It’s more likely than you think. In fact, this was true for almost the entirety of human history. The last 100 years, where the common person is NOT in destitute poverty, is the exception to the rule.

There will not be no one who is able to consume. The investment thesis is that the investment classes' servant robot armies will be doing trillions of USD of consumption, mostly in metals, munitions, chips, etc.

I don't agree with the thesis, but that is what the thesis is.

The point of an economy is to put a stupid flag on mars. Or to melt the ice caps so that Russia has access to ports that aren't clogged with ice. Or to get revenge and throw lavish parties. Or any of a million other arbitrary goals dreamed up by those few who get to steer this thing.

For most of us its just gas or breaks, but those at the top have non economic goals. The economic indicators are looking positive because progress is being made towards those goals, but the gloom persists because most of us don't want the outcomes that were progressing towards.

We're in a car that we can't steer, and the economist article says everything is fine because look how high the number on the speedometer is.

The ones who own the robots will be doing the consumption.

Of course, this all implies that the rest of us will just sit and starve quietly. Somehow I don't think that's likely.

Mixing two things up.

A point for the economy.

The mechanics of trade.

Or the objective outcomes vs subjective goals.

It is entirely possible for an economy to land up in an equilibrium point that works for a small set of people and not for the majority.

The point of the economy is a subjective societal thing, achieved via laws, regulation and enforcement of those rules.

more importantly, good luck to any country that has to deal with an environment full of huge swathes of people festering with the anger and nihilism that comes from going from something to nothing...not for me