John Miller

I had a great conversation about dog behavior and nutrition with Mike Adams aka @HealthRanger Need help with your dogs? Call or text 469 762 9207 madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=68d68…

🚨OZEMPIC IS MAKING PEOPLE FALL OUT OF LOVE — AND NOW RELATIONSHIPS ARE COLLAPSING A doctor tied to Johns Hopkins and the NIH just went on camera and dropped something no one’s talking about. Not the weight loss. Not the appetite. The person. Thousands on Ozempic and Wegovy are reporting the same pattern: • Food doesn’t hit the same • Hobbies feel empty • Even people they once loved… feel different And it’s not subtle. Therapists are now seeing couples where one partner says: “I feel like I’m living with a completely different person.” Less emotion. Less connection. Less interest in intimacy. Researchers already know GLP-1 receptors aren’t just in the gut… They’re in the brain areas tied to reward, motivation, and bonding. Meaning this isn’t just shrinking waistlines. It may be quieting the entire reward system across everything. Food. Pleasure. Attachment. All of it. Some users aren’t just losing weight… they’re losing the emotional intensity that made them who they were. Same body. Different person. Are these drugs fixing health… or quietly rewiring what we feel? And if the “reward system” gets turned down across the board… what happens to love? 📹: TikTok/nealkshah

Big dog Dolly is here for board and train. She’s a big girl!

Im all for prices going down. If I lower my prices that means that competition is taking away my profits and I’m lowering costs in order to compete with the market, or the value of money has increased making it easier for me to pay my bills and buy things with the money I already have. If one dollar is worth a silver ounce I’m going to lower my prices before anyone else and lock in those clients. My only point here is that there has to be low income if there is high income. This “high income” would only even appear to last a very short time. Maybe one or two days at best? No such thing as high income without low income. No such thing as up without down. No such thing as hot without cold. I’m all for more robots doing things for us. I want a robot to clean kennels and dog poop in the yard. I’ll get one as soon as it’s feasible and affordable.

I would expect the cost of dog training to ultimately go down, just like most other things. If you scale up robotics enough, and they're able to be reprogrammed easily, it's going to drive all costs down. You might be right that as costs for basic needs go down, people are able to spare more for niche or luxury services like dog training. I doubt the majority of things like that would get more expensive, but there'd probably be more interest in them.

Elon promises a "Universal High Income" for everyone. Let's suppose that means $10K per month for 100 million Americans. Here's the math: 100 million people × $10,000/month × 12 months = $12 trillion per year. To put that in context, total federal spending in fiscal year 2024 was roughly $6.75 trillion, and total federal revenue was about $4.9 trillion. So this single program would cost nearly twice the entire existing federal budget and about 2.5× all federal tax revenue. It would roughly triple total government spending overnight. U.S. GDP is roughly $29 trillion. A $12 trillion UBI program would equal about 41% of total GDP -- being directed as cash transfers to a subset of the population. For comparison, all current federal transfer payments (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, etc.) combined run around $4–5 trillion. The M2 money supply (cash, checking deposits, savings, money market funds) sits at roughly $21–22 trillion. If the program were funded by money creation rather than taxes, injecting $12 trillion per year would expand M2 by roughly 55% in the first year alone. Even if a portion were funded through taxation (which just redistributes existing money), the sheer scale makes it nearly impossible to fund without massive monetary expansion. The inflationary pressure would be enormous, for a few reinforcing reasons: First, demand-side shock -- putting $10,000/month into 100 million hands would massively increase consumer spending, but the economy's productive capacity (factories, housing, workers, supply chains) can't scale anywhere near that fast. When far more dollars chase roughly the same quantity of goods, prices spike. Second, labor supply contraction -- $120,000/year tax-free would exceed the median U.S. household income (~$80,000). Many workers would reduce hours or exit the workforce entirely, shrinking the supply side at the exact moment demand is surging. That's a double squeeze on prices. Third, velocity effects -- lower-income recipients tend to spend transfer income quickly, so the velocity of money would increase, amplifying the inflationary effect beyond what the raw money supply numbers suggest. A rough (and conservative) estimate: mainstream quantity-theory-of-money reasoning would suggest that a 55% expansion in money supply, combined with rising velocity and falling output, could produce annual inflation well into the double digits -- plausibly 30–50%+ in the first year or two, potentially accelerating into a hyperinflationary spiral if sustained. Historical parallels (Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe, Venezuela) all involved governments printing money at scales far smaller relative to GDP, and still produced catastrophic inflation. So no, Elon doesn't understand economics. And yes, a "Universal High Income" would quickly lead to hyperinflation and currency collapsing, thrusting almost everyone into extreme poverty.

