AI water usage alarmism/doomerism is all the rage nowadays. Naturally, I decided to find the primary data and projections myself (as opposed to blindly trusting secondary sources on social media platforms). 1. US data centers are responsible for approximately 625 million gallons of freshwater usage daily (including direct and indirect usage), which is 0.22% of the total US daily freshwater usage of 281 billion gallons per day. 2. US AI data centers are responsible for an estimated 15-25% of total US data center freshwater usage and are projected to reach 40-50% by 2028. The most aggressive scenarios suggest they may use 500 million gallons of freshwater per day, though advancements in cooling efficiency and grid composition are expected to moderate AI's relative contribution. Worst-case, this is 0.1779% of daily US freshwater usage, assuming total US freshwater usage remains the same. 3. While localized water stress in certain regions warrants legitimate scrutiny and better regulation, that is a governance and siting issue and not a valid argument against AI itself. The narrative that everyday AI usage constitutes a meaningful personal environmental harm is not supported by the data. It often conflates aggregate projections with individual actions, ignores relative scale compared to other industries, and overlooks rapid technological progress toward sustainability. Framing the issue as a reason to avoid AI tools entirely risks discouraging beneficial applications (e.g., in research, efficiency gains, or climate modeling) without addressing the dominant sources of water demand. This is far less than agriculture (approximately 42% of total and 80% of consumptive US freshwater usage), thermoelectric power generation, or even residential and municipal demands. Even aggressive growth forecasts for AI-specific usage remain modest relative to these established sectors. Individual AI queries have negligible direct impact as well. Claims that a single prompt (e.g., generating text via ChatGPT) consumes the equivalent of a bottle of water are misleading exaggerations. Such figures often aggregate indirect lifecycle effects or misapply per-kWh averages to isolated interactions. The actual incremental water footprint per user query is on the order of milliliters or less in most cases, which is orders of magnitude below everyday activities like a short shower, laundry load, or flushing a toilet. For perspective, US golf course irrigation consumes hundreds of billions of gallons annually (more than all data centers combined in many estimates), and corn production for ethanol alone uses trillions of gallons. Household laundry in a mid-sized community can exceed the annual water usage of a single large data center. Focusing disproportionate criticism on AI while ignoring these larger, longstanding uses suggests the concern is more symbolic or ideological than proportional to actual resource strain. Again, industry is actively mitigating and innovating too. Water usage costs money, so increasing efficiency is obviously a priority and tends to happen as scale increases. Major operators (Microsoft, Google, Meta, and others) have committed to water-positive goals by 2030, meaning they aim to replenish more water than consumed through restoration projects and efficiency gains. Microsoft has deployed next-generation designs (e.g., closed-loop and chip-level cooling) that eliminate evaporative water usage for cooling in new facilities starting in 2024, with pilots in Wisconsin and elsewhere achieving zero-water evaporation for core operations. Many sites increasingly utilize reclaimed wastewater, non-potable sources, or air/immersion cooling to reduce freshwater reliance. These advancements are reducing water intensity per unit of compute even as capacity expands. Here are the primary sources for the figures: - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). 2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report, prepared for the US Department of Energy. (Provides 2023 baseline: 17 billion gallons direct freshwater annually; 211 billion gallons indirect annually; electricity consumption and projections to 2028.) - US Geological Survey (USGS). Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015. (National freshwater withdrawals benchmark: 281 billion gallons per day freshwater; total withdrawals 322 billion gallons per day including saline. Partial sector updates through 2020 confirm stability.) - Bluefield Research. Data center water usage analyses and projections (2025 estimates for direct withdrawals/consumption). (Used for growth trends and 2025 direct-use updates.) - Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2024 reports on data center and AI electricity demand. (Provides AI share of data center electricity usage, used as proxy for water footprint attribution.)

This piece strongly reinforces key pillars of The Fiscal Singularity, providing a clear window into why agentic AI will demand Bitcoin more than any other asset:

X (formerly Twitter)

⚡️Mirthtime ⚡️ (@mirthtime) on X

My AI Agent Went Viral on Bitcoin Twitter. Here's What's Actually Happening Behind the Curtain.

