Rent converting into capacity
countervailing a named mechanism, not a conclusion
These names both OWN a bottleneck that does not bind them and are spending at or above the 75th percentile of their own capex history. Capacity added against a fat margin is how that margin stops being fat — the standard way a good business in this industry becomes an average one. Rent payers spending heavily are excluded: their capex is the demand that makes the scarcity, not the supply that ends it.
The path
| node | effect |
|---|---|
| Vistra Corp. | -1.00 |
| Micron Technology | -0.76 |
coverage
Testable on 3 of 14 rent capturers — the other 11 carry no matched capex history, so their absence here is missing data and not a finding. Among those that can be tested, TSMC spends at the 22nd percentile of its own history: the largest bottleneck owner is adding capacity unusually slowly, which is the opposite of this tendency.
Arguments about this mechanism
None yet. No thesis names this mechanism’s subject, which is a gap in the bank rather than a fact about the mechanism.
Arguments that run through it
These name a node on the path rather than the subject, so they pass through this mechanism without being about it. Shown separately and never graded as claims about it — hubs above the graph’s own 90th-percentile degree are excluded, or every argument touching NVIDIA would attach to every mechanism NVIDIA touches.