Hacker News Reader

Comment by Swizec | Hacker News Reader

Here’s another way to think about it: Germany invested N billion into shifting behavior to rail.

How many billions in subsidies has OpenAI gotten to build us a chatbot?

I'm not aware of any subsidies openAi has received. Did I miss something or is this one of the situations we're we are making up new definitions for words?

> I'm not aware of any subsidies openAi has received.

It is rumored that the military (and perhaps three-letter agencies) has/have special contracts with OpenAI. This can definitely be called a subsidy.

A contract isn't a subsidy... A subsidy would be giving them dollars without any particular strings attached except perhaps to use those funds to develop the product. If the contract is to provide money in exchange for services, that's called a transaction.

I see it differently: for example the fact that the US government spends a lot of money on military can in my opinion clearly be called a subsidy for the military-industrial complex.

So then if the government buys pens and reams of paper, then it's the government subsidizing office supply stores? But it's not a subsidy if a corporation spends money on the same supplies?

My employer does business with the DoD and with private corporate entities. Both the government and the private sector spend the same money and receive the same products and services. I appreciate that you have a different perspective, but I have a hard time considering my employer "subsidized by the US government" just because the government purchases our product.

> So then if the government buys pens and reams of paper, then it's the government subsidizing office supply stores?

If the government is a particularly important customer: yes.

Do you have a different term you use for when the government is not simply a customer, buying what they need, but intentionally funding a company in excess of the goods and services it receives? This would be more in line with the traditional definition.

I think a company can make 100% of its revenue from the government, but that doesn't mean it is subsidized. The critical criteria is if the government is directing funds for reasons other than pure procurement, such as buying votes, stimulating jobs, ect.

It’s important to distinguish between an operational cost and capital investment here.

If rail usage continues once the spending stops then it’s an investment. Otherwise is an operating subsidy.

paying for part of the ticket is not an investment, as there's no residual value from this payment. An investment must have some sort of residual value, which over time, is recouped and perhaps even makes a return (hopefully).

> paying for part of the ticket is not an investment, as there's no residual value from this payment

Disagree. There is a lot of residual value in reducing congestion and road usage. Roads need fewer repairs, CO2 impacts the atmosphere less, cities move more efficiently, etc.

There’s residual value also in people spending more time on tax-paying activities and running the economy instead of being stuck alone in their cars. Etc.

If you pay $50 more in taxes because you got a $40 train ticket subsidy that’s a huge win. I don’t know if that’s how the numbers shake out, but governments are def not doing stuff like this just to throw money in the furnace.

You mean another example of apples and oranges?

Is software and transportation really a good example?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com