1.
Today's Bitcoin:
I really don't have 800 directions in one day.
I only have one direction.
As long as the time scale is determined.
For example, looking at the 10-year line, I definitely see it positively, long-term bull market.
Looking at the 1-year line, 2026 is a bear market, and 2027-2029 are all bull markets. Simple and clear.
Looking at the monthly and weekly lines. The oscillation range still needs to oscillate, from 60,000 to 72,000.
Why did I clear my position immediately when it broke 65,120 a few days ago? Because from the technical pattern, it was clear we could see 60,000, but things developed quickly, and 62,500 disappeared in an instant, not reaching 60,000, just using 62,500 to fill the gap from the day of the sharp drop to 60,000. Then it came back.
This afternoon's trend indicates that the downward phase of this brief trend has basically ended, and the next step is to go to the 7-7.2 range.
So I have always been quite certain. It is definitely not 800 directions. At every moment, across different time scales, there is only one direction.
2.
After the rise of AI, will most humans be unemployed, impoverished, and even starve when numerous AI tools learn to run on their own?
Today, we will analyze this process.
First, let's understand a recently popular article (THE 2028 GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE CRISIS), which is a thought experiment macro memo published by Citrini Research (written in 2026). It depicts an extremely negative scenario: the explosive enhancement of AI capability leads to massive replacement of white-collar workers → unemployment → collapse of consumption → 'ghost GDP' → negative feedback spiral → chain collapse of the financial system (SaaS, payments, intermediaries, mortgages, private credit, etc.) → deflationary recession, unemployment rate soaring to over 10%, S&P retracting from its peak by 38% or more, potentially triggering a crisis similar to the GFC.
The core logic of the article is: AI is too successful, which destroys the entire economic system that relies on the 'scarcity of human intelligence' (consumption drives 75% of discretionary spending, white-collar service industries account for 50% of employment); machines do not consume, human income collapses, demand evaporates, and supply surplus leads to a deflationary spiral. The products produced cannot be afforded by anyone. Only a few people are rich; most are poor and without work. Moreover, there are no new desires, such as exploring the oceans or space; everyone is stuck in past life patterns, life supplies, and life pleasures.
This article is a very exciting 'macro horror novel.' It intricately weaves narratives of technological fear, financial fragility, and societal collapse. However, if we penetrate the fog of its narrative and examine it through the lens of Austrian School economics (ASE)—especially the theoretical frameworks of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Hans Hermann Hoppe—we will find that the article commits some classic 'common sense errors' in economics at its logical foundation.
Here is an analysis and rebuttal of the article from the Austrian perspective:
1. The Luddites' illusion: the labor theory of value and the fallacy of the 'substitution spiral.'
The core fear of the article is: when AI replaces human intelligence, humanity becomes 'useless,' leading to economic collapse.
Mises pointed out in 'Human Action' that human desires are infinite, human creativity is also infinite, while resources (including time) are forever scarce. The so-called 'collapse of human intelligence premiums' is a false proposition. When AI lowers the costs of law, programming, and finance, it does not mean that human value disappears; rather, it means that these services become cheaper.
If a 19th-century person saw that today 1% of farmers can feed all of humanity, they would also predict that 99% of people would be unemployed and starving. AI has released scarce human resources locked in 'white-collar repetitive labor.' These resources will flow into new fields that we may not be able to imagine at present (such as deeper emotional care, complex cross-domain decision-making, new forms of art, space and ocean exploration services, etc.). As long as humans have unmet desires, labor will never be in excess.
2. Say's Law vs. 'ghost GDP.'
The article repeatedly emphasizes 'machines do not consume' and 'white-collar unemployment → demand evaporates → ghost GDP,' which is a typical Keynesian theory of insufficient aggregate demand: believing that the economy is driven by consumption, unemployment → insufficient demand → downward spiral.
Many people hear on TV every day about stimulating consumption and boosting demand, and they get brainwashed, truly believing that demand can labor the economy.
The Austrian School completely rejects this view:
Mises/Rothbard: According to Say's Law, production itself creates demand; production precedes consumption. The economy is not 'demand-driven' but supply-side (entrepreneurs use capital to create products that satisfy future demand, entrepreneurs observe the world and attempt to explore the desires and needs that exist in people's hearts, thereby advancing production and invention). Savings → investment → more efficient production → more output → higher living standards.
AI increases productivity, which is the ultimate form of capital deepening. More output means more real wealth; even if certain industries shrink in the short term, the benefits will spread to everyone through falling prices and resource reallocation.
The article's 'negative feedback loop' (layoffs → saving money to buy more AI → more layoffs) overlooks the role of entrepreneurs: rational enterprises will not endlessly cycle layoffs to zero because then there would be no demand for their products. The market will self-correct: falling profits → reduced investment → slowed AI development → labor is reemployed.
