You forgot studying something conceptually and theoretically for several years without touching it, and then trying it out at the very end a couple of times; expecting everything to unfold near perfect, as you once read in an idealized textbook example somewhere

I can't argue with the trillions of $$$ spent on the bailouts of 2008 and corporate subsidies before & since.

No, I don't think that's necessary. Just say in America, we pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps, this is not a welfare state.. Adam Smith.. QEd. And go on with your merry way. We're already doing it and it's scalable :) Starving, disconnected social outcasts don't make for good revolutionaries; I believe it's all already codified in the Rules for Rulers Playbook

Consumption is used in the expense formula to calculate GDP.

I think corporations can just lay off people, and profit by having greater profit margins distributed between less employees and shareholders.

The government would lose if Consumption falls due to Tax revenue loss. But that too could be overcome if they just start cutting G expenditures and letting unemployed people at the margins just die out. It's not like we do a great job with our homeless population now, even though we have more food than we need to feed everyone AND greater aggregate wealth than the world has ever seen - like 300% per average person in the 1970s, in the West.

The environment is already quite stressed by the massive load of people on the planet, so there are environmental benefits to be had by reducing the global human population.

Also, people are going to be able to live longer, and I don't know how that's going to get paid for, unless we let people go.

It's an interesting argument, but I'm skeptical 🧐

This is not work; this is play.

Interesting argument. Yes, it would be helpful to look at pre-capitalist societies to understand how people managed to live without their vocational incomes being defined as their primary raison d'etre for living.

But if we take your argument further, wouldnt these "Owners" just lawyer up and prevent their market advantages from being diluted? Societies can have massive income inequality and still exist; we've been doing it for melania. Economists couldn't even pass the Tobin Tax on financial speculation, how can you have any faith that something much more substantial could now have any chance of being instituted?