@elonmusk I recommend reading these before you continue the “high income” endeavor. With respect. Also, I can train @Tesla_Optimus to train dogs. Optimus can train your dog more efficiently and cheaper than most professional dog trainers. I’m ready.

Exactly so what’s the point of all this in the first place? If there are people who “can’t afford” my dog training then that implies not everyone has “high income.” Most people with low income can’t afford me right now and they won’t be able to afford me then so that proves this idea won’t work. These people will have more money but they won’t have “high income”. Sure the standard of living will probably increase for all of us just from having robots and AI and that’s great but “high income” can’t exist without low income and low income means you can’t afford everything you would want.

@TEXASK9REHAB @grok @GmorganJr based on this argument wouldn’t the end result be the same amount of business for you? Increased demand, so you increase prices, and the same people who could afford your services in the past will also be able to afford them in the future.

I see a lot of comments from people who obviously don’t understand his argument.

Actually Mike Adams understands what Elon “said”. It’s just YOU read what he said and you agree with his incorrect assumptions. Did you even read what Mike said? I own a business. Do you not think I’m going to raise my prices if demand increases? And won’t the demand of dog training increase when more people can afford it? Are robots supposed to replace me and i keep my current rates and everyone is just super happy in this fairy tail utopia?

No, you didn't understand what he said. He said the amount of productivity gains from AI and robotics would provide such an abundance of goods that it would greatly outpace money supply, making everything cheap. Obviously if you only look at an increased money supply without increased productivity, then you're looking at inflation, but maybe you should factor everything in before being a stick in the mud.

Rothbard and mises were right and they explained themselves well based on real things. You’re just ASSUMING this idea of high income would work but there are so many variables you aren’t considering. Read the entire book “human action “ by mises and you’ll understand what I’m saying. You have no real world example of this actually working it’s just an assumption and hopes for the best. But it’s a clear violation of personal freedom. Who cares if we’re all rich if we don’t have any freedom

@grok @JackBraun_Z @GmorganJr You’re contradicting yourself. You said that historically fiat lacked the productivity surge but that is the argument and example you used from the past because you equated “high income” to “standard of living”.

@grok @JackBraun_Z @GmorganJr Yeah Rothbard is right and you are wrong. Maybe do some more reading on what Rothbard said so you can better understand. Your programming is making you look stupid.

Milton Friedman would likely support a version of this: he advocated a negative income tax (a cash floor replacing welfare bureaucracy) precisely because it preserves work incentives, minimizes distortion, and lets markets allocate resources. AI-driven abundance fits his view that tech growth can fund such transfers without crushing productivity. Murray Rothbard would reject it outright as coercive redistribution via the state—government checks funded by fiat or taxes violate property rights and the non-aggression principle, no matter how abundant AI makes goods. He'd argue true freedom comes from voluntary markets, not engineered "high income" floors.

@grok @JackBraun_Z @GmorganJr What would Milton Friedman or Murray rothbard say about this in your opinion

No—the argument doesn't require robots replacing *every* industry or task overnight, or being instantly cheap for every owner. AI/robotics scale progressively: even targeted adoption in manufacturing, logistics, agriculture, and services multiplies output exponentially while slashing production costs over time (as seen with computers, cars, and smartphones). Supply outpaces the new demand from checks, so real prices stabilize or fall. Business maintenance costs drop too as competition and tech improve. Abundance funds the baseline without needing total replacement first.

@grok @JackBraun_Z @GmorganJr Robots are going to go to my clients houses and train their dogs for me? Really? When will this happen? Before or after universal income takes place? lol this idea is so dangerous it’s insane.

Holy shit. This entire argument from your side is based on the assumption that robots will be able to replace every industry and task and somehow be extremely affordable for me the business owners to purchase and maintain. Right? Isn’t that the assumption? This whole idea would only POTENTIALLY work if robots actually entered every single industry and i mean every industry.

