Citrini is Wrong
The latest Citrini memo is a mix of sensationalism, Dunning-Kruger, soft socialism, and ignoring 90% of economic theory to focus on the 10% that makes AI sound like the next Armageddon.
Before going point by point over the key ideas of the memo, I will give a TL;DR.
Citrini does a great job with identifying first-order effects. I believe that's the most valuable part of the research. They go through stuff like payment rails, spending habits, service providers, and other industries in a forward-thinking and ingenious way.
The problem comes afterwards when it treats them like a closed system that can only spiral one way. The biggest missing piece is general equilibrium. When you add second-order effects, a lot of what may seem like doom turns into economic restructuring.
Let's start.
The Consequences of Abundant Intelligence
"The headline numbers were still great. Nominal GDP repeatedly printed mid-to-high single-digit annualized growth. Productivity was booming. Real output per hour rose at rates not seen since the 1950s, driven by AI agents that don’t sleep, take sick days or require health insurance.The owners of compute saw their wealth explode as labor costs vanished. Meanwhile, real wage growth collapsed. Despite the administration’s repeated boasts of record productivity, white-collar workers lost jobs to machines and were forced into lower-paying roles."
62% of U.S. adults invest in stocks, mostly in the SPY, which is mostly tech. If labor costs vanished, equities would go to the moon, and those stocks would be worth a bazillion dollars.
"When cracks began appearing in the consumer economy, economic pundits popularized the phrase “Ghost GDP“: output that shows up in the national accounts but never circulates through the real economy.In every way AI was exceeding expectations, and the market was AI. The only problem…the economy was not.It should have been clear all along that a single GPU cluster in North Dakota generating the output previously attributed to 10,000 white-collar workers in midtown Manhattan is more economic pandemic than economic panacea. The velocity of money flatlined. The human-centric consumer economy, 70% of GDP at the time, withered. We probably could have figured this out sooner if we just asked how much money machines spend on discretionary goods. (Hint: it’s zero.)"
If AI is producing so much output with so little cost, the surplus has to go somewhere. If it goes to the owners of those companies (many being your average Joe with a 401k), then almost everyone will be okay. The rest will supply goods to those owners with spectacular wages as the demand for services would skyrocket , and someone would have to offer them.
"We probably could have figured this out sooner if we just asked how much money machines spend on discretionary goods. (Hint: it’s zero.)"
What? The machines don't own the surplus, the shareholders do. Are you invested in Tesla and NVIDIA through the SPY? Congrats, you have evaded Armageddon. If we were approaching even 1% of this scenario, everyone and their mother would put 50% of their savings into NVIDIA and Micron and live a good life swimming in cash (hint: it won't happen. Neither AI nor robotics is improving this fast).
"AI capabilities improved, companies needed fewer workers, white collar layoffs increased, displaced workers spent less, margin pressure pushed firms to invest more in AI, AI capabilities improved…"
This ignores second-order effects on the economy. It's not much different from saying: "once robotic arms were invented, thousands of workers were fired, crashing the economy."
"It was a negative feedback loop with no natural brake. The human intelligence displacement spiral. White-collar workers saw their earnings power (and, rationally, their spending) structurally impaired. Their incomes were the bedrock of the $13 trillion mortgage market - forcing underwriters to reassess whether prime mortgages are still money good."
As workers are replaced by AI, assuming that increasing profits would be the only outcome is extremely simplistic. There would be either rampant QE, which would inflate the economy with fresh cash, tank interest rates, and facilitate liquidity, or a deflationary wave. Either way, consumers would benefit.
But what about the mortgages?
Two scenarios:
- Some white-collar workers are displaced by AI. No big deal. They'll get another job; it's cyclical unemployment, and the economy goes its way.
- Massive structural AI displacement occurs, and productivity skyrockets because of AI. In that case, the shares that these workers hold after years of working and investing would appreciate enough to give them the liquidity to meet their financial obligations.
The economy will distribute wealth somehow. Ownership in tech companies is widely distributed. Sure, people can't buy OpenAI, but they can buy Nvidia and Google. Like I said, if things were to hit the fan in such an aggressive and, dare I say, unrealistic scenario, it would be obvious to everyone involved what to do to survive financially.
How It Started
"A competent developer working with Claude Code or Codex could now replicate the core functionality of a mid-market SaaS product in weeks... The salesperson had expected to run the same playbook as last year: a 5% annual price increase... They renewed at a 30% discount. That was a good outcome, he said. The 'long-tail of SaaS', like Monday.com, Zapier and Asana, had it much worse."
