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?

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      1·
      5 hours ago

      I remember despite being receptive to the goal, finding that story a bit maddening.

      spoiler

      So the dystopian half was sadly credible enough, so not much to say there.

      I didn’t like the way he tried to pave the way to the “better” approach as a contrast to the dystopia, while somehow being set in the same world.

      So how does the socialist utopia come into being? By a nation of people transforming themselves into a better society? No, because of some benevolent rich dude. Well at least he spent his money to make it happen, but wait, first he had to get money from millions of people for no guaranteed results. So shockingly a rich dude with a very scammy seeming premise happens to be truthful, but realistically if other rich dudes saw the gullible people buying tickets to “maybe utopia one day” then there’d be competition and I can’t imagine the sincere rich dude prevaling against the con-men. So the story is firmly rooted in worshipping some abstract concept of a rich guy, strangely Randian in a way… But fine, it happens, not great, but let’s put that aside for now.

      Ultimately, the difference between his dystopia and utopia is that “poor people” in the dystopia are confined to soul crushingly terrible dormitories, and in the utopia, they aren’t even allowed into the country at all. Sure no one will become poor in the utopia, but it’s likely that any person on the ‘right’ side in the dystopia also will never become poor. The mechanism to make it seem “better” is a lottery ticket, further waved away by having someone “off screen” buy it on his behalf, to let the protagonist benefit without actually spending money. Ultimately though the mechanism to get into the utopia was effectively buying a lottery ticket from an already rich dude to make him richer, a pretty capitalist mechanism.

      There’s this part in the dystopian side where they reflected upon how when the plight of people in foreign lands were bad, they ignored it because it wasn’t their problem. Now they feel all too keenly being on the ‘outside’ while the rich enjoy their presumed paradise while the poor are trapped in their dorms. That now that they are afflicted, only now do they care. Ok, fine point. So the nature of the “socialist” paradise in this work is that you or someone you know paid for admittance, and so the protagonist leaves behind just a ton of anonymous folks to once again be part of the ‘in’ crowd. I made the connection that the guy basically had a lottery ticket purchased on his behalf that let him participate in what was likely just like the “rich” crowd. So I thought that the author would circle back to how quickly the protagonist got comfortable with ignoring those on the ‘outside’ again. Nope, now it was just just cool to live it up while the poor saps who did not buy the scam-like tickets are stuck on the outside still forgotten by the protagonist and the narrative, as their existence is now inconvenient to the message.

      Then there was the solution to crime, which I thought would touch on a dystopian facet. That there’s a mandatory centrally controlled brain implant that, when “bad” behavior was detected, it would disconnect the brain from the body to prevent incorrect behavior. A world with constant thought monitoring and removal of bodily autonomy at the discretion of a central authority? That sounds like something that will be highlighted as some nightmarish bullshit… Nope, the author seemed to sincerely love the concept as a perfectly valid way of controlling the population, and all the characters loved it to.