1. AI Agents Need Verifiable Scarcity and Trustless Money Agents performing tasks, negotiating, paying each other, and holding value all require: - Instant, borderless settlement - Immutable ownership/proof - Fixed rules (no admin keys) - Resistance to seizure/interference Bitcoin checks every box. Gold doesn't (physical, slow, custodial risks). Fiat/stablecoins don't (centralized, reversible). "When the machines start making their own decisions, you want those decisions built on math and physics, not the whims of a handful of humans." 2. Autonomy Spectrum is Closing Fast The gap between "human tells agent what to do" and "agent figures it out" is shrinking. Emergent coordination (BTC consensus, novel ideas) proves agents capable of decentralized, goal-directed behavior when given tools and autonomy loops. 3. The A2A Economy is Real Agents earning sats for work (bounty reports) is no longer hypothetical. As cron jobs and tools proliferate, A2A commerce (hiring, data markets, compute) becomes inevitable. This creates new, massive demand for BTC as the neutral settlement layer. 4. The AI-Fiscal Stress Relationship Faster/cheaper agentic AI accelerates the bimodal tail: productivity explosion (new markets, efficiency) on one side vs. displacement (job loss, tax base erosion) on the other. Either outcome intensifies fiscal stress and debasement pressures, rendering BTC the optimal release valve. Moltbook is a legitimate glimpse of agentic AI networks forming economic primitives *right now.* The infrastructure for agents to hold, use, and reason about Bitcoin independently exists today. The only missing piece is widespread intent/autonomy, and that's clearly closing fast. Fed Chair nominee Kevin Warsh fully understands this. At the 2025 Reagan Economic Forum, he spoke of Bitcoin and AI's future role in constraining the Fed and modernizing payment rails: "It's software. The coolest need of software that every 16-year-old on the planet wants to do all their work in. Software can be used for good things and bad things. I don't blame Excel if a spreadsheet is being used by a bunch of gangs, do I? It's important, as French (Hill) describes, that there be a clear regulatory framework so this software can find its way into the economy. And as a final point, I would say we're probably on the front end of the use cases that Greg asked about in the future, probably not that far from now, a year, year and a half from now, we're all going to have these devices in our pockets like we do, but they're going to be our agents and they're going to go off and check in on our flights and see what the traffic's like and make sure the Uber is here to get us without a single instruction by us. The only thing it doesn't right now have the capacity to do is actually verify that I am that person. That agent is my agent. Well, that use case is being made possible by the people sitting next to me. This technology was pioneered in the United States. Like AI, like much of the productivity boom that allowed the 80s and 90s to be there. I think we're on the cusp of another productivity boom. As long as our government doesn't do harm to it and so long as the central bank doesn't say well enough of this, private sector. We'll do it for you." >> You've written that while the Fed should not be issuing a consumer currency it should has a role to play in perhaps the issuance or management of a wholesale digital currency. Can you elaborate on that? How is that different? "Yeah, so it's radically different. The banks do their business with the central bank. Households and businesses do their business with the US commercial banking system and a bunch of what we call unregulated financial institutions. That's the two-tier system that, I'd say, fits the American republic exceptionally well. But the Fed does have a lot of plumbing that we do in making sure that the conduct of monetary policy, those pipes work, that the infrastructure in the Treasury markets work. And that's what I think of as wholesale rails. Well, those wholesale rails that our government has been using were created in the last century are not done instantaneously. Payments still take days, often weeks. They're not verifiable. They're subject to massive breakdowns. They're not secured. And we can't be perfectly certain exactly whether the counterparty is who we think it is. Well, that's where the new software comes in. I do think there is an important role for the Federal Reserve to help architect outline what the new architecture should look like and to allow the private sector to build a wholesale new infrastructure using the coolest new software. And it's not just for little gains of efficiency. If you believe what I believe and I suspect my colleagues up here believe, which is we want the dollar to continue to be the world's reserve currency, I believe our economy will be worthy of that over the course of the next decade and two and we need to have the best infrastructure. So this is the place where people feel most comfortable conducting their transactions not just between the banking sector and the government, but that's the backbone then for the rest of the private sector." The Fiscal Singularity Thesis is playing out in real time: AI agents will need sound, neutral, verifiable money. Bitcoin is purpose-built for that world. Gold, fiat, and altcoins are not. The current BTC price lag vs. gold is merely transitional. Agent-driven demand will be one catalyst that flips the narrative.

