Big capex is not longer welcomed

US big tech continue to post higher capex outlook for 2026 and those figures are surprisingly large.

However, you now start to negative reactions.

1/ Their own stocks respond negatively

2/ Nvidia stock, which presumably is a beneficiary for higher capex, hasn’t responded very positively

#Why capex is less welcomed?

1/ It could just be higher inflation across the chain. higher price for infrastructure, power equipment and construction workers etc. Therefore, it’s a less-efficient use of money

2/ Investors don’t see immediate growth. The 2026 growth outlooks, which should be supercharged by already massive capex in 2025, is not impressive enough. Investors fear that marginal incremental growth coming from additional capex looks small, at least in the current year.

China’s missing inflation in early 2000s

In Our Dollar, Your Problem, author raised this question – why China didn’t see a faster inflation it should see. The higher inflation rationale is that when tradable goods sector productivity rises fast, this part of the economy will attract more workers, presumably from non-tradable goods sector. Thus, wage should rise and likely at a faster pace than the productivity gain in non-tradable goods sector, which should result in higher inflation in non-tradable goods sector to counter labor inflation.

In the books, the author mentioned one plausible explanation, which was Chinese gov could move massive population from rural areas to cities and factories. The amount of inflow was so large that wage increases were not seen. Thus, there is lower than expected service inflation.

This sounds reasonable.

I have additional arguments on #why China didn’t see strong inflation in non-tradable goods sector.

1/ The high-end of services are not priced fairly in China.

Unlike more capitalism-driven societies, the high-end supply and demand are exchanged in non-monetary channels. E.g. think about the high-end healthcare senior gov officials may receive in China – that’s not charged at the “market price”. Thus, you can’t measure the inflation, if that doesn’t carry a “price”.

In additional, the high-end services may not be available to the public or openly marketed. Thus demand is lower than it should be.

2/ High-end demand is shifted abroad.

Chinese wealthy like to shop, travel and live abroad.

This lowers the inflation across the board.

Notes of Paul Tudor Jones (PTJ) on AI bubbles

Paul Tudor Jones on the AI Bubble Debate by Bloomberg

The only way to reduce debt to GDP is to have obviously nominal growth exceed your interest rate.

– Paul Tudor Jones

Here are notes for Paul’s interview and my opinions

  • Today feels like Oct 1999, but if this is a bubble, it’s a small one. Past bubbles ran 400–600%. Nasdaq is “only” ~200% off the bottom. Blow-off possible, not inevitable. [I agree; see my previous post Is it like internet bubble? in October]
  • Key bull case: rates. If Fed funds fall toward ~2.25–2.75%, that’s powerful fuel for equities. Markets look 6–9 months ahead, not at today’s data. [Sure]
  • Difference vs 1999: companies are profitable. [I don’t agree; I believe AI model companies like OpenAI etc. are losing a lot of money; let’s see when they publish numbers for IPOs]
  • Risk isn’t traditional leverage like in margin accounts — it’s derivative leverage: options, leveraged ETFs (up 250% from 2022 bottom), and trader-driven equity flows. [Very real]
  • Jones stays a trend follower. Recently, gold & silver > Bitcoin despite massive crypto inflows. He now expects precious metals to outperform crypto into year-end. [I wouldn’t agree back then; but I would be very wrong, so far]
  • Bond vigilantes were held in back; money debasement happened in gold and bitcoin instead. [True]
  • Biggest risk: concentration everywhere — stocks, investors, and policy power. [Agree]
  • Bottom line: short-term cautious, but Paul believes markets can be substantially higher by year-end. Likely long: Nasdaq. Short: Bonds.