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?
You must log in or register to comment.
Let me introduce you to the wonderful concepts of feudalism and slavery.
You think that people have nothing to lose but their chains. They think people will have nothing to sell but their bodies.
There are steps in between. I think the next one will be company towns. Massive company buys a giant plot of land in the middle of nowhere. Builds a whole business complex there. Offices, manufacturing plant, shipping/ receiving infrastructure, etc. Then they build track housing around it, build a company-run grocery store, a private school completely funded by the business, etc. Invite in a bunch of familiar national chain restaurants, but make sure they’re all franchised, so they’re owned and operated by the company.
Then they recruit. They offer half decent wages. Nothing great, but they sell it to people by offering to pay for moving costs and massive discounts on company-owned houses.
These houses are brand new and waycheaper than a condo in the city! [pre-fab, low-cost bullshit that looks good but disintegrates in a couple years]
Come meet the neighbors! They also work for us, so you’ve got a lot in common! Built-in new friend group! [your boss also loves a block away and pays attention to your social life]
Your kids can go to school for free! [where we teach them to be good wage slaves for the next generation]
Soon, there will be an entire town 100% owned and run by the company. Wages will stagnate, prices will skyrocket. Workers will get in debt, all owed to the company. People will start to realize, but what the fuck are they gonna do? Company owns their mortgage, which is now under water. They’ve lost contact with all their old friends, because they live three hours outside the city and have had to work every Saturday for months.
Viola. Entire areas of wage slaves.
I can’t wait to be called on a Amazon’s Levy to give my life conquering some Microsoft’s chip factory.
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.
Bold of you to assume the rock bottom of wealth inequality includes the ability to purchase food and is survivable.
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.
Money doesn’t come from people, it comes from the fed issuing debt. The economic “value” backing that money also doesn’t necessarily come from people, it comes from control over things that are valued, which may include human labor, but that labor can be automated. The actual value of human life is not represented by money or other financial instruments.
Economic constraints aren’t preventing the world from decaying into an enormous desolate golf course.
There’s a critical point in wealth disparity where money begins to lose value. As the amount of wealth that can be extracted from the working class dwindles and the people who have too little find other ways to barter with each other.
Fun fact, we have already seen an early attempt at this. And while I think we’re still a ways away, it’s not exactly without precedent.
wealth that can be extracted from the working class
This is my point though; they aren’t going to need to do that.
That, at present, is where the wealth is coming from.
If the Fed just keeps printing money, eventually that too loses all value. It needs to actually be able to buy things. Sure it’s backed by US securities and bonds, but if the US isn’t capable of collecting taxes, because it’s people aren’t making any money and have started to barter amongst themselves, then they can issue all the bonds and bills they want and it won’t mean a damn thing.
Money is their only real leverage. They’re racing to find the minimum amount of money they can give us and still maintain that leverage.
That, at present, is where the wealth is coming from.
I would argue that increasingly it is not. The relative value of labor is and has been declining due to automation.
Money is their only real leverage.
It isn’t - there is also legal ownership, of natural resources and other types of property, and there is the force backing that ownership, which is also subject to automation.
If you are skeptical about the idea that wealth can exist at all independently from labor, consider the distinction between a dictatorship with an economy based on oil or mining and a more democratic country with an economy based on a diverse array of skilled professionals. Yes, in both cases laborers are involved in what the country produces, but in the latter, circumstances give them more leverage, because their active engagement and relative consent is more of a prerequisite to achieving that product. That leverage equates to a higher market value of their labor. I can imagine a future where everyone is effectively reduced first to slaves in a mine and then to skeletons next to mining robots.
This is a good, nutshell explanation of late-stage capitalism.
As far as the answer to “what’s the endgame”, I do not know. I suspect that many or most of these rich folks are so moneyblind that they don’t know either. Or, they simply don’t believe that their collective actions will eventually cause the system to fail.
But most likely, I think, is that they believe someone else will bear the majority of any negative impact. Of course this makes less sense in the face of a systematic collapse, but again: it’s probably very difficult to see when you have dollar signs in your eyes.
If all the billionaires in the world instantaneously ceased to exist, and all their money were evenly distributed to everyone on earth, you would get a one time payment of about $1,769. Then what?
With the exchange rates remaining intact? Many people would live a much better life.
We move on to the triple digit millionaires, and maybe the double digit millionaires too.
You’re forgetting that this money would exchange hands multiple times per year, per person. Expenses are revenues; we’re all connected.
But when some people put billions aside (in non tangible stuff like stocks), they’re effectively reducing the buying power of everyone else. Slowly but surely. They are a net negative just by their mere existence.
I see your point, but my point is that each time the money changes hands, more of it will bubble up into the coffers of newly minted billionaires.
Not money, power. There’ll always be affordable consumables: clothes, food etc. It’s just the quality will go down to accommodate how squeezed the consumer is. But the limited resources: a stay at that resort, a home with space and good schools, the seats at the sports game etc those the prices will continue to race away. Which is just a different view of power (choice/control) shifting into the hands of an increasingly small proportion of people. Those places will still be full - but the chance of getting to them for the average person will grow dimmer with every passing year.
Ditch the planet, let us have the wastelands, if they can’t just execute us first, or starve us to a more controllable population level. They want it to be them, and a small number of us to do the jobs they couldn’t or refuse to automate. This is the only answer that makes sense with everything they do. They aren’t stupid, they aren’t trying to destroy their own habitat, so their end game either doesn’t include us, or doesn’t include the planet entirely.
Have you noticed the rich are suddenly encouraging people to have (more) kids? It’s the only way to put more labor into the system. And labor is what money really represents.
The rich are stealing your labor.
It’s not the only way. We’ve been relying on immigration to do this for us for a long time. American politics is struggling with the tension between racist idiots who don’t understand that immigrants are crucial to our economy, and those who do understand it. You can not be racist AND not understand it and that is fine too, no problem.
The same as with all cancers unless it’s killed in time.
A frozen economy. The families with capital are the ruling class, and for every else there is zero mobility. Since the ruling class is not a state, it isn’t bound by democracy or a constitution, and it doesn’t have to give anyone shit. There may be some incentive to keep the lower class happy and alive, or there may not be.
Back serfdom and nobility.
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.
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?
Under the premise that eventually this endless growth cycle
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.
“Created” meaning stolen from labor that is undercompensated, or just outright stolen. “Destroyed” meaning the purported wealth was never real in the first place.
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…
Feudalism
They’ll just keep screwing each other over until either one person owns everything, or we’re smushed into the mud of conflict.
that one person becomes what is effectively a monarch
Take the money from other rich people. Possibly with an army of disposable humans.
They never will. But they’ll likely always have most of it. The government will print money just enough to keep inflation low-ish but allow people to feel comfortable enough to spend it. Big corps will eventually accumulate them and hoard it.
This leads to the total collapse of global society