Hoppe adds: Government intervention (such as welfare, taxation, redistribution) distorts time preference, hinders capital accumulation, and exacerbates any adjustment pain. The article's fantasy of 'AI tax' and 'shared prosperity bill' is precisely the kind of 'forced redistribution' that Hoppe despises the most, which undermines voluntary exchange and entrepreneurial incentives.
There is no 'ghost GDP,' only the real abundance under price deflation. The productivity explosion in history (such as at the end of the 19th century) brought about a golden age rather than a collapse.
The output generated by AI does not disappear into a black hole; instead, it transforms into extremely low prices.
If production costs approach zero, then product prices will also approach zero. From the Austrian perspective, deflation (price decrease) is not a disaster but a dividend of productivity enhancement. The text's description of 'white-collar workers not having money to buy things' ignores the fact that when the prices of all services (SaaS, insurance, law) drop by 90%, the amount of money humans need to maintain their current living standards also decreases significantly. The so-called 'wilt' is actually the collapse of living costs, which is a huge boon for consumers (i.e., everyone). If production occurs and no one consumes, then are the producers (the big shots behind AI) out of their minds? What are they after? Don't bring up the endless resources as an argument; the infinity of resources is for all humanity; materials can be continuously rearranged and recombined. Just because one car used one kilogram of copper, that kilogram of copper cannot be reused forever in history. In the long run, material arrangements are infinite, but at any given local stage, resources are scarce. If even going to the moon is not possible for people who can go whenever they want, how can they suddenly start dreaming as if AI is going to take down the sun? AI has become a special intelligent species, seemingly about to wipe out humanity?
3. The root of the financial crisis: is it AI or interventionism?
The text describes the collapse of private credit and the mortgage market, attributing it to AI disrupting income expectations.
Austrian business cycle theory holds that the root of financial crises is never technological progress, but rather government and central bank manipulation of interest rates leading to 'malinvestment.'
Rebuttal: If the $13 trillion mortgage market collapses, it is not because AI is too strong, but because financial institutions under the fiat currency system, lured by artificially low interest rates, have built long-term credit on unsustainable income illusions. The 'chain reaction' described in the text is essentially a bubble under the fractional reserve system and central bank backing. Blaming the negative effects of credit expansion on productivity gains is a typical case of causal inversion and erroneous attribution.
4. The crisis of the state: the twilight of parasites.
The text mentions a decline in government revenue, soaring deficits, and proposes the imposition of a 'computing power tax' and a 'robot tax.'
Hoppe points out in 'Democracy: The God That Failed' that modern democratic states are essentially a burden on the productive class. The 'decline in federal revenue' described in the text, from the Austrian perspective, is an opportunity for society to rid itself of predatory taxation.
Rebuttal: The government panics because its traditional 'taxing human time' model has failed. The 'transitional economic bill' and 'shared AI prosperity bill' mentioned in the text are essentially secondary plunder of the successful. Imposing a 'computing power tax' will undermine capital accumulation, ultimately making society as a whole poorer. The emergence of AI is actually forcing those massive, inefficient bureaucratic institutions that rely on taxation to downsize.
5. Technological unemployment is an illusion: historically and theoretically, large-scale permanent unemployment has never occurred.
Mises repeatedly emphasizes in 'Human Action' and related works: machines/technological progress do not cause permanent unemployment but instead raise labor productivity, lower costs, increase real wages, and create new demands and new jobs.
Technological progress → unit product cost decreases → prices decrease (real deflation rather than destructive deflation) → consumers' actual purchasing power increases → demand expands → more production → needs more labor (even though unit labor output is higher).
Historical evidence: From steam engines, electricity, computers to the internet, every time there was a panic about 'machines replacing people,' total employment actually increased. Mises pointed out that the Luddites' fear of smashing machines was misguided; Rothbard inherited this view, believing that unemployment only occurs under wage rigidity (unions, government minimum wage, intervention).
The article assumes that AI leads to the 'collapse of human intelligence premiums' and permanent unemployment for white-collar workers, but overlooks the infinity of human demand (Mises' core: human action is always aimed at removing discomfort, demand is never saturated). No matter how strong AI is, it is merely a tool; the abundance it creates will spur entirely new demands (experience, art, personalized services, exploration of the universe, etc.), which require human entrepreneurs, coordinators, and aesthetic judgment—something AI is far from replacing at present.
Hoppe is more radical; he believes that any 'structural unemployment' is the result of intervention distorting price signals. In a free market, wages would flexibly adjust to clearing levels, and unemployment is merely a temporary reconfiguration.
