In case you're an MMTer and ever wonder why the other side "strawmans" you so much, keep in mind, this is typical when I sincerely try to understand your team's worldview.

While everyone is roasting me on the joke, I'd love for you to actually roast this please:

It's interesting - but to assume that AI means the end of scarcity ignores that the biggest bottleneck is energy. A world without scarcity needs to solve that problem first. So the bureaucrats/govts who are blocking energy production would need to get out of the way. Also, nothing in Austrian economic principles would conflict with goods becoming cheaper - to the contrary, the expectation is that production efficiency constantly reduces costs, which increases purchasing power and drives natural deflation. The only reason we don't have worse inflation from the money printing now is that the free market continues to become more efficient.

The energy question is really about the recursive aspect of AI. Can solar powered factory build robots trained to build robots? Can those robots be trained to extract minerals? And so on. I see AI as being the utmost expression of capitalism. Ultimately drives the time value of money to zero.

Chicken and egg problem. The resources required to produce the energy need to be mined at volumes that make it a self-licking ice cream are not obtainable right now based on current policy or industrial capacity. I've you get the resources, you still need the energy first, then you need batteries/robots to actually make it all massively cheaper. The investment requirement will be huge; if money will be worth nothing afterwards, is it worth it? I think it will get there at some point, but it's not "we'll be post-scarcity in the next 30 years" by any stretch.