Nvidia CEO Says Company Went from 95% to 0 Market Share in China (fortune.com) 96
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says his company has lost all access to China's market after U.S. export restrictions eliminated what was once a 95% share. Speaking in an interview with Citadel Securities, Huang questioned the wisdom of policies that cost America one of the world's largest markets.
The Biden Administration imposed rules in 2022 to restrict exports of Nvidia's most advanced AI chips to China. The Trump Administration blocked additional chip sales in April and later granted export licenses for certain Nvidia and AMD chips in exchange for 15% of revenues. Chinese regulators responded by telling domestic tech companies to avoid Nvidia chips designed to meet U.S. export requirements. Beijing also placed strict limits on exports of rare earths. Huang noted that about half the world's AI researchers are in China and called it a mistake not to have them build AI on American technology.
The Biden Administration imposed rules in 2022 to restrict exports of Nvidia's most advanced AI chips to China. The Trump Administration blocked additional chip sales in April and later granted export licenses for certain Nvidia and AMD chips in exchange for 15% of revenues. Chinese regulators responded by telling domestic tech companies to avoid Nvidia chips designed to meet U.S. export requirements. Beijing also placed strict limits on exports of rare earths. Huang noted that about half the world's AI researchers are in China and called it a mistake not to have them build AI on American technology.
Heh (Score:1)
Everyone criticises "policy" when it bites them in the ass, not one femtosecond before.
Capitalism's biggest achievement - (sheer number of) fools that believe in it.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
In my first year of high school I had a mandatory economics class. There wasn't any math or statistics or anything useful like that. It was just about 6 weeks of capitalism rah rah rah. It was slotted in between drivers ed and the health class where they show you what it looks like to get an STD.
At the time it was just one more dumb course I had to take and do homework for it. I remember it being an easy A.
But looking back it was taking advantage of something called 4 to 14.
That's the idea that anything put in your head between the ages of 4 to 14 becomes a core part of your worldview. This is because children are able to learn and memorize before they are able to think critically.
It's something cults and religious extremists have been exploiting for ages. Anything you learn in that age group that's wrong or a lie basically has to go through a process called deconstruction where you separate the emotional and social effects of believing those things from the reality of them.
Capitalism does have its place and its places things that have lots and lots of competition that can be properly refereed.
The problem is that the people at the very top have decided they've had enough of capitalism. They are sick and tired of being dependent on consumers for the wealth, power and prestige and they are looking towards a post-capitalist world that does not include you and me.
And that is extremely hard for people to wrap their heads around. The idea that capitalism might go away with something other than socialism. I've been calling it techno feudalism but I don't think that lands with most people. It's something I'm not sure how to communicate.
Re: (Score:2)
> I've been calling it techno feudalism
You and every Cyberpunk author ever.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I know there are authors who have talked about what's coming before me. Because people here have mentioned some authors. I have no doubt that I'm not the first person to make the observation that the billionaire class would like to put a stop to capitalism.
But I don't think most people think about it or talk about it because I think it's just too far out there and too o
Re: Heh (Score:2)
Where do your referees come from? Are they like Philosopher-Kings, i.e. nice in theory but not in practice?
Bureaucrats (Score:1)
There's a 80% chance that you are just now recoiling in horror. That's by design. Billionaires have spent the last 50 years telling you that bureaucrats are bad because bureaucrats are the ones who enforce laws that billionaires break.
Imagine if you're a criminal and you can convince the public to shut down the police. That's what billionaires did with bureaucrats and our minds.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump doesn't like actual law enforcement, except when he can use it to attack others. So, expect any enforcement from the USA to be substandard.
Re: Bureaucrats (Score:2)
Do those same bureaucrats also enforce laws against free camping and drugs and trolling that affect me, thus I side with billionnaires against them? Are the referees worse?
Re: Heh (Score:2)
Yeah but within 20 years of their doing that, their entire situation collapses.
Without sovereignty to obtain and evolve everything from asphalt materials to zofran medicine, larger entities will gobble them up, and in the short time span they can enjoy this âoefreedomâ I guarantee that people will already be angling to break out of their techno fascist fever dream.
