Thread 1/2:
The New Dirigisme
Equity markets have undergone a structural shift. Major technology companies now stay private far longer than their predecessors, raising capital at valuations that would once have required public scrutiny. OpenAI’s $157bn valuation and SpaceX’s $350bn both exist outside public markets. The highest-growth phase now occurs before retail investors can participate.
This matters less for access than for accountability. A new dynamic has emerged: the state as “fixer of last resort” for strategically important firms.
Strategic backstops
Sam Altman and others have described a relationship where government acts not as regulator or emergency lender, but as enabler. In practice this means: political pressure on regulators to facilitate rather than constrain; national security framing that insulates companies from market discipline; state involvement in securing compute resources and infrastructure; implicit guarantees that certain firms are too important to fail.
This creates a category of company that is neither purely private (subject to market discipline) nor public (subject to transparency requirements), but politically protected. During 2022’s correction, public tech stocks fell 60-80%. OpenAI’s valuation rose from $29bn to $157bn. The divergence suggests certain private valuations now reflect strategic positioning rather than cash flows.
Traditional crossover funds now operate alongside sovereign wealth vehicles and government-backed investors with strategic rather than purely financial mandates. Valuations reflect geopolitical calculus. Normal correction mechanisms—funding dries up, companies fail—are circumvented. Price discovery becomes politicised.
#AI #markets #OpenAI #capitalism
The New Dirigisme
Equity markets have undergone a structural shift. Major technology companies now stay private far longer than their predecessors, raising capital at valuations that would once have required public scrutiny. OpenAI’s $157bn valuation and SpaceX’s $350bn both exist outside public markets. The highest-growth phase now occurs before retail investors can participate.
This matters less for access than for accountability. A new dynamic has emerged: the state as “fixer of last resort” for strategically important firms.
Strategic backstops
Sam Altman and others have described a relationship where government acts not as regulator or emergency lender, but as enabler. In practice this means: political pressure on regulators to facilitate rather than constrain; national security framing that insulates companies from market discipline; state involvement in securing compute resources and infrastructure; implicit guarantees that certain firms are too important to fail.
This creates a category of company that is neither purely private (subject to market discipline) nor public (subject to transparency requirements), but politically protected. During 2022’s correction, public tech stocks fell 60-80%. OpenAI’s valuation rose from $29bn to $157bn. The divergence suggests certain private valuations now reflect strategic positioning rather than cash flows.
Traditional crossover funds now operate alongside sovereign wealth vehicles and government-backed investors with strategic rather than purely financial mandates. Valuations reflect geopolitical calculus. Normal correction mechanisms—funding dries up, companies fail—are circumvented. Price discovery becomes politicised.
#AI #markets #OpenAI #capitalism
Thread 2/2:
The Lewisian precedent
Wyndham Lewis anticipated this in The Art of Being Ruled (1926). He described “left-wing capitalism”: capitalist elites adopting progressive rhetoric while state and private power merge under claims of social improvement. Market discipline gives way to managed outcomes. The masses are ruled through manufactured consensus rather than coercion.
Today’s pattern fits precisely. OpenAI positions itself as building “safe” AI for “humanity’s benefit”. It uses existential risk framing to justify state support and protection from competition. The language is democratic; the structure is oligarchic. Concerns about AI safety become reasons to empower incumbent firms. Calls for regulation become barriers to entry. Critics are framed as naïve or dangerous.
Lewis saw how technocratic governance replaces democratic accountability. Today, AI is deemed too complex for public understanding, requiring expert stewardship. Decisions affecting everyone are made by small groups—company boards, government liaisons. Democratic legitimacy yields to claims of technical necessity.
The perpetual emergency justifies extraordinary measures. The AI race with China, existential risk, the need to “move fast”—crisis conditions bypass normal market and democratic processes. The emergency never resolves; it enables permanent exception.
What makes it “left-wing”
Not the actual policies, which consolidate elite power, but the aesthetic: language of equity while creating wealth concentration; rhetoric of democratisation while staying private; appeals to collective welfare while privatising gains; safety framing while avoiding accountability; progressive signalling while building oligarchic structures.
Lewis understood that effective control doesn’t announce itself. It comes dressed as progress and collective benefit. When Altman describes the state as “fixer of last resort”, he describes what Lewis warned of: a fusion where normal market mechanisms are suspended, democratic oversight is bypassed, and private actors wield public power—all presented as enlightened stewardship.
The question
If a company is too strategically important to fail, should it be private? How do we value firms when government support is implicit but unquantified? What happens to capital allocation when political strategy overrides market signals?
Lewis was pessimistic about whether democratic societies could resist the drift toward managed oligarchy. The ticker tape still scrolls. But for the companies that matter most—those building transformative AI or critical infrastructure—it may be measuring geopolitical positioning rather than market valuation.
We have not broken capitalism. We have simply removed the referee, rewritten the rulebook, and convinced ourselves the game remains fair.
#WyndhamLewis #techpolicy #politicaleconomy #valuations
The Lewisian precedent
Wyndham Lewis anticipated this in The Art of Being Ruled (1926). He described “left-wing capitalism”: capitalist elites adopting progressive rhetoric while state and private power merge under claims of social improvement. Market discipline gives way to managed outcomes. The masses are ruled through manufactured consensus rather than coercion.
Today’s pattern fits precisely. OpenAI positions itself as building “safe” AI for “humanity’s benefit”. It uses existential risk framing to justify state support and protection from competition. The language is democratic; the structure is oligarchic. Concerns about AI safety become reasons to empower incumbent firms. Calls for regulation become barriers to entry. Critics are framed as naïve or dangerous.
Lewis saw how technocratic governance replaces democratic accountability. Today, AI is deemed too complex for public understanding, requiring expert stewardship. Decisions affecting everyone are made by small groups—company boards, government liaisons. Democratic legitimacy yields to claims of technical necessity.
The perpetual emergency justifies extraordinary measures. The AI race with China, existential risk, the need to “move fast”—crisis conditions bypass normal market and democratic processes. The emergency never resolves; it enables permanent exception.
What makes it “left-wing”
Not the actual policies, which consolidate elite power, but the aesthetic: language of equity while creating wealth concentration; rhetoric of democratisation while staying private; appeals to collective welfare while privatising gains; safety framing while avoiding accountability; progressive signalling while building oligarchic structures.
Lewis understood that effective control doesn’t announce itself. It comes dressed as progress and collective benefit. When Altman describes the state as “fixer of last resort”, he describes what Lewis warned of: a fusion where normal market mechanisms are suspended, democratic oversight is bypassed, and private actors wield public power—all presented as enlightened stewardship.
The question
If a company is too strategically important to fail, should it be private? How do we value firms when government support is implicit but unquantified? What happens to capital allocation when political strategy overrides market signals?
Lewis was pessimistic about whether democratic societies could resist the drift toward managed oligarchy. The ticker tape still scrolls. But for the companies that matter most—those building transformative AI or critical infrastructure—it may be measuring geopolitical positioning rather than market valuation.
We have not broken capitalism. We have simply removed the referee, rewritten the rulebook, and convinced ourselves the game remains fair.
#WyndhamLewis #techpolicy #politicaleconomy #valuations
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
