Pretty soon now, machines, computers, robots will be able to do everything human workers can do, including hard stuff like medical diagnosis. (A computer beat the human chess champion and a different computer beat the best Jeopardy players in the world.)
So why should the owners of the robots have their robots produce anything for former working class people who no longer have any work of value to trade for food and fidget spinners? They might as well have the robots harvest just enough raw materials to make the stuff the robot-owning population wants, and let all the worthless non-robot owners starve.
That seems inhumane.
Or we can set up a game where every turn, the dealer hands out a certain amount of game dollars to every player. The players who don't own robots can spend their money buying things from the robot owners. The robot owners will amass a great deal of game dollars that they can spend on necessities and luxuries, maintenance of their robots, and newer, better robots, all of which they purchase with game dollars from other robot owners. Every turn, the dealer distributes more game dollars that comes from . . . thin air. It's not backed up by gold or units of work or anything. It's just for keeping score.
Some top robot owners, perhaps the owners of robots that make other robots, will collect huge amounts of game dollars, far more than they can spend. Chances are, they will still play the game, and collect as many surplus game dollars as they can just because it makes them feel like they are winning.
Maybe every trillion surplus dollars can be traded for a special medallion that conveys a certain level of status. At the end of the game, the one with the most medallions wins. (Hint: the game may never end.)
This suggested game to replace traditional capitalism took about ten minutes to invent. I'm sure game theory mathematicians could come up with a more rigorous game if they thought about it for say, eleven minutes.
= new reply since forum marked as read