Sure, they can try and launch themselves into space or put themselves in a bunker, but they will last maybe a few years at most and the
Re:Heh (Score:4, Insightful)
You touch on the problem that can't be solved at school but is trivially solved at university. And you demonstrate that problem affects you. Your post frames capitalism as good or bad. The reality is its neither. At school you learn capitalism is good. When you think critically it is bad. When you read policy you see people want socialism or capitalism.
In reality in first year of a university level economics course you'll learn that *ALL* forms of economic systems are bad, and *ALL* forms of economic systems have good aspects. No economist would ever promote the idea of any economic system in its purest form since they all both in a theoretical sense and a practical sense lead to complete self destruction. For socialism it's Thatcher's comment about running out of other people's money. For Capitalism it is the only stable condition being a singular monopoly.
Capitalism has its place everywhere, along with regulations and guardrails (non-capitalistic) to ensure that the market keeps functioning ideally.
Socialism has its place everywhere, along with regulations and guardrails (non-socialistic) to ensure that production stays efficient and wealth is generated to be distributed.
Communism is a bit more problematic at a truly large scale but ultimately works well for control of vital resources.
The hardest part for people to wrap their heads around is that there isn't such a thing as pure capitalism, pure socialism, or pure communism in any of their worlds, which makes the whole concept of "post-capitalism" look silly. You can't have post-capitalism since you never had pure capitalism in the first place. Everyone has always lived with a combination of systems and this was never clearly explained to anyone at school.
Re: (Score:2)
All economic systems end up at the same place: A few people holding everything while the masses service those few.
With that in mind, Capitalism addresses individual needs; therefore, it is the most suitable overall. But Capitalism is like energy. Uncontrolled, it explodes in a negative manner. Controlled, it can power trains and rockets and computers and societies.
Re: Heh (Score:2)
Capitalism was never about âoeyou or me.â It was and still is all about accumulation of assets, wealth, and power and the expense of the working class. The layman boomer worldview of capitalism oddly shaped by a gentler and kinder state capitalism checked by a functional welfare state. Somewhere along the way people forgot the âoestateâ part and the âoewelfareâ part, which leaves us with this late-stage capitalist hellscape controlled by the geriatric class.
Re: (Score:1)
"Capitalism" is a derogatory Marxist term for a free society, see here https://dagens-fel.livejournal... [livejournal.com]
Don't use it, it corrupts your thinking. It is not an ideology. It actually doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but capitalism has LOS of good points. It's just that it also has more than a few really bad points. Small scale capitalism is extremely good. Monopoly ANYTHING tends to be really bad.
OTOH, some jobs cannot be done without concentrated controlled power. Whether you call the agency that does them a government or a corporation is basically irrelevant, what *is* relevant is the damage they do in the process of doing those jobs.
Small scale capitalism, where there's no significant "barrier to entry" i
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
And what is your alternative to Capitalism?
In my opinion, every economic system is flawed because they all have to deal with human nature, which is more complex and shifty than will fit into any neat little economic model.
Winston Churchill is supposed to have said that Democracy is a terrible form of government; it's just better than all the others. That's how I feel about Capitalism.
Sometimes I compare Capitalism to fire. It's great for some things, but it's also dangerous and has to be watched and monitored all the time. Too bad we don't have an economic system that you can just wind up like a clock and let it run all on it's own. A lot of people would like that. A lot of people seem to think they have something like that, until it gets tried out.
Re: Heh (Score:2)
What happens to capitalism's efficiency if prices are noise (cf. another comment characterizing Nvidia's prices as "bogus")?
Re: (Score:1)
I suppose there is no efficiency in capitalism when prices are noise, or in any other economic system either. Your question leads me to ask, when are prices noise? The only time I can think of is when there is outside interference, as from governments, which would mean it isn't an innate feature of capitalism that prices become 'noise'.
I don't feel entirely comfortable in being the staunch defender of capitalism. I've already said I don't think it's perfect. I just get annoyed when people casually dismis
Re: Heh (Score:2)
Why not capitalism with a strong basic income safety net, funded by printing or wealth funds, not taxes?
