounts primarily held in Ireland.

第一個是，在 2017 年之前，稅法大力鼓勵將現金轉移到主要設在愛爾蘭的離岸帳戶。

The exact structures that they used to erode these profits into a haven like this were very complicated, but

他們用來將這些利潤轉移到像這樣避稅天堂的確切結構非常複雜，但是

once the cash was there, they couldn't really touch it unless they wanted to pay tax on it.

一旦現金在那裡，他們就無法真正動用它，除非他們想對其課稅。

This means that they just slowly accumulated cash, waiting for something to use it on.

這意味著他們只是慢慢累積現金，等待有東西可以花費。

However, in 2017, these companies were offered a one time deal to bring back these offshore savings into America for a small tax concession which gave them all a lot of dry powder to make some big local investments.

然而，在 2017 年，這些公司獲得了一次性的機會，可以用較低的稅率將這些離岸儲蓄帶回美國，這讓他們都有了充裕的資金來進行一些大規模的在地投資。

Now, they have used a lot of that money to do share buybacks, and

現在，他們已經用掉了很多錢進行股票回購，而且

they have kept a lot of it abroad to fund their international operations.

他們將大部分資金保留在海外，以資助其國際業務。

But they also earmarked billions for future capital expenditures.

但他們也撥出數十億美元用於未來的資本支出。

Now, the second reason they built such huge cash reserves was because for a while these companies were actually struggling to find projects worth investing in.

現在，他們建立龐大現金儲備的第二個原因是，有段時間這些公司其實很難找到值得投資的項目。

They had become so dominant in their respective markets that spending a lot of money on development was seen as an unnecessary expense that wasn't really worth the risk.

他們在各自的市場中已經變得如此主導，以至於在開發上花大錢被視為不必要的開銷，並不真的值得冒險。

如今，這顯然已經改變了，而且

the big companies that are driving most of the expenditure on data centers are almost making up for a lost decade where they were arguably not investing enough money into new projects.

驅動資料中心大部分支出的這些大公司，幾乎彌補了過去十年來他們可能沒有足夠的錢投入新項目的損失。

This also applies to all of the money they are introducing into the system to support less established firms like OpenAI.

這也適用於他們投入系統以支持像 OpenAI 這樣較不成熟公司的所有資金。

Sure, the money is getting passed around a lot once it's in the system, but

當然，一旦資金進入系統，它們會在其中大量流轉，但是

the initial source of these funds is largely coming from piles of cash these companies had sitting on the sidelines.

這些資金的最初來源，很大一部分來自這些公司閒置的現金堆。

This means, compared to something like the housing bubble, which was propped up on a lot of debt and rigid derivatives, these companies are at least building atop a solid fiscal foundation.

這意味著，與房地產保麗龍（該保麗龍建立在大量債務和複雜衍生性金融商品之上）相比，這些公司至少是在穩固的財政基礎上進行建設。

Now, of course, having a strong foundation does not guarantee that the house you build on top of it will also be good.

當然，穩固的基礎並不保證你蓋在上面的房子也會很棒。

Similarly, just because these companies happen to be holding onto trillions of dollars doesn't necessarily mean that setting it all on fire to chase one single bet is a good idea.

同樣地，這些公司只是剛好持有數兆美元，這不代表把這些錢全部燒光去追逐單一的賭注是個好主意。

It also doesn't mean that regular investors won't get burned if this money suddenly gets yoinked back off the table.

這也不代表如果這些錢突然被抽走，一般投資人就不會受傷。

So it's time to learn how money works to find out what else could possibly explain this all not being a bubble.

所以是時候來瞭解錢是怎麼運作的，看看還有什麼能解釋這一切不是保麗龍。

This week's video is sponsored by Kape, the Privacy first mobile carrier that's rethinking how phone service should work Kape gives you premium nationwide coverage without tracking, profiling, or selling your data.

本週影片由 Kape 贊助，Kape 是重視隱私的手機業者，正在重新思考手機服務應該如何運作。Kape 提供你優質的全國通訊服務，而且不會追蹤、分析或販售你的資料。

They were built by experts in Teleco common cybersecurity, with one goal to make mobile privacy and security something you don't have to compromise on.

他們由電信和網路安全領域的專家所創立，目標是讓行動隱私和安全不再是需要妥協的事。

Traditional carriers have a track record of data breaches and surveillance.

傳統電信業者有著資料外洩和監控的前科。

They build profiles on who you call, where you go and what you do.

他們會建立關於你打給誰、你去哪裡、以及你做什麼的檔案。

They don't ask for your name, address or Social Security number, and

他們不需要你的姓名、地址或社會安全號碼，而且

they automatically delete call metadata after 60 days.

他們會在 60 天後自動刪除通話記錄。

Plus, they run their own secure 4G 5G core network, so they control the tech that keeps your data private, not the big carriers.

此外，他們營運自己的安全 4G 5G 核心網路，所以他們掌控著保護您數據隱私的技術，而不是大型電信業者。

What really stood out to me is how Kape handles SIM swaps.

最讓我印象深刻的是 Kape 如何處理 SIM 卡交換。

With most carriers, one phone call to customer support can let an attacker take over your number.

