Raw LLM Responses

EXACTLY. It's amazed me that this has gone so un-talked-about. We talk all the time about one function of an economy: the production of wealth. We measure it, we report it, we wring our hands over it - it's on everyone's mind. But... economies have a second, equally important purpose - they need to bring about some sort at least reasonably fair and reasonably widespread distribution of spending power. Otherwise, your title nails it. The economy WON'T RUN if no one has the resources necessary to buy stuff. Just imagine an ENTIRELY automated economy. We're nowhere close to that yet, of course, but you can IMAGINE it. That's something which, in theory, could be owned by a single person. But if it's a thousand people instead of one it doesn't change the basic situation - everyone else has no ability to drive consumption. Obviously, SOMETHING will give, because people aren't just going to shrug and say "Oh well, I guess the family and I will just have to starve now." They're going to find a way. And if it's not a way the socioeconomic structure offers and supports, it will be one they don't. Crime at first, and ultimately, revolution (which you can think of as crime that becomes to total that it just ends the prevailing system). So, this has to be dealt with at some point. We may "technology" ourselves into having something like universal basic income becoming our only viable option. And that is such a lower quality solution - just GIVING people their money completely short circuits them getting to have their jobs be part of their fulfillment and self-esteem. It solves the economic problem, but doesn't necessarily solve all of the social problems. So, we need to be thinking about this. I don't know what the right answer is, but if we think about it and talk about it (which includes letting other people push forward opinions you don't agree with), I have no doubt we're capable of finding an answer.