As for noisy prices, what if Fisher Black is right, that unregulated capitalism's prices are noisy too, not the rational calculation of supply vs. demand as maknstream econ fantasizes?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I wouldn't claim that unregulated capitalism is a good thing.
What does lead to a rational calculation of supply vs demand? I don't think the track record of external influences deciding what's rational is all that good. I vaguely remember reading that when Deng Xiaouping was asked to decide on how to value the Chinese Yen, he asked what was it trading at on the black market. When he got the answer he said that's what we set the value at. So maybe the black market is the place to find out the ratio
Re: Heh (Score:2)
What if a rational determination of supply and demand is not possible, because arbitrary and capricious individuals use personal power to restrict supply or destroy demand at their whim?
Fischer Black in "Noise":
"Noise in the form of expectations that need not follow rational rules causes inflation to be what it is, at least in the absence of a gold standard or fixed exchange rates. Noise in the form of uncertainty about what relative prices would be with other exchange rates makes us think incorrectly that
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah if arbitrary and capricious individuals use personal power to restrict supply or destroy demand on a whim, then I agree 100% that prices won't reflect the real or natural supply and demand. How often and how much does that happen?
Is this supposed to be a criticism of capitalism? Because I don't see that as being particularly capitalistic. Are you thinking of monopolies? I compared capitalism to fire in my first post, and this is one of the ways in which the fire of capitalism has to be watched and
Alternative - a bit of everything (Score:2)
... and a bit of co-operativism, socialism, and whatever. Spread your bets.
I know it's hard for our chimp brains to accept, but there are no absolute truths or panaceas.
Capitalism is not good or bad, it is greedy, like a cancer , just wants to keep growing, as easily as possible until it consumes the host.
So capitalism like anything else has to be managed. China appear to be good at that, gone from starving to space in 60 years. What has US achieved in that time frame with unmanaged capitalism? Ditched spac
Re: (Score:1)
OK, let me say again, I'm don't want to be Capitalism's nr 1 Cheerleader. But I question whether all the problems the USA has faced in the last 60 years are due just to Capitalism. I think it's a lot more complicated than that.
Also, while China has prospered in many ways from Capitalism, there seem to be more people trying emigrate out of China than immigrate in. I wonder why that is.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone say it was the cause of all America's problems? I didn't. I suggested China's managed it better. Or at least attempted to manage it. US government looks
Any stats from China are dubious. People leaving are the normal mix of the globally mobile, the wealthy, students, the educated, they move because they can. China is certainly not free of problems to make people want to move. I wouldn't want to live there. But I admire what they have achieved to lift many out of poverty and be industrious on an epic
Re: Heh (Score:2)
Planned economy is a good starting point. Yes, everyone seems to be forgetting human nature and no you cannot rely on "leaders" to take care of the capital. Workers should be the owners as proven many times over in history. The rest is semantics. I have nothing against direct democracies like the Swiss model. But then I felt rather nice in Emirates too. As I said, semantics.
P.S. no one who didn't live in a planned economy society has a right to comment on it - you have no clue how everything fits together n
Re: (Score:1)
I think wherever there is a government, the economy is planned to some extent. That includes the USA. It's a matter of degree.
There are so many factors to consider when looking at a given country's economy. Culture matters. And what natural resources do they have? If they have a lot of oil for instance, the citizenry might be prospering, but they might, in the long term, suffer from the 'dutch disease'.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect a lot of times, in peoples minds, "capitalism" is wrapped up with "democracy". They're not actually dependent on each other, although they do go well together.
The rich may well just be fed up with democracy - they want to do the controlling, and don't want a change in leadership every few years which may more may not suit them/do what they want. Thus they're looking to weaken democracy so that votes either cease altogether, or become so meaningless that the majority don't bother to vote. They'll t
Re: (Score:1)
"Capitalism" is a derogatory Marxist term for a free society, see here https://dagens-fel.livejournal... [livejournal.com]
Don't use it, it corrupts your thinking.
Urgh... (Score:4, Interesting)
The US: "You arent buying enough from us! You need to buy more from us!"
Also the US: "You cant buy basically anything that you actually need, we forbid it - buy more cheap bulk goods that you can get from anywhere rather than the technology goods you actually want perhaps?"
