I recall hearing something like that.

Pretty much my plans for my home in the country over the next 20 years.

I like it when he starts yelling at people.

I agree, and I think to a certain extent the US will recede to the western hemisphere, but unfortunately, it will likely continue to stir the pot from Canada to the tip of South America.

Since 1860, the Bank of England and the big banks in NYC have been at war with France. While Napoleon was defeated at Warterloo in 1815, Napoleon III created the Latin Monetary Union at the height of the Pound Sterling's monetary dominance. The goal was to create a new gold-backed system based on the French Franc. In the US, President Buchanan was also interest in sound money reform, but he was ushered out of office, in favor of the statist Abraham Lincoln, who believed govt should create the currency. Britain strongly opposed the Latin Monetary Union and saw to it the US was out by funding both sides of the US Civil War. The Rothchilds were heavily involved in the funding schemes. The family would continue this strategy to weaken France in WWI by funding the Germans and the French. One interesting note: oil was discovered in Persia in 1908. At that time, Britain and France began to compete with each other for contracts. The Sykes-Picot agreement, which gave France Syria and Lebanon, gave Persian oil claims to Russia and Britain. The agreement was never implemented, and all the countries competed for access to Persian (Iranian oil). After the first war, France continued to exert itself in Africa, Syria (through a League of Nations Mandate), and in Indochina. As events moved towards WWII, the bankers got active again, with Montagu Nelson, the governor of the Bank of England and Prescott Bush colluding together to fund the German rebuilding effort. This funding continued until 1942 after the German army had crushed France. Remember, despite the European war beginning in 1939, the American army did not enter the war until November 1942, almost a year and a half after Hitler entered Paris in June of 1940. Why did American and British bankers support Germany so long? Prescott Bush did not love the Nazis. There was something else going on. keep in mind it had barely been 80 years since Napoleon III wanted the franc to be the world's currency. It's been 80 years since Bretton Woods, and we still care very much about that. What followed, from French isolation in Africa, to Kermit Roosevelt's managed coup in Iran in 1953, to America's massive funding if France in the Indochina war almost to the point of France's bankruptcy, to Nixon refusing to give them gold in exchange for dollars in 1971, to blocking them out of Iran after the Shah was deposed, so much of what has happened in the world points to a secret bankers war against France. Now, with Trump threatening to pull out of NATO, Macron is freaking out, and Germany is re-arming and forcing men to ask for permission before leaving the country for some time. Is Germany afraid of Russia? Maybe. But have you ever looked at a map of US bases in Germany? They are all on the west side of the country. When Texas was afraid of commanche raids, the put the forts on the frontier, not on the Louisiana border. You can draw your own conclusions about where the US might have thought the real European threat was. With US bases in UK, Italy and Germany, France is boxed in. And even with a presence in Western Africa, US bases are all along the east coast of Africa. France has no military access to the oil of the Middle East. The country has been vassalized by the financial powers. Americans don't think long term, but England and France were at war from 1108 when Henry I invaded Normandy until 1815 and the Battle of Waterloo. The war has continued to today, but it has been a financial one since 1860. The next phase is the trade of Europe to the military industrial complex in exchange for the MIC departure from the Middle East. If the US leaves there as well, don't be surprised if Germany and Russia sfart pounding France again, and watch the bankers laugh while the fund both sides. Am I right about this or wrong? I don't know. I'm not a historian, but the signs are there that in the reordering of the globe into a multipolar world, France is about to get pulverized, and the 1,000 year struggle between France and England might finally come to an end. [And yes, in case you were wondering, I conceived of and wrote this entire post with my very own human mind.]

Also a good question. If we've been crushed by a inflation-deflation cycle and then I lose my job to AI, (both of which seems imminent), I'm going to have all the time in the world to mow my own lawn and no money to buy/rent that robot. I will consume almost no services and buy no products. That in turn makes the robots irrelevant because there won't be enough people buying things the robots will make. None of it makes sense to me.

Interesting conversation, but Michael and Elon never explain 1) what all the people are going to be doing while the robots do the work, and 2) where the people are going to get all their money to buy stuff from after the inflation/deflation cycle. Michael seemed to want to say the people will be on drugs playing xbox, but he jumped past it pretty quick.

Man, when you went out for hot dogs and ended up in Ukraine. 🤣

And yet he also said in the same interview that the clankers will make us affluent.

That's what I suspect. Not one of these guys, including Michael Saylor, who talked about with Peter McCormack, will explain directly who is going to buy all the stuff the robots make and where those people are getting their money.