What I mean is that much of the wealth of the rich consists of numbers in hard drives, and the value of that wealth is maintained only if more people borrow and spend. Which they can't do if the rich own all of the wealth.
This still doesn't address my point:
o, the rich will own 100% of the wealth and everybody else will pay rent.
Of course, if workers are completely automated out of their jobs by AI and robots, then even that wouldn't be sustainable. Until then, workers can trade in their labor power to pay rent and service their debt borrowing.
Not that I like this decidedly dystopian scenario...
The other thing is that even if the rich "own" all the monetary wealth, workers can still trade with each other, if only through barter.
Finally, I can't see he middle class losing all the equity in their homes. I would think this form of wealth would prevent the "rich" from owning 100% of the wealth.
Still, younger families could easily lose the ability to borrow to buy their own homes, forcing them to rent or to continue to live with their parent. Their only hope of ever owning their own homes might very well be through inheritance. I suppose eventually the rich might enact steep inheritance taxes that would apply to residential homes only in order to force sale of even that modest level of wealth. I can see voters going along with that because at least politicians will continue to pay lip service to white privilege, stopping immigration, preventing abortions, protecting "gun ownership rights" etc.
Again, a very dystopian view of the future.
You need wealth to pay rent. If 100 pct of wealth went to the rich, then you won't have any wealth to pay rent.
You also have no labor power to sell if you're automated out of your job. And the rich won't have anyone to buy their goods because you don't have wealth to buy those goods.