Re: Urgh... (Score:2)
And our social media "achievements" which you definitely don't need or want
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh no, services and software are not included in the trade deficit calculations for some reason...
So the fact that the world uses American cloud services, financial services and other things - yeah, not important, and you should definitely ignore the fact that those things alone flip deficits on their heads for most countries.
Re: Urgh... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Pizza!
This is as always bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
It does slow things down a bit but it's not like it's really stopping China from getting the chips.
I think there might be some really really high-end stuff they can't get using that method. But honestly I'm sure they can just use Black market tricks.
All that said China is absolutely working on their own homegrown solutions but they always do that. China even went to the so far as reverse engineering German ballpoint pen manufacturing so they could make their own high quality pens.
China makes it a point not to be dependent on other countries for manufacturing and because they have a large disposable workforce they aren't tempted to outsource manufacturing like countries like America where we don't particularly want to poison our groundwater or pay slave labor wages. Although at least here in the states that's absolutely changing... Christ what a world.
They didn't want to pay the nvidia tax anyway (Score:2)
The prices are bogus and set by a company with margins that are practically unheard of. Thus far, the lion's share of value with "AI" is going to Nvidia and it's investors. They require an additional license to use their hardware with hypervisors which is additionally predatory - it's akin to charging someone a license for using an AMD cpu or Intel CPU, direct from AMD or Intel, and if you don't pay you can't run a VM or a container.
It makes sense to nationalize GPU production and to ban this one company fr
Re: (Score:2)
They can't get their own designs manufactured on EUV either, so they won't be catching up fast.
Re: (Score:3)
They cant get their own designs manufactured on EUV machines built by a Dutch company, due to export restrictions placed on those machines by the US...
Which just means that China will develop its own independent capability.
And yes, that might take 10-20 years, but to China thats not a long time, thats just the time it takes - while other countries think about timescales in 5-10 year spurts, China has plans set out 50 years ahead. And China accepts that things take time.
So it really depends on what you mean
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What China? The Confucian China? The cultural revolution China? The liberalised then overran by tank China? The disillusioned ultracapitalist China ran by a dictator who concentrated power in a way Mao could only dream off, who now has grandiose dreams of immortality because he can see no China beyond himself?
50 year plans my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
And that attitude is why you are going to lose.
Re: They didn't want to pay the nvidia tax anyway (Score:2)
10-20 years is a long time in semiconductor process technology years whether China knows it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, that might take 10-20 years, but to China thats not a long time, thats just the time it takes - while other countries think about timescales in 5-10 year spurts, China has plans set out 50 years ahead. And China accepts that things take time.
I'm not sure how useful it is for China to finally produce in 10-20 years the same EUV machines that ASML is producing today. Just like producing Blackwell-level GPUs in 10-20 years is questionably useful. Now, if the claim is that the effort to copy those technologies allows China to eventually catch up to producing the same ASML and Nvidia products at the same time that ASML and Nvidia produce their products, then that's something. But that's not a sure thing, regardless of how smart, hardworking, and
Re: (Score:2)
It's bizarre that people think China can't rapidly catch up with anything the West does that they consider of strategic importance when half the engineers going through Western colleges these days are Chinese and they're actually going into engineering rather than finance, advertising or some other parasitic endeavour that produces nothing of real value here in the West.
In five years China will be shipping cheap AI chips all over the world and Nvidia will have to go back to gaming. If Windows hasn't complet
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, "in five years China will be shipping cheap AI chips all over the world", but they'll only be "good enough", not "top of the line". That'll probably take 10 years.
Well, 10 years still isn't a long time. It will only matter to them if, say, an AGI breakthrough happens before 2030 and still depends on transformer chips. (I've got a theory that the "transformer chips" direction is the wrong direction...well, not *wrong* exactly, but misleading. I think AGI is going to be more dependent on multiple sma
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, "in five years China will be shipping cheap AI chips all over the world", but they'll only be "good enough", not "top of the line".
honestly, that's probably all it needs to be. If If they can make a GPU with 16GB of VRAM and 5060 performance, and give it a $99 MSRP, even if it involves recompiling to whatever-their-answer-to-CUDA-is, they'd give nVidia a run for their money. If they made it readily compatible with vGPU tech with no licensing fees, it would definitely be disruptive.