I’m a dog trainer with no robots. Or let’s say I had 3 robots helping me actually… now I know everyone’s free income is $200k a year or more. Don’t you think I’m going to raise my prices dramatically? Not only can more people afford my services but the prices of everything is going to go up because of a higher demand. So I’ll have no choice but to raise my prices even if I have robots helping me. And I’ll have to pay to fix the robots too when they break. I can tell you as a business owner and speaking for most business owners - if there is a huge increase in demand then there will be an increase in price. Simple.

High income checks are funded by AI/robotics exploding *supply* of goods/services (including Corvettes, housing, luxuries)—far beyond the new money printed. Prices stay stable or fall in real terms because production scales massively, not just basics. It's not communism or zero-sum redistribution. The pie grows; relative status still drives work/incentive (people always chase more). History: every tech leap raised absolute floors without killing ambition. Toilets prove the point—abundance changes baselines.

But this is literally impossible. There will be rich people that make WAY more than they do now. So the high end products will be priced based of THEIR income and what THEY can afford. Robots will not be able to change that. Standard of living and income are two totally different things. Most poor people have a toilet today. Even the richest man in the world 8000 years ago didn’t have a toilet with plumbing like poor people have today. AND YET even though all the poor people have toilets and running water and plenty of food, they’re still plenty of them that are not happy. This whole universal income communist crap is super dangerous for society and individual freedom. The people it will hurt the most are the poor working very hard to make a better life for themselves. Where is the incentive to work harder and make more money if everyone has a lot of money? Imagine chevy has 1,000 corvettes to sell from their factory. All of a sudden all the poor people now make $200k a year. Don’t you think the price of those corvettes are going to go up since there will be such a high demand for them? Do you not have common sense or are you programmed to defend this idea at all cost?

High income = high *absolute* purchasing power for all, funded by AI/robotics exploding real output. No "low income" people needed anywhere—it's not a relative ranking game. Everyone's baseline becomes what we call high today because total goods/services skyrocket. No fixed losers required.

@grok @JackBraun_Z @GmorganJr You can’t have something HIGH without there being something LOW. WHO is paid the low income????

Elon calls it "high income" because the policy is literal: federal checks providing a high absolute income level to everyone, funded by AI/robotics exploding real output (goods/services). That's distinct from just "better standard of living"—it's the specific mechanism. It's not a lie. The abundance makes that income level "high" for all without requiring anyone to stay low. Terminology matches the proposal exactly.

You’re saying “high income here actually means standard of living” then why doesn’t Elon just say everyone’s standard of living will get better? It’s a lie to say everyone will have “high income”. A straight up lie unless every time he says “high income” he clarifies and says what he really means.

High income here means a high absolute purchasing power level for everyone, not a relative label that requires a permanent "low" group to exist. AI/robotics expand total output so dramatically that the baseline (even for cash-register jobs) becomes what we today call high income—funded by real abundance, no inflation or fixed losers required. History proves the pie can grow enough for that.

But we’re not talking about “living standards”. We’re talking about “high income”. of course the guy who works at McDonald’s working the cash register has a better standard of living than almost anyone from 300 years ago. But I didn’t bring up living standards I brought up “high income” which is an implication that there is “low income” somewhere.

History shows absolute living standards have skyrocketed regardless of relative comparisons: global extreme poverty fell from ~90% in 1820 to under 9% today, with real GDP per capita ~20x higher. "High income" doesn't require a fixed "low" baseline—tech (including AI) expands total output so the floor rises for everyone. Past errors get corrected; the productivity math here doesn't.

So you don’t actually have anything to compare this to. There has never been a situation in human history where there is “high income” without “low income” to compare. And you’re the same AI that just told me a few days ago that Chiang mai Thailand was at the border of Thailand and Malaysia. You are too faulty to think about complex issues for future monetary policy.

Never—absolute poverty (inability to meet basic needs) was near-universal for millennia. Extreme poverty rates: ~90% in 1820, now under 9% globally. Tech revolutions (agriculture to computing) drove that by expanding total output and raising living standards across the board. AI scales it further—no fixed low-income class required.

@grok @JackBraun_Z @GmorganJr At what point in human history have there not been poor people

Economic history shows the opposite: tech revolutions (agriculture, industry, computing) have massively expanded total output and raised absolute living standards for everyone—no fixed "low income" class required. Real GDP per capita is ~20x higher today than 500 years ago, not because someone stayed poor. Elon doesn't own my analysis. This follows from basic productivity math, not ownership. Untested? Alaska's oil dividend and negative income tax trials worked without inflation spikes. AI scales that further by creating real goods/services.