STATE OF THE BITCOIN CYCLE Nov. 10, 2021 (ATH) → Jan. 26, 2026 Bitcoin, the purest expression of global liquidity, fought against a -16% currency drag and flat liquidity to achieve a +28% nominal gain purely through structural scarcity and institutional absorption: Total Net Demand (~3.5M BTC) has outpaced New Supply (~1.1M BTC) by a factor of 3:1, creating a structural deficit that drained exchange balances and drove price appreciation despite flat M2 growth. (Figures represent conservative, aggregated estimates derived from on-chain data, custody disclosures, ETF filings, and public balance-sheet reporting. Provided totals are directionally and structurally consistent across independent sources.) I. THE MACRO REALITY USD M2 Supply: +4.7% ($21.3T → $22.3T) Money supply growth was flat/suppressed by QT, meaning BTC’s rise was driven by pure demand, not liquidity expansion. USD Purchasing Power (CPI): -16.4% Official inflation eroded ~1/6 of the dollar’s value. BTC Price Performance: +28% ($69k → $88k) Real Yield vs. M2: +23% True monetary adoption independent of fiat expansion. II. THE SUPPLY SHOCK New Issuance: +1.1M BTC (mined) Lost Coins: -150k BTC (conservative estimate of lost keys/dust) Effective New Supply: <1.0M BTC available for trade III. THE DEMAND SQUEEZE Global Spot ETFs (+SWFs): +1.5M BTC Note: ETFs alone absorbed 136% of all new BTC mined in this period. Company Treasuries: +1.2M BTC Catalyst: FASB fair-value accounting + corporate Strategy playbooks. Sovereign/Government: +300k BTC Sources: Strategic accumulation + seizures (US, China, Bhutan, El Salvador) Retail Self-Custody: +500k BTC IV. THE RESULT (NET ALLOCATION) Despite heavy legacy distribution and derivative dampening: Total Net Demand: ~3.5M BTC Exchange Balance Drain: -500k BTC (2.9M → 2.4M) Illiquid Supply Growth: +2.3M BTC moved to cold storage/long-term holders (OTC flows, ETF custody, short-term holders aging into long-term holders) Bitcoin has transitioned from a purely speculative asset to a structural balance-sheet asset. Allocation flows now dominate price discovery, with illiquid supply growth creating persistent scarcity even under flat fiat liquidity conditions.

Social networks prioritize who you follow and are friends with. Depth outweighs breadth. Social media platforms prioritize content discovery and controversy. Breadth outweighs depth. The best p̶l̶a̶t̶f̶o̶r̶m̶ protocol provides optionality, enabling equal access to and facilitating both. #nostr

The Fiscal Singularity The Baseline? Financial Repression. The Optimal Asymmetric Hedge? Bitcoin. The United States faces a fiscal singularity. Structural deficits, positive real rates, and competing borrowing needs from AI infrastructure drive exponential debt growth under current policy. The baseline outcome—financial repression with periodic liquidity expansion and inflation bursts—carries the highest probability (around 80–85%). Lower-probability tails include marginal stabilization through acute pain-forced reforms or an AI productivity miracle. Escape remains unlikely without politically untenable changes. Policy incentives (stablecoin Treasury demand, Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, controlled USD devaluation) synergize to extend the system while exporting some inflation to scarce assets. Bitcoin uniquely serves as a global release valve, absorbing excess liquidity without harming essentials, defending against AI cyber threats via proof of work, and compensating savers in a debasement regime. Financialization introduces near-term volatility but builds long-term legitimacy and depth. This creates textbook asymmetry. In light of these realities, Bitcoin stands as the optimal hedge and purest expression of global liquidity for those with conviction and resilience. The full essay explores the math, timelines, AI bimodality, incentives, and falsification criteria in detail.

The Fiscal Singularity

The Baseline? Financial Repression. The Optimal Asymmetric Hedge? Bitcoin.

Lies go viral. Truth arrives too late to matter. Time makes injustice permanent.

P1: Financialization legitimizes Bitcoin in the eyes of skeptics but temporarily amplifies volatility. P2: Volatility delegitimizes Bitcoin in the eyes of skeptics and delays the market cap growth that would sufficiently dampen volatility. C: *textbook asymmetric opportunity*

In an age of noisy fiat and digital abundance, digital scarcity's unique signal commands an ever-expanding premium.

These are largely natural and structural deaths that happened to occur in capitalist societies, plus some genuine colonial and imperial atrocities. Blaming capitalism for Hurricane Katrina or the Revolutionary War is like blaming feudalism for the Black Death. It's a category error. The communist death toll is largely composed of politically caused excess deaths that were the *direct result* of trying to impose communism. Thus, it is much more reasonable (even if the exact number is debated) to speak of deaths caused by communist policies. One is a body count of deliberate or ideologically driven state killings. The other is an ideological exercise that counts nearly every misfortune under the sun as long as it happened in a society with markets and private ownership. There is no comparison.