Temu's existence shows that plenty of people are fine with "good enough". Nvidia's threat isn't going to come from China being able to DIY their own 5090Ti,
Re: (Score:2)
It's bizarre that people think China can't rapidly catch up with anything the West does that they consider of strategic importance when half the engineers going through Western colleges these days are Chinese and they're actually going into engineering rather than finance, advertising or some other parasitic endeavour that produces nothing of real value here in the West.
In five years China will be shipping cheap AI chips all over the world and Nvidia will have to go back to gaming. If Windows hasn't completely crashed and burned by then.
China has shown a great deal of ingenuity and innovation over the years. However, that's not the same as having the capability to catch up to any nation in any technology. However, in the one specific area of AI, many of the AI researchers in the world and even in the US are Chinese. Look around at Nvidia, the hyperscalars, and the universities in the US. AI workers include a lot of Chinese researchers and engineers. There are a lot more Chinese than Indians in AI. This is the one thing that can tip t
5D Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
I had no idea that stupid and self-harming economic policies could be so cleverly and thoroughly executed. My hats off to the Orange Turd.
I'm just kidding. One only needs to look to the 1920s to see similar idiocy. The Atlantic has an article about it today: https://www.theatlantic.com/bo... [theatlantic.com]
If you can't deal with the paywall, go to archive.is.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's more of a military policy than an economic policy. The parasitic elite want war with China so they can loot all its stuff, and see this as a way to improve the odds.
Only Normies care about The Economy these days. Everyone else is focused elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, no idea? And cleverly executed? Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut. And it's lies anyway, you think China isn't getting Nvidia hardware?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, China is currently getting Nvidia hardware, but it's acting strenuously to wean itself from it. Wherever local stuff is "good enough", then that's what it pushes. And it's pushing development so that local stuff is less limited. I expect this to take them a decade to reach parity, but I've no inside or detailed information. (I'm repeating projections made by someone else.)
Re: (Score:2)
And the next line was "just kidding".
Pay to play? Piece of the action? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Trump Administration blocked additional chip sales in April and later granted export licenses for certain Nvidia and AMD chips in exchange for 15% of revenues.
Seems like something the Mob would do.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I think you're beginning to understand taxes now. Good job.
And yes. Just like the mob.
Let's work on abolished the IRS before caring about whether the top shareholders are making enough millions off of sales to China or not.
Re: (Score:3)
My taxes pay for all manner of government services which I use and take advantage of.
Where does this %15 go?
Re: (Score:2)
"I think you're beginning to understand taxes now. Good job."
But you are not.
Re: Pay to play? Piece of the action? (Score:3)
No.
Let's abolish listening to clowns who think all taxation is theft, they only want to burn everything down instead of fixing it because they are weak minded and lazy.
Re: Pay to play? Piece of the action? (Score:2)
What if you just print money instead of taxing, and index incomes to price rises so everyone's real purchasing power is kept stable?
Re: (Score:2)
What if you just print money instead of taxing, and index incomes to price rises so everyone's real purchasing power is kept stable?
Surely someone has done a thesis on this, good luck finding it with modern search engines. In principle a steady and significant rate of inflation could be positive, but you've still got to have some mechanism for people to build wealth or else the best you can achieve is that everyone stays poor together.
Re: Pay to play? Piece of the action? (Score:2)
How about "Towards An Understanding of the Real Effects and Costs of Inflation" by
Stanley Fischer & Franco Modigliani ( https://www.nber.org/papers/w0... [nber.org] )?
Did these two luminaries of the Economics discipline find anything other than "menu costs" as a downside, and can't that be easily automated away? If you keep track of prices in purchasing power units, will you even notice hyperinflation, if that is the arbitrary outcome of full indexation?
"They won't let us sell our Fords to the Furher!" (Score:2, Insightful)
Quit selling dual-use technology to a nation that wants to destroy us with it, Huang. It's pretty simple.
Your quarterly earnings won't matter if the West Coast takes AI-coordinated cruise missile strikes from the Chinese Navy.