The article's hypothesis of 'intelligent substitution spiral' posits wage rigidity + permanent consumption collapse, but Austrians believe this is caused by artificial rigidity (unions, welfare, monetary policy), not AI itself. The real scenario is more likely to be: AI lowers costs → prices of goods/services plummet → real wages soar → people consume more new things → employment shifts rather than disappears.
The big shots behind AI are not a monolithic entity; they need to constantly compete for resources, and they can be replaced at any time by new and better brains with even more impressive solutions. After all, anyone can potentially become a super individual with the help of AI.
The opportunity to become extremely wealthy is clearly increasing, not decreasing. I don't understand why many people fixate on the current distribution of capital and assert that it has solidified. It has not solidified at all; we need to rethink our recognition of resources and capital. This resource of prompts is probably severely underestimated. Different people have different creativity and different abilities to command AI. Just like a certain general in ancient times, who might only suddenly unleash his potential at the age of fifty or sixty.
Now chatgpt, Google, deepseek, grok, openclaw, etc., you finish your performance, and I take the stage; a better challenger can emerge at any moment to overturn the old ship that has just been built.
The AI era is also an era of opportunity. It is not a barren land.
I know some people have fantasized about a scenario from Liu Cixin's novel (in which humans are maintained):
All resources are concentrated in one person's hands, all the land on the entire earth belongs to him, everyone gets haircuts and meals
, bathing, living, going to school, everything is under the service of his AI company.
This is simply ridiculous.
Have you conceptualized the process of forming this monopoly? Will Apple win, or will Google win? Or will Microsoft win?
Why not others?
Do not pure daydream.
6. The deflationary spiral is a product of monetary intervention, not an inevitable result of AI.
The article fears a 'deflationary spiral' and 'stagnation of monetary circulation speed.' Austrians believe that benign deflation (caused by productivity improvements) is a good thing: prices fall, real wealth increases.
Mises: The fear of deflation is an excuse for inflationists. In genuine deflation, debtors suffer short-term pain, but society as a whole benefits (savings become more valuable, encouraging more capital accumulation).
Rothbard: If deflation is caused by the productivity of the free market, it is sustainable; artificial deflation (like the Great Depression) is the real problem, caused by Federal Reserve tightening and intervention.
The 'price tending to zero' caused by AI (collapse of intermediary fees, subscription fees) is precisely a victory of competition and efficiency, not a crisis.
The article assumes that central banks/governments are powerless to respond, but Austrians believe that removing central bank monopolies and returning to sound money (gold standard or free banking) would allow the market to handle any adjustment.
7. A complete denial of UBI/government rescue
The article implies the need for a 'transitional economic bill' and a 'shared AI prosperity bill' (UBI-style transfer payments + AI tax). Austrians view this as a disaster:
Mises: Any redistribution that departs from market prices destroys economic calculation, leading to resource misallocation.
Rothbard: UBI is a variant of socialism, destroying incentives, expanding state power, and creating dependency.
Hoppe: Forced transfer payments violate property rights and are 'theft.' The abundance created by AI should be distributed spontaneously through the market (lower prices, more entrepreneurship), not through political plunder.
Conclusion: The article is a meticulously constructed Keynesian Schumpeter-style apocalypse narrative, but from the perspective of the Austrian School, it exaggerates short-term pain while overlooking market self-correction, the infinity of human demand, and the long-term benefits of productivity gains. Mises refuted the 'machine unemployment theory' as early as the 20th century: technological progress is humanity's liberation, not destruction. AI is likely to bring about an unprecedented era of abundance, not collapse—provided that government interventions are removed, allowing prices to speak freely.
If UBI or an AI tax is enforced, it could instead create the spiral imagined in the article. The real antidote is a more thorough free market, not more government control. The canary isn't dead; it's singing—a song of the explosion of productivity.
AI's self-operation will not change the nature of property rights.
The infinite diversification of human needs and the perpetual constraint of resource scarcity will make it impossible for AI to completely control production. Even humans do not know what new desires and expectations they will generate in the next second; how can AI mobilize resources to meet all needs in advance?
Demand can never be fully satisfied. Labor will always have new uses; how can AI, without a soul, consistently outpace humanity in every moment while also facing continuous internal competition?
To say that AI can replace humans is akin to the extreme fears of monopoly that people had at the end of the 19th century.
Creating antitrust laws, worrying that giants will never fall, thus eternally enslaving others.
This kind of speculation is similar.
It has not seen the infinite creativity and destructiveness behind humanity's infinite desires.
Create the new, destroy the old.
Even if AI generates a soul, possessing such creativity and destructiveness does not mean that the two forces inherent in humans disappear or lose their value.