South America didn't have a mix of domestic and foreign investors deploying massive quantities of private money into capital assets in the 60s and 70s. They had governments borrowing to fund their citizens' consumption. Massive difference on multiple levels.
The problem here being that it was money spent that was never earned back, and money that eventually had to be paid back, right?
This can also happen with private capital. 2008 was a bust caused by private banks, for example. AI hasn't proven to be profitable yet [1], and I'm not sure it'll makes a difference, for the success of projects like this, wether the money is coming from government or not.
In fact, if the 2008 bank bail-out, auto industry bail-out, the Silicon Valley bank prop-up, and other such actions by the US government are considered [2], if this turns out to be a bubble it will be taxpayers who end up fronting the bill.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ai-generative-business-mone...
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/governmen...
In part. It was money borrowed by the state. That means when it can't be paid back, it's automatically a systemic issue. And it was money borrowed to fund consumption. There was no good reason to ever expect it to be paid back because it wasn't funding productive activity.
> if this turns out to be a bubble it will be taxpayers who end up fronting the bill
Very possibly, particularly if part of the package are e.g. federally-subsidised loans. Before that, however, private parties will almost certainly lose tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. That cushion, together with those parties being spread between domestic and foreign sources, is what makes this less risky to the United States than similar relative-magnitude projects in South America. (Plus the fact that this is a capital asset versus consumption.)
Haven’t all three examples you note (2008 crash, auto bailout, and SV prop up) resulted in a net return/gain for the taxpayer?