Chinese Century (Score:5, Interesting)
The 21st century is working out to be a Chinese Century. With much of the economic development controlled directly or indirectly by China.
America's dominance they enjoyed through most of the 20th century is likely over, in much the same way the British Empire will never be near its 19th century peak.
The American people are going to find out the hard way that their country is in decline. And refusing to take steps to control the outflow of wealth is going severely degrade the quality of life for the working class in the US. By the time voters figure it out, it will be too late. the heist will have long been completed.
Re:Chinese Century (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not an outflow of wealth, it's an upflow of wealth. Wealth is not a zero sum game, wealth is generated. China may generate a lot but it doesn't have to take it from the US to do so. The problem in the US is the billionaire class, not China.
"By the time voters figure it out, it will be too late. "
By the time you figure it out...
Re:Chinese Century (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Tax them. But I can't say that our I will sound like a Communist sympathizer.
Re: (Score:2)
Your general conclusion is correct, but your analysis is wrong.
Wealth isn't a simple concept. It has no direct relationship to anything physical, but it's got a LOT of indirect relationships.
E.g. part of wealth is being healthy. This depends on physical things, but for most of them there are tradeoffs. Potatoes aren't necessary if you've got wheat or oats. Clean air is valuable, but so is treatment for diseases. And NONE of these things are directly proportional to money.
E.g., part of wealth is having
Re: (Score:3)
The One Child policy ended in 2015. The your so-called time bomb scenario is avoidable or correctable through a few means:
1. automation. China is investing heavily in automation, that will be shifting labor pools away from factories and into services and care.
2. immigration. China hasn't quite figured this out, but I suspect they will readily "brain drain" the US if we make it too unpleasant for scientists and researchers.
3. war. Too many men and too few women is a problem that wars have solved for thousand
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, America still believes their paper will save the day. Paper as in money or paper as in contracts, it doesn't matter, it is all paper.
Fire burns paper, rendering it useless.
Attempting to prevent China... (Score:2)
...from obtaining tech is futile and counterproductive.
Chinese scientists and engineers are smart. Look at most recent papers published and you will see a LOT of Chinese names.
Chinese scientists and engineers are also good at working around obstacles.
I expect China to become the world leader in tech.
There was once a time when the best and brightest from all over the world came to the US. Those days are over.
Re: (Score:2)
China plays the long game and the US is just figuring that out.
Re: (Score:2)
The projections I've seen put China's semiconductor industry a equal to the best in the west sometime after 2030, probably around 2035. This is a spur to convince them to move it closer to 2030, but some of the techniques are pretty sensitive, so I'm not sure it will work.
Re: (Score:1)
mistake for ...? (Score:2)
"...and called it a mistake not to have them build AI on American technology."
Why? In what way does "America" lose out because of this alleged mistake? nVidia may lose out, but not the US. Does not affect me in the slightest.
Re: (Score:2)
If US companies lose a market, less money flows into the US. Theoretically that should disadvantage the citizens of the US, but that's based on the assumption that the wealth is shared, even though not equally. A somewhat dubious proposition.
Educating your competitors (Score:2)
I read a lot about the evils (or at least bad things) about exporting jobs and manufacturing capacity to China.
But you know what I never read about? Exporting knowledge. More specifically, western universities (Americans ones in particular) allowing Chinese (and others, I guess) students to come here, learn what we do, and then take that knowledge "back home" and use it to out compete us.
Why is that?
I'm not necessarily for that approach, but it does seem more than a bit curious that I never see any pearl cl
Re: (Score:2)
ahhh, there it is! (Score:1)
This entire problem was launched with a lie. That lie was being pushed already in the 1980s and it was very effective with the CEOs of many companies who seemed eager prove the old communist prediction true (that capitalists would sell the communists the rope with which they (the capitalists) would be hanged.).
The lie was: "Huang questioned the wisdom of policies that cost America one of the world's largest markets. " (the bold part).
When the Chinese started telling American CEOs that they (China) were the
Nvidia (Score:2)
So what's this done (Score:2)
to their revenue and share price? This *is* the company keeping the US economy and the stock market afloat.