> On the one hand, if those scraps are enough to live on (and educate my children and so on), it's fine with me because it's enough.
That's a pretty sad state of affairs though. Constant "revenue optimization" means it's almost guaranteed that scraps will be less as time goes by. I mean, rich folks can always want more, no?
The issue isn't with "we have scraps" but the 1% focusing on the 1% and that if you don't have an economic voice, you will eventually lose all of your remaining scraps and your rights (e.g. Native Americans, Palestinians, etc).
Now you just have to add in privatized military and drone/AI based policing and it starts to look a lot like dystopia.
I doubt we will ever see productivity concentrated in the aristocrat class: people are too lazy, and after a couple of generations it falls down between either a society that encourages rent or a family that isn't rich anymore. However, if when you say "the economy becomes driven by the 1%" you mean "the economy reaches a point where it is funded entirely by the 1%," then I have an interesting thought experiment for you:
You may not know this, but I am the richest man in the world. All economic activity is technically mine, carried out by stewards of my capital. However, I have decided that the most humanitarian approach to this massive responsibility is to let things run their course - I am comfortable on a meager living, so I take no interest. It's not like someone is going to replace me: after all, everyone in the world simply manages my funds, and does their best to earn the right to manage more.
Now, my brother on the other hand - he's a notorious criminal. He owns nothing rightfully, but his famous heists have resulted in a 3% annual decrease in the value of every bank account in the world; and even worse, the multitude of shots fired in the ensuing high-speed chases have done the same to essentially every asset.
Congress has decided to close the loopholes my brother has been using to escape justice, but they're fine with me.
Why shouldn't the government lock up a criminal that does so much damage? And what does it have to do with you? Does it matter that he is your brother? Are we supposed to judge you by his actions? Are you saying we are lucky to have a benevolent dictator such as yourself?
I've essentially presented the argument that gets you from either historical materialism or utilitarianism to communism/socialism. Here's the rest, laid out more explicitly:
.1 If my brother and I were one person, it would go from illegal to legal but nobody's balance sheets would change.
.2A (use this one if you like historical materialism) Laws and ethical notions are constructed because of balance sheets. Why, then, don't we change the law so that the apparently arbitrary distinction goes away?
.2B (use this one if you like utilitarianism) There's no basis for law beyond utility, and it's obvious that both cases have the same result. Therefore, there's no basis for a legal distinction.
I've never figured how to get out of this argument, except by making private property a fundamental right. That sounds a lot like objectivism, though.
> If that's the case why would the 99% allow such an economy to be built?
Allow? I'm pretty sure they don't need to allow anything. Media is becoming more potent at manipulating public opinion and the politician with the most donations can afford the best media. Whether his/her actual policies are in the material interest of the 99% voter is irrelevant.
Just note how much of the most recent election hinged on social signifiers instead of economic policy.
On the one hand, if those scraps are enough to live on (and educate my children and so on), it's fine with me because it's enough.
On the other hand, the economy as a whole is so much healthier with vigorous participation by the 99%.
But maybe that's all a fallacy -- if the economy truly becomes driven by the 1%, then maybe there can't be enough for the 99%?