But in the 1950s this was solved by doing something new : get everyone and their dog a car. This got us to the 1980s or even the 1990s and is still employing la

But in the 1950s this was solved by doing something new : get everyone and their dog a car. This got us to the 1980s or even the 1990s and is still employing large amounts of people, though not as large as before. After that we're getting everybody "services". Phones, bank accounts, insurance, apps, newsletters, ... that did make life better. That got us jobs until 2000/2001 or so. We just need to find a new "car"/"phone". Something to get for everyone and their dog, that they'd want, ideally with recurring charges, that can't be delivered without employing God knows how many people (ideally something that would improve the more people you employ). Because, whilst I don't subscribe to the positive side of Ayn Rand's philosophy, I do subscribe to the negative side. Having the government redivide wealth from the productive to everyone is something that may soften the short-term impact of unemployment, but in the medium/long term it's a disaster. I even agree that redividing wealth combined with human greed manifesting through corruption will make it impossible to turn back from redividing policies once they reach a certain percentage of the economy, by blocking any and all innovation (because it would require changing the redivision policies, which is too dangerous politically. Much easier to just block, say, autonomous cars. Meanwhile drivers die, or worse, kill others, are away from their families for weeks/months, and don't do anything useful. They're not improving anyone's life by having that job over not having that job. It would pretty much be better for everyone, including them, to just have them sitting at home watching TV. And why ? Because figuring out redividing policies would lead to political infighting, or even real fighting (just watch some European demonstrations by farmers, or students)). I agree that the economy is there so people can live, and live well, not the other way around. But having the private sector do that is almost infinitely preferable over having government redivide wealth. We essentially need to find something new we can and want to do with the economy, that would improve our lives, and require large amounts of people helping to make that happen.