[yorwba]

Investors certainly prefer it when they can make a profit, but that doesn't mean they always succeed. Because investing means making predictions about the future, and sometimes the predicted profit fails to materialize. And by the time people realize, it's typically too late.

Producers will keep making products until they suddenly can't sell them for more than the cost of inputs anymore, by which time they'll already have amassed a pile of unsold inventory. They'll increase production capacity until they can't run their production line profitably anymore, by which time they'll already have amassed a pile of superfluous machinery. And so on recursively along the supply chain.

So the creation of robots that can do any task a human can do will most likely cause a boom in robot deployment that suddenly ends with an oversupply of robots. This oversupply won't necessarily be enough to achieve abundance on its own, but fortunately widespread unemployment will make human-provided goods and services very cheap, too.

[quantified]

That chain of events assumes that course correction loops don't occur. Producers won't overproduce for more than a fiscal quarter, maybe two. It'll be messier than that. And investors will pull their money out of anything unprofitable and put it somewhere else. There will be somewhere else.

Think about this social disruption: if money doesn't have meaning, what does the plutocracy do to stay relevant and keep their islands and relative wealth? How will those things be defined?