One of your errors is to assume that the increases in productivity that lower prices for everyone are most harmful to the poor. In fact, the poor spend the greatest % of their income on basic necessities of life which you admitted. You assume that deflation due to increases in productivity are causing the poor to lose manual labor jobs and thus impoverishing them. Realize that these poor need to uplift their children with education so their children can be Knowledge Age workers and earn $200,000 a year fresh out of college working for Google.
No you misunderstand me again, I agree with you on that. I`m Austrian Economist, not Keynesian.
What I ment by that is that this is only temporary, and when the crash happens it will be reversed: stocks crash & food prices go up, so either it's postponed indefinitely (which is impossible)
Or you make a system without debt based ponzi schemes, that will achieve this, in a more sustainable and risk free way.
But due to the welfare state financed with debt, many people don't bother to act wisely and get the right kind of STEM fields education. Debt causes the "poor" to become fat and lazy.
And so when the debt collapse comes and the government must cull the fat and lazy, then everyone gets what they deserve.
The amazing aspect of this shift into a Knowledge Age, is that knowledge creation mostly can't be financed. Sure you can dangle a little bit of money in front a programmer and it might entice him to work on a project. But the best ones are going to work on what is interesting as a first and primary consideration. Because they can already earn more $ than they really need to be happy, so it more about choosing work that makes them feel happy.
I could probably say a lot more to make some better points, but I am very sleepy. Try reading my essay which I linked in the prior post.
This is what I was telling you, that wealth is not necessarly opportunity based (we need to help the poor with welfare because they have less oportunity) but rather intelligence based.
So basically 3 futures can exist:
1) 1-2% of the population with IQ over 140, and the wealthiest, will provide the goods & services in the more and more complex economy, the manual labour will be achieved by robots, and the rest of the people 98%, will be on permanent welfare like some freeloaders, in a massive socialist economy
2) The elite will do eugenics, and will wipe out the low IQ people with war,plague or else, and reduce the world population to a very very small level, and only keep the high IQ people alive.
3) The economy will be reset, everybody loses all their money, and we start over, but soon enough the high IQ people will again emerge wealthy even with equal opportunities, and the same shit starts again.
I`d prefer 3) but i think 1) is the most likely outcome unfortunately. I also think that if 1) will become true then it's only a matter of time until the elite will become fed up with so many freeloaders so 1) will become 2) in a matter of years.