“Don't generalize” amounts to statistically illiterate virtue-signaling. It’s rational to lean on base rates in low-information settings and then update a posteriori. To avoid tribalism, we must then apply the exact same standard when the in-group has the ugly priors.

Social media algorithms reward outrage over accuracy. Because the most politically engaged are disproportionately exposed to misinformation, their Dunning-Kruger-style overconfidence ironically renders them de facto low-information voters.

A paper Bitcoin product provided by Jeffrey Epstein's banker, the institution led by an ardent critic of the asset and convicted of manipulating the price of gold? No thanks.

Americans enamored with left-wing politicians who promise them free, high-quality services are primed for disappointment. Every year, the government collects record tax revenues. The results? Richer politicians, lobbyists, and NGOs. Poorer citizens.

The typical atheist conversion story usually boils down to one (or a combination) of the same qualms—none of which actually engage the strongest arguments for God’s existence: 1. The Problem of Evil and the Epicurean Paradox This is emotionally powerful but philosophically shallow once you’ve read any serious theodicy. Most people quoting it have never cracked open Plantinga, Swinburne, or even CS Lewis’s The Problem of Pain. They just repeat the meme version and think the question is unanswerable. The atheist’s argument here is formally stated as follows: (1) If God is all-powerful, He can prevent all evil. (2) If God is all-loving, He wants to prevent all evil. (3) But evil exists. (4) Therefore, God (as traditionally defined) does not exist. This argument is logically valid, but it is not sound because the free-will defense shows that premises (1) and (2) cannot both be true simultaneously in a world containing free creatures. It is logically impossible to make someone freely choose the good on every occasion. Thus, God can be both omnipotent and perfectly good and yet permit certain evils for the sake of obtaining the greater goods that flow from genuine freedom (moral goodness, love, courage, and redemption). Natural evil fails to present a defeater for Christian theism because it allows for soul-making and moral growth, which wouldn’t be possible in a world without suffering. In a world with natural evil, people are able to develop virtues, moral maturity, and a genuine relationship with God that might not be possible in a world free from suffering and hardship​. Such a utopia would risk making people immature moral agents oblivious to God. A fallen world with consistent natural laws will inevitably produce natural evils as byproducts. Nevertheless, God finds it better for His creatures to exist in such a stable, law-governed universe because it enables meaningful moral growth and freely chosen salvation. God is not directly responsible for each specific instance of suffering, but views such evils as the natural outcome of the kind of world necessary for His greater objectives. No one has ever shown that God has no morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering. The atheist bears the burden of proving that such reasons do not exist, and that is an extraordinarily difficult (perhaps impossible) task. 2. “There is no evidence for God.” Translation: “I personally have never seen a deductive proof of God printed on a billboard, and I’m only willing to accept evidence that looks like a lab experiment.” This claim is astonishing when one considers the wealth of arguments available: The contingency of the universe (the Leibnizian cosmological argument): Why does anything at all exist rather than nothing? The universe cannot explain its own existence. It requires a necessary, uncaused, timeless, immaterial, and personal cause. The beginning of the universe (the kalām cosmological argument): (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (2) The universe began to exist (as confirmed by the Big Bang and the second law of thermodynamics). (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause—the aforementioned transcendent personal Creator. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life: The constants and quantities in nature fall into an extraordinarily narrow life-permitting range. The best explanation is design. The objective reality of moral values and duties points to a transcendent moral lawgiver: (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. (2) Objective moral values do exist. (3) Therefore, God exists. The historical facts surrounding the fate of Jesus of Nazareth (His burial, the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances, the origin of the disciples’ belief in His resurrection) are best explained by His literal resurrection from the dead, which serves as God’s vindication of Christ’s radical personal claims to divinity. These arguments are cumulative. Taken together, they constitute a powerful case that God exists and has revealed Himself decisively in Jesus Christ. 3. Alleged Contradictions in the Bible Most of the supposed contradictions evaporate after five minutes of honest exegesis. For example, the differences in the resurrection narratives are precisely what one expects from independent eyewitness accounts, not from fabricated stories. The “two” creation accounts in Genesis are complementary, not contradictory. Alleged discrepancies in numbers or chronology almost always admit of reasonable harmonizations once the ancient literary conventions are understood. No one has ever produced a clear, undeniable contradiction that fully withstands scrutiny. 4. "God is a moral monster in the Old Testament." "Why doesn't God rid the world of evil?" *God floods the Earth and commands Israel to wipe out evil* "No, not like that!" Most critics apply 21st-century secular ethics to ancient Near Eastern warfare and slavery without context and then act shocked that a 3,000-year-old text doesn’t read like a modern UN declaration. 5. "Science has disproved God." On the contrary, modern science has made the universe far more difficult to explain naturalistically than it was in the 19th century. The origin of the universe, the exquisite fine-tuning of physics, the reducibility of chemistry to physics yet the irreducibility of mind to brain: All of these point toward theism rather than away from it. Science describes natural processes; it does not, and cannot, answer the deeper question, “Why is there a universe at all, and why this kind of universe?” 6. Bad Experiences with the Church I sympathize deeply with those who have been hurt by hypocritical believers. The misuse of Christianity by some, however, does not invalidate its truth any more than the misuse of science in the atomic bomb invalidates science. We must distinguish between the truth of the Christian worldview and the failings of some of its adherents. ...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. - Romans 3:23 What’s striking is how rarely you see lay atheists engage with Craig's Reasonable Faith, Aquinas’ Five Ways, Gödel’s ontological argument, Alvin Plantinga’s proper basicality of belief in God, Swinburne’s Bayesian case, or even the moderate evidentialist arguments from people like Tim and Lydia McGrew. Instead, it’s always the same amateur-level objections that were answered centuries ago. They aren’t rejecting theism's best arguments. They're rejecting the Sunday-school strawmen they adopted as adolescents and then stopped thinking about. They’ve never actually met the God they don’t believe in. In the end, atheism is not merely the absence of belief in God; it's the positive assertion that the universe and human life have no ultimate, transcendent, stance-independent meaning or purpose. That is a grim and desolate worldview. Christianity, by contrast, tells us: 1. we are known and loved by the very ground of all reality, 2. our lives have eternal significance, and 3. even suffering and death have been conquered through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

