But how do they pose a threat?
They either need a substantial inflow of new tax capital in order to meet obligations (politically impossible) OR will by statute have to be cut by 25–30% when their trust funds are exhausted, creating a medical care and poverty crisis.
With greater automation we need less and less labour to meet the needs of citizens. Farming in particular can feed everyone on this planet easily. It has to be sustainable in a planet sense though. It’s not a shortage or not of money that’s the problem but real things everyone needs.
Money pays for all those things.
This might flip your mind: China sends billions of dollars of goods to the USA and all you need to do is credit their reserve accounts at the fed with digits. Bond are the safest place for china to store their excess USD until they want to spend it. It’s a real cost to them. Exports are a cost to economies. Imports are someone else’s work in exchange for trust in your currency.
So, basically, every economist in the world who talks about the dangers of trade deficits is wrong?
Humans have been taking about automation for decades and how humans can sit back and relax one day. Why aren’t we saying the same thing about shrinking populations and automation? As long as machines can fill the age gap there won’t be a problem yet the capital class don’t want us to relax because they want compliant workers.
First off, we don’t have a shrinking population. That’s a localized problem to Europe. But more importantly, what you’re envisioning seems to be a world where robots do everything for us, and nobody has to pay for the robots. That’s a nonstarter, unless you have a nightmarish vision of a government taking care of people cradle to grave like we were babes in the womb.