The Great Salt Lake DOES NOT have water to spare. Kevin must take his data center elsewhere.

https://youtube.com/shorts/med7lrd28uI?is=xEIXjbDDcxt3F9Mk

Lately I’ve noticed what seems to be a lack of motivation when it comes to business owners. For example: My parents had a trust drawn up and we wanted to change one of the property deeds. I emailed the attorney and said we wanted to hire him to change a deed and we pretty much got the runaround. I emailed another attorney and said we wanted to pay him to change a deed. Zero response. Had a contractor come to look over a bathroom project that involved removing a small jacuzzi tub and installing a large shower stall with wheelchair access. He stopped by and dropped off a brochure for shower stalls buy never heard from him again. I get into a lot of homes for my work and people complain constantly about contractors not returning phone calls. Customers of mine thank me for calling them back and tell me they left messages for competitors of mine and never got a response. A guy who I have hired several times to do land improvements over the years never showed up to do some work we had talked about even though it would be an easy job and he always gets paid immediately when job is completed. Anyone else noticing this? It’s so weird. If so, what’s causing the lack of motivation? Are people just over-worked? Have the good times caused complacency? I just see a lot of opportunities for go-getters right now.

Everyone in AI is watching the wrong scoreboard.

You’re watching GPT vs. Claude on coding benchmarks. Wall Street is watching 5.75% vs. 10%.

Anthropic recently received a BB+ ("junk") credit rating from KBRA—even while generating $16.8B in Q3 revenue (+45% in a single quarter).

Meanwhile, Reuters reports Anthropic is offering Blackstone more than 10% yield on $9B of debt backed by chip leases.

Why does a profitable-on-an-adjusted-basis AI rocket ship have to pay 10% for money?

Because generative AI made software physical again.

When you commit $518 billion over 10 years to GPUs, power, and data centers, you aren't a typical Silicon Valley software startup anymore. Financially, you are heavy industry.

Here is the twist nobody is talking about:

BB+ is the highest junk rating in existence. Anthropic sits just one single notch below BBB- (Investment Grade).

And when Anthropic goes public—forcing full GAAP cash flow transparency—crossing that single notch from BB+ to BBB- unlocks $39 trillion in conservative insurance capital.

In the next phase of the AI war, the ultimate moat isn't a smarter model.

It’s cheaper money.

The Conversation: Automakers responded by cutting back their EV production. General Motors laid off more than 3,400 workers at its EV and battery plants and shifted its Tennessee plant to make batteries for energy storage, not cars. Ford wrote off $19.5 billion from its EV business, ended production of the all-electric F-150 Lightning and converted a Tennessee EV plant to build gas-powered trucks...

...As long as gas stays expensive, the gap between the electric vehicles Americans want and the electric vehicles dealers can sell them is likely to remain. Decisions such as ending the tax credit, rolling back fuel economy standards and banning Chinese technology all make it harder to build them, which means Americans will continue to have fewer affordable electric vehicles to choose from.

My Opinion: The supply of EVs in USA have not kept up with demand. When the tax credit for EVs was removed, there was a decline in demand for EVs. But with the rising gas prices, the demand has come back. American automotive companies have reduced production and investment in EVs. So prices for new and used EVs have risen.

We need stability in government policy, to encourage American carmakers to invest in EVs, and increase supply of EVs. But even without that, with high fuel prices, there is now a large demand for EVs.

The U.S. healthcare system costs significantly more than any other developed nation while leaving millions uninsured or underinsured. A persistent narrative suggests that guaranteeing universal, publicly funded healthcare would inevitably require broad tax hikes. However, fiscal analysis reveals an alternative reality: American taxpayers are already paying enough to fund comprehensive universal coverage. Whether approached through a conservative lens of cutting government waste, eliminating corporate cronyism, and enforcing free-market price transparency, or a progressive lens of securing healthcare as a baseline public right, the underlying arithmetic is the same. The root issue is not a funding deficit, but a fragmented, heavily bureaucratic system that inflates prices and diverts tax dollars away from direct patient care.
Direct expenditures on medically necessary care currently stand at roughly $4.49 trillion out of an overall national healthcare footprint exceeding $5.28 trillion. A substantial portion of this expense is driven by opaque, artificial price inflation. While U.S. hospitals incur approximately $1.5 trillion to $1.6 trillion in actual operating expenses for labor, facilities, and supplies, they generate between $4.5 trillion and $7.5 trillion in gross billed charges. Using internal "chargemaster" rate schedules, sticker prices are frequently marked up 300% to 500% over the actual cost of delivery, serving as an inflated baseline for insurer negotiations rather than reflecting true economic value. In turn, massive healthcare conglomerates absorb tens of billions of public dollars each year through government programs and contracts—such as UnitedHealth Group's more than $265 billion in lifetime federal prime obligations—without corresponding gains in consumer affordability or population health outcomes.
By comparison, peer nations provide universal coverage at a fraction of the cost. The United States spends over $14,775 per capita on healthcare, while the United Kingdom spends roughly $6,747. This divergence is driven primarily by administrative complexity and unconstrained pricing leverage. The multi-payer American billing system forces providers and insurers into protracted claims arbitrations, creating administrative waste that consumes nearly 25% of all domestic health spending. Peer nations systematically reduce these burdens by negotiating standardized reimbursement schedules and leveraging bulk purchasing power for prescription drugs, stripping out layers of non-clinical bureaucracy.
Federal fiscal data underscores the scale of existing public investment. In Fiscal Year 2025, the U.S. government collected $5.26 trillion in total revenues and spent approximately $7.01 trillion across all functions. The single largest component was $1.98 trillion allocated to public healthcare programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Health Administration. In effect, nearly 38% of all federal tax dollars collected are already dedicated to health coverage, yet these funds insure only about 40% of the population. The remaining 60% must secure private coverage, absorbing rising deductibles and out-of-pocket costs while their existing tax contributions already underwrite an inefficient delivery pipeline.
Applying peer-level administrative discipline demonstrates how far current resources could stretch. If the U.S. matched the UK’s National Health Service cost structure, covering all 340 million Americans would cost approximately $1.87 trillion annually—well beneath the $1.98 trillion the federal government already spends. Crucially, the U.S. does not need to accept the chronic underfunding or wait times that often challenge the NHS. If America simply froze per-person spending at its existing public rate of roughly $14,775 while eliminating bureaucratic churn, chargemaster markups, and pharmaceutical price-gouging, that same capital would support an exceptionally well-resourced system. The United States could deliver world-class clinical capacity, shorter wait times, and comprehensive coverage without levying a single cent in new taxes.
Sources Used:
1. Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, "How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?"
2. OECD Health Statistics / Health at a Glance, "Health expenditure per capita"
3. U.S. Department of the Treasury / Congressional Budget Office, "Federal Budget and Revenue Data for FY 2025"
4. American Hospital Association & CMS National Health Expenditure Data, "Hospital Expenditures, Operating Margins, and Gross Billed Charges"
5. USASpending.gov, "UnitedHealth Group Federal Prime Contracting and Sub-Award Obligations"
6. Annals of Internal Medicine / Health Affairs, "Health Care Administrative Costs in the United States and Canada: A Comprehensive Breakdown"