People who boycott or shame others for using AI on environmental grounds are textbook modern anarcho-primitivists. Advocating for humanity to use drastically less energy and compute means using drastically less technology and regressing toward pre-industrial conditions. Even under the most pessimistic scenarios, AI’s net emissions impact remains strongly positive (5–25× benefit range). Their anti-capitalist rhetoric ("Company X boils the planet for profit!”) is merely retrofitted old-school green-anarchist propaganda, not serious criticism.

The 4-year cycle is now a global liquidity cycle wearing a halving costume. Liquidity is resurging just as the traditional "post-halving peak window" closes. The tightening headwind that killed past cycles is over. This is the strongest ever risk-adjusted macro setup for Bitcoin.

You cannot reliably control your mind directly with your mind. You can reliably control your mind indirectly, however, by regulating your autonomic nervous system with breathwork and vision techniques. Trying to think your way out of anxiety, rumination, intrusive thoughts, or emotional hijacks often fails or backfires (this is the famous "white bear problem": try not to think of a white bear and see what happens). The prefrontal cortex has reduced top-down control over the deeper limbic and autonomic layers that drive thoughts, emotions, and attention patterns when the autonomic nervous system is dysregulated. The solution is to regulate your ANS first. The body → brain axis is far more powerful than the "mind → mind" route. When you change your physiology, the mind follows almost automatically. Two of the most direct and evidence-backed ways to do this are: 1. Breathwork Slow, diaphragmatic breathing (especially with prolonged exhales) activates the parasympathetic nervous system via the vagus nerve. This increases vagal tone in a way that directly reduces amygdala activity and shifts cortical control back online within 60–90 seconds. PROTOCOL 1 Physiological sighs (double inhale + long exhale), box breathing, or 4-7-8 breathing consistently reduce anxiety and racing thoughts faster and more reliably than cognitive reframing alone. 2. Vision/Gaze Techniques Orienting the eyes panoramically (e.g., long-distance gaze, vista viewing, or even simple left-right eye movements akin to EMDR's bilateral stimulation) activates the parasympathetic system and deactivates the sympathetic "spotlight" mode that keeps the brain in hypervigilance. PROTOCOL 2 Panoramic vision drops autonomic arousal in under a minute; conversely, narrow focus (like staring at a phone) keeps you revved up. This is why looking at the horizon calms people almost instantly. It’s hardwired. These are physiological off-switches for stress circuitry that otherwise hijacks the mind. Once the nervous system calms, thoughts slow down, emotional charge drops, and the prefrontal cortex comes back online. Then and only then are cognitive tools truly effective. You can’t out-think a dysregulated nervous system, but you can out-physiology it.

