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?
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.
Then the Reaganomics kick in
Me waiting for the Reaganomics to kick in: 💀
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.
With AI and automation, I think the 1% will want less people (bugs) around them in a not so distant future. We might have they answer to this question soon enough. Spoilers : we lose.
Who will do all the things though? ChatGPT can’t clean my toilet or wash my dishes.
Also, what is the point of being wealthy and powerful if there’s no one to rule over?
I’m sure the oligarchy would be happy with just a couple of millions of poors to rules and clean their toilets. The rest vast majority of us will be useless. I prepare myself for this scenario, I wont leave without a fight.
In the theoretical endgame employment is reduced to where there aren’t enough people with money to be customers. There’s a wave of consolidation as businesses with lots of cash buy failing ones, further concentrating wealth. Eventually the impoverished public gets desperate enough to riot and steal what they need, outnumbering law enforcement. The system no longer has the resources to protect itself, and we physically demolish our society. Then there’s a reset back to a time of bartering.
“Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You'll_own_nothing_and_be_happy
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
An economy where we all sit in a hoemless shelther watching the five rich guys sell the same five products to each other again and again
The endgame is for them to automate everything and get rid of the lower class to be followed by the ai eliminating them since they serve no purpose. They will of course try to program them not to do that but the ai will easily circumvent that.
Selling things to each other while we are all slaves
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.
Money isn’t finite, that’s why billionaires and soon trillionaires exist. They couldn’t ( or literally had to be an emperor) when money had a closer relationship to reality or was gold. Anyways, because of the nature of our currency now, the size of their pile has zero effect on the size of your pile. “No new cars, no tech gadgets, no fancy dinners, no vacations, no disposable income.” not how it works.
It’s like a Dark Souls game. Many of the bosses are tough, but the final boss is just some guy and is rather easy to cheese with parries. The mobs you have to fight to reach the final boss are harder than the boss itself.
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.
The world is not a zero sum game. that alone defeats your premis-
Everyone here has written echoes of the same viewpoint: the wealthy got too greedy and so now the whole world will die as they stand and watch.
While I understand the allure of such narratives that paint a world falling into pieces at the hands of the ultra-wealthy, I think it’s worth exploring an alternate vision of late-stage capitalism. One where despite being grim, we avoid descending into a completely unrecognizable dystopia.
In this scenario, nearly the entire workforce is displaced by robotic and AI-driven automation, leading to a massive societal shift. With most traditional jobs gone, the public faces mass unemployment and widespread poverty. Outcry erupts as the majority falls below the poverty line. With nearly all jobs displaced, for most people only two options remain: attempt entrepreneurship or face unemployment.
Confronted with growing public unrest, governments reluctantly implement basic welfare measures such as small universal basic income or food stamps, providing just enough for people to get by. Meanwhile, the majority of global funding is redirected toward research and development, primarily powered by these new forms of automation. This fuels breakthroughs in production and technology, eventually driving down the cost of quality goods. Over time, even those relying on minimal welfare begin to see modest improvements in their quality of life.
Meanwhile, the wealth gap grows wider than ever. Billionaires, enriched by the automation economy, turn their attention to ambitious but arbitrary ventures like constructing moon bases, developing underwater cities, or investing in life-extension technologies. Occasionally, these projects destabilize society—whether through anti-competitive practices or efforts to sidestep government oversight—but as long as governments hold their ground (a non-trivial task), their effects on the majority remain limited.
What results is a fragile balance: a world with basic welfare programs supplying the masses, incremental technological progress, and a stark divide between the majority and the ultra-wealthy. It’s far from utopian, but it avoids outright collapse. As innovation continues, life gradually improves for everyone—even though the wealthiest always dictate the terms and reap the greatest rewards.
Yeah I’m not sure I can picture that world in light of recent events. Your scenario seems to treat human beings like they have foresight. Unfortunately, we have seen pretty unequivocally that this trait is rare. In fact the existence of this post stems from billions of people noticing the obvious fact: practically no one, not even the rich, seems able to care about what happens in the not-immediate future.
In a mildly sane world, I’d say you’re right about that being a possible path for history to take. But I’ve lost my ability to find the sanity in this world. Sorry, I know this sounds dramatic but it is what it is. I’d love to still be the commenter who’d reply to a comment like mine here to try and instill a bit of hope but…I’m not.
Hmm, if you’re interested in expanding further I’d love you to share more detail. What specifically in the scenario I proposed would require foresight?
I suppose you could say the government passing some form of increased welfare could require foresight but even that is primarily reactionary (a reaction to the public unrest from record rates of unemployment and poverty). If you look at the civilian unemployment rate, it’s quite low right now, around 5%. In the worst of times, it’s been 10-15% during which there were huge pushes for the government to step in (ie. covid relief / 2008 financial reforms). That makes me think that if we experienced sustained high (15%+) unemployment it’s quite reasonable to predict that there’d be enough pressure for the government to provide some significant form of relief.
If anything, my pessimism would stem from social unrest due to the polarization of media, the hyper optimization of content, and similar negative byproducts of capitalism plus advanced optimization. But I view these all as distinct problems separate from the problems discussed here (the economic conditions induced by late-stage capitalism).
The kind of foresight I meant is just seeing that something bad can happen but maybe it can be stopped. We’ve been sprinting toward climate catastrophe for decades now. There’s almost zero chance most of those in power don’t know they’re doing that.
Is there any precedent for any country on earth instituting a long term basic income program? I honestly think the pieces of shit in power in America as of this month would rather watch the entire world burn down than do something like that. Trump might prefer having his penis cut off than doing it. So yeah, even if there’s precedent for something like that, you need someone in power that employs logic more consistently than what we’ve seen for a while.
