Corporate culture is based on constant growth and ever increasing profit margins. Eventually they’ll amass so much of the wealth that most of the lower class won’t be able to purchase anything other than essentials like food.
No new cars, no tech gadgets, no fancy dinners, no vacations, no disposable income.
When we get there the economy collapses because there’s no money going into it.
The profits stop rolling in, unnecessary goods stop being produced, and the luxury goods producer’s shut down.
At this point the money they worked so hard to hoard becomes worthless because they can’t buy anything with it.
What’s the endgame for them if their current path takes them to a point where their assets are more or less worthless?
What’s the logic here? Someone else having a high net worth, means that you have less money?
Under the premise that eventually this endless growth cycle reaches some kind of an end point, then ultimately yes. The wealth has to keep increasing somehow. When you have saturated every market, eliminated every competitor, captured every last regulator, innovated every last facet, optimised every metric, you have to start cutting wages, or replacing labour with machines. When evey worker is replaced or the wages are less than enough for survival, no one’s getting paid. Who buys the stuff?
Exactly. It’s endless, so the premise is false. At a certain point they’ll just rename 100 dollar the neodollar, and it continues. It’s just bookkeeping, there’s no end.
Wealth is finite, so yes.
It isn’t? It’s created and destroyed all of the time.
“Created” meaning stolen from labor that is undercompensated, or just outright stolen. “Destroyed” meaning the purported wealth was never real in the first place.
Wealth is defined by resources: access to resources, and ownership of resources. Resources are finite; wealth is finite.
There are plenty of resources in the world to comfortably support all of the people living in the world right now, plus many, many more. Those who own or have access to resources are wealthy. Those who do not, are not.
Those who control the resources extend that control over people who need resources. If there were no people who didn’t have a deficit of resources, then there would also be no people exerting social control based on control of resources.
To accomplish that, most of the resources that the wealthy control must be removed from their control, shifting that control equitably among all. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, one might say.
Creates as in a dude cooks a burger. Destroyed as in someone eats it.
No theft involved.
Not destroyed, merely transformed. Human waste can be turned into fertilizer. Still no theft in sight…