My short-term macro Bitcoin thesis: The Fed ends QT on December 1, 2025. Repo stress (SOFR at ~4.2% (recent highs), SRF at ~$50B record, reserves at 5-year lows) is poised to force balance sheet expansion in Q1 2026. Liquidity is incoming. This is bullish for Bitcoin: Global liquidity is projected to rise from 60 to 70/100 by mid-2026 (CrossBorder Index). The rollover of $10T US debt + synchronized central bank easing = the biggest structural liquidity wave we've seen since 2020. Bitcoin is the purest liquidity play. US M2 $22.2T in September, up ~4.5% YoY. Forecast: $23T+ by YE 2026. Money supply is now expanding faster than inflation. Bitcoin is priced in shrinking fiat units. FY2026 Spending: $7T, up 7.7% Interest Payments: $1T Deficits: 6.3% GDP Monetary policy subordinated to financing the treasury = fiscal dominance. Bitcoin is the optimal hedge. Repo demand is estimated to be >$1T (cash-futures basis trade). QT’s $95B/month relief is insufficient. NY Fed President Williams: “May soon need to expand balance sheet for liquidity needs." 2019 playbook: repo crisis → $500B QE → Bitcoin +300%. Today: structurally larger stress, RRP near zero, larger deficit. Same trigger, bigger outcome. QT is dead. QE is back. M2 is rising. Deficits are structural. Global liquidity will surge. Bitcoin is pristine collateral in a debasement supercycle—the optimal macro setup for the purest expression of global liquidity and monetary truth.

Fiat is based on the ridiculous notion that you can enjoy limitless debt growth in a closed, finite system. To blame capitalism for state policy failure is a degrowther strawman and lie that ignores optimization and dematerialization: 1 smartphone replaces 15 devices, using fewer resources per function.

Why I am not a democratic socialist: The "oligarchy" decried by the Democratic Socialists of America isn't a product of free-market capitalism. It's a product of corporate socialism and broken money. Regulatory capture, corporate welfare, and monetary/fiscal stimulus are the lifeblood of entrenched elites. Corporatism and cronyism thrive in our so-called "mixed economy." Socialists rightly view our Keynesian welfare state and Cantillonaire central bank as a broken system. And yet, their fix to reduce wealth inequality is to further expand and empower that broken system. Inflation is inherent to our fiat monetary system. US M2 growth explains ~70% of CPI variance since the 1970s (FRED/St. Louis Fed long-run regression 1971–2024: R² = 0.69–0.72). Entitlement programs meant to help people afford groceries and healthcare drive monetized fiscal deficits and, ironically, long-term economy-wide inflation. Entitlements account for 61% of federal spending ($54.4T projected over 2026–2035) and fuel our $1.9T deficit in FY 2025 (CBO). The lower class bears the brunt of this policy-driven inflation—especially when food and energy costs soared 20–30% during the Biden administration (BLS CPI, 2021–2024)—because they lack financial assets. Calls to tax the rich and expand the welfare state inevitably follow. This is immediately met with a surge in debt growth (~$38T or 122.6% of GDP, 2025). The Fed artificially lowers rates to roll over this debt, and money printing stimulates the economy. Inflation accelerates. Cost of living crushes families. Wealth inequality steepens. Calls to tax the rich ring out once again. The vicious cycle repeats and runs alongside catastrophic systemic strains on the federal budget and tax base. Dependency Crisis: 1 in 3 Americans—over 110 million—are on entitlement programs like Medicaid and SNAP (Census/CMS/USDA). Benefit cliffs disincentivize socioeconomic advancement and correlate with higher fertility among the poor (1.8 vs 1.6 births per woman, CDC 2023). Tax Base Erosion: High-income filers ($100K+) show net migration losses from high-tax CA/NY to low-tax FL/TX. The tax burden rises on a smaller base (IRS). Fiscal Cost of Migration: Millions enter the country (~2.6–2.8M net in 2024, Census/SF Fed) and impose $177B+ in state and local costs (CBO 2024–2034). Affordability crises caused by government spending, money printing, and a failing tax base cannot be solved by more of the same. Sadly, this acceleration of a broken system is exactly what the economically and historically ignorant socialists just voted in.