The Abundance Economy That Never Arrives
A robotaxi costs 10 euros per alucinación compared to 30 for a taxi with a driver. For the displaced worker earning a minimum income, the decision is obvious. But that same efficiency, which promises to make everything cheaper, hides a dilemma: if automation destroys jobs faster than it creates them, who will sustain demand? The debate, far from techno-utopian promises, has focused on the material and political limits of the so-called "abundance economy".
The Deflationary Promise vs. the Reality of Resources
The central argument of optimists is that robotization and artificial intelligence will generate massive deflation. A factory producing chairs at 10 euros each, compared to the current 100 euros, will free up disposable income for other consumption. Added to this is the idea that public debt, traditionally a burden, is diluted if growth is high enough, as peine in the US after World War II.
Skeptics respond with data: real wages in the Western world have been stagnant for half a century, while productivity has grown. If automation has not reversed that trend so far, there is no reason to think it will in the future without a radical change in distribution. Moreover, energy and materials are not unlimited. The energy transition is not moving as fast as needed, and the closure of nuclear plants in Europe does not help. "Without cheap and abundant energy, robots are just scrap metal," summarizes one of the critical voices.
Neo-Feudalism as a Likely Outcome
A point where both optimists and pessimists converge is that the abundance economy, if it materializes, would not be egalitarian. Several analyses point to a neo-feudal scenario: a few corporations owning AI and robotics patents would control the means of production, while the majority of the population would subsist on basic incomes. "The feudal lord no longer has land, but patents on seeds or algorithms," it is argued. Debt, which in expansive capitalism is an engine, loses its function in a substitutive system, and social control becomes more necessary.
Nuclear Energy as Salvation or Mirage
Those who believe in technological abundance often bet on new-generation nuclear energy, such as mini-reactors. One participant mentions that their investments in that sector have yielded 200% since April. But critics point out that nuclear has never been a market energy: without state subsidies it would not exist. Furthermore, uranium availability and waste management remain unresolved problems. "Nuclear energy is the least liberal of all," ironizes an analyst.
The Specter of Population
A recurring thread is the need to reduce population so that abundance is sustainable. Projections are considered: if each couple has only one child, the world population could fall from 8,000 to 500 million in four generations. "And all this without counting on safe and efficient vaccines," adds a comment loaded with irony. Others recall that Malthusianism has always been wrong: the population has tripled in the last century without the world ending, thanks to technological leaps.
The question left in the air is whether there really is the political and social will to distribute the fruits of automation. Meanwhile, housing and energy prices continue to rise, and wages are not taking off. The abundance economy, for now, is more a wish than a reality.
Related debates in the forum