對於大多數電信業者來說，打一通電話給客服就能讓攻擊者盜用您的門號。

Your number is locked with a 24 word recovery phrase so only you can move it.

您的門號會被一個 24 字的恢復短語鎖定，所以只有您能轉移它。

No customer service override, no insider access, just airtight security that actually makes sense in 2025.

沒有客服覆寫，沒有內部存取權限，只有在 2025 年才真正有意義的滴水不漏的安全性。

On top of that, every Kape plan includes encrypted voicemail and real time network level threat blocking.

此外，每個 Kape 方案都包含加密語音信箱和即時網路層威脅封鎖。

They're even partnering with Proton so you can add Proton VPN or Proton Unlimited for just a dollar.

他們甚至與 Proton 合作，讓您只需一美元就能加入 Proton VPN 或 Proton Unlimited。

Kape's still in beta, but it's already trusted by security leaders at OpenAI, CrowdStrike and more.

Kape 仍處於測試階段，但它已經受到 OpenAI、CrowdStrike 等公司安全領導者的信賴。

If you're ready to protect your phone number and your data.

如果您準備好保護您的手機號碼和資料。

Visit Kape co Getcape and use code HOWMONEYWORKS33 for 33% off your first six months of CAPE.

請前往 Kape co Getcape 並使用代碼 HOWMONEYWORKS33，即可享有 CAPE 前六個月 33% 的折扣。

That's Cape co Getcape One of the most concerning trends that has developed in this space is the circular dealing between all of the companies involved in different areas of this industry.

那就是 Cape co Getcape 這個領域裡最令人擔憂的趨勢之一，就是這個產業不同領域所有相關公司之間的循環交易。

We first covered this about two months ago when Oracle's stock price spiked after reporting a huge data center rental commitment from OpenAI, who had raised billions of dollars from Nvidia, who made that money in the first place by selling graphics cards to companies like Oracle.

我們大約兩個月前首次報導此事，當時 Oracle 在報告了來自 OpenAI 一筆龐大的資料中心租賃承諾後，股價飆升，而 OpenAI 則從 Nvidia 籌集了數十億美元，而 Nvidia 最初是透過向 Oracle 等公司銷售顯示卡賺取了這筆錢。

Since then, the deals have only gotten bigger and reporters have done a really good job piecing together just how far and wide this web of financial f ckery goes.

從那時起，交易規模越來越大，記者們也做得非常出色，拼湊出這個財務操作網絡的廣度和深度。

Now, most commentary has rightfully called this out as companies pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

現在，大多數評論都恰當地指出，這是公司在「拉抬自己」的行為。

They are making their revenue look better than they really are by investing in their own customers.

他們透過投資自己的客戶來讓營收看起來比實際更好。

Not exactly a sustainable business model.

這不是一個可持續的商業模式。

However, to play devil's advocate again, there is something to be said about this strategy from a risk mitigation perspective.

然而，再次扮演魔鬼代言人，從風險管理的角度來看，這種策略也有可取之處。

When people look back with the benefit of hindsight at the dot com bubble, they all say the same thing.

當人們事後回顧網路保麗龍時，他們都會說同樣的話。

after a major correction there were still some big winners that emerged, some of them being the same tech companies involved in the AI market right now.

在經歷重大修正後，還是出現了一些大贏家，其中有些就是現在參與 AI 市場的科技公司。

Nvidia investing into a company like OpenAI right now looks a little bit suspicious, but

Nvidia 現在投資像 OpenAI 這樣的公司，看起來有點可疑，但是

had a company like AOL invested in Amazon Back in 1999, we would probably be a little less critical.

如果像 AOL 這樣的公司在 1999 年投資了 Amazon，我們可能就不會那麼嚴苛了。

By investing up and down the supply chain, if you could call it that, these companies are in theory maximizing the chance that they will capture the value eventually generated through AI.

透過投資供應鏈的上下游，如果我們這麼稱呼的話，這些公司理論上可以最大化他們最終透過 AI 創造價值的機會。

There is also one other really important detail that a lot of people gloss over when exposing this financial circle jerk.

還有一個非常重要的細節，很多人在揭露這種財務上的互相吹捧時都會忽略。

It's easy to look at this and conclude that this whole market is just a Ponzi scheme popped up by investor hype.

很容易看到這一點，然後得出結論說，整個市場只是投資者炒作起來的龐氏騙局。

The only problem with that deduction though is that they aren't really taking investors money netted out, the major players in this industry are paying out far more money through dividends and stock buybacks than they are taking in through stock issuance or borrowing.

然而，這個推論唯一的問題是，他們並沒有真正淨賺投資者的錢，這個產業的主要參與者透過股息和股票回購支付出去的錢，遠遠超過他們透過發行股票或借款所獲得的金額。

When compared again to the dot com bubble, the story was very different.

再跟網路保麗龍相比，當時的情況就非常不同了。

Hyped companies were dependent on bringing in a continuous stream of investor money to keep the lights on in businesses that made no profit and often didn't even make any revenue.

被炒作的公司依賴不斷湧入的投資者資金來維持營運，而這些公司根本沒有獲利，甚至常常沒有營收。

字幕列表影片播放

如果不是泡泡… 那為什麼會是泡泡的形狀！？ (If Not Bubble... Why Bubble Shaped?)

eventually

absolutely

impact

completely