If anything, this would represent the healthy, necessary elimination of unearned economic rents. For years, operating in an environment flooded with artificially cheap capital, enterprise software companies functioned as bloated quasi-monopolies. They were accustomed to dictating automatic annual price hikes for products that AI now makes easy to replicate. AI is simply lowering the barrier to entry and acting as a ruthless competitor, driving the cost of software down toward its true marginal cost of production.
This 30% discount is not wealth destroyed; it is wealth transferred away from inefficient incumbents and back to the broader productive economy. The enterprise now has 30% more capital to allocate toward actual innovation, capital accumulation, or lowering prices for its own consumers, rather than paying an unjustified toll to a legacy software vendor.
"Incumbents were in a race to the bottom on pricing - a knife-fight with both each other and with the new crop of upstart challengers... The interconnected nature of these systems weren’t fully appreciated until this print, either. ServiceNow sold seats. When Fortune 500 clients cut 15% of their workforce, they cancelled 15% of their licenses. The same AI-driven headcount reductions that were boosting margins at their customers were mechanically destroying their own revenue base."
What the text disparagingly calls a "race to the bottom" is the fundamental mechanism of human progress in capitalism: aggressive price competition that violently benefits the end user.
Fortune 500 companies were hoarding labor and paying for thousands of redundant software licenses because the prevailing macroeconomic environment did not adequately penalize inefficiency. The capital previously wasted on servicing unnecessary software and sustaining unproductive administrative roles is now liberated to be deployed where it is actually needed.
"With stocks down 40-60% and boards demanding answers, the AI-threatened companies did the only thing they could. Cut headcount, redeploy the savings into AI tools, use those tools to maintain output with lower costs.Each company’s individual response was rational. The collective result was catastrophic. Every dollar saved on headcount flowed into AI capability that made the next round of job cuts possible."
This is trying to spin an industry-specific shift into a shockwave of broad economic implications, which it isn't. Think of software engineers as scribes from the 18th century. Sure, 99% of them will disappear. Did that crash any economy? It didn't. The same applies to farm workers or factory line production workers. Because being a software engineer yields a lower ROIC (on the engineering degree), people will pursue other professions that are more profitable. It's not the end of the world, and it'll be much more gradual and natural than what this catastrophist memo implies.
If every company cuts overhead and reinvests those savings into better capital equipment (AI tools), the aggregate result is a massive surge in total societal output and a dramatic drop in the real cost of living. The dollars saved on headcount do not evaporate into the ether; they are deployed to build superior capital goods, which in turn produce drastically cheaper consumer goods and services.
"Even places we thought insulated by the value of human relationships proved fragile. Real estate, where buyers had tolerated 5-6% commissions for decades because of information asymmetry between agent and consumer, crumbled once AI agents equipped with MLS access and decades of transaction data could replicate the knowledge base instantly."
The real estate agent's work is to show you around the house with a smile, making sure you don't break anything. Just a small point, but it's a small example of how human interactions will keep being necessary (unless you employ a humanoid robot).
When Friction Went to Zero
Honestly, there isn't much to comment about in "When Friction Went to Zero". No, the economy won't crash because of a lack of financial advisors and Visa. In fact, getting rid of all that would leave people with a higher disposable income, which would be beneficial for everybody.
Cherry-picking first-order effects and ignoring second-order benefits isn't impressive.
"Subscriptions and memberships that passively renewed despite months of disuse. Introductory pricing that sneakily doubled after the trial period. Each one was rebranded as a hostage situation that agents could negotiate. The average customer lifetime value, the metric the entire subscription economy was built on, distinctly declined... successful companies had spent billions to effectively exploit quirks of consumer behavior and human psychology that didn’t matter anymore."
The drop in "customer lifetime value" for these firms is not wealth destroyed; it is wealth successfully retained by the consumer. This capital returns to the real economy, where it can be directed toward genuine savings, capital accumulation, or the consumption of goods that actually satisfy active human desires, rather than merely punishing human forgetfulness.
How Citrini tries to spin that into something negative is true mental gymnastics.
The same can be said about real estate agents and ATMs. No, the economy losing deadweight and becoming more efficient isn't negative.
From Sector Risk to Systemic Risk
"Our January 2027 macro memo argued this was the wrong mental model. The US economy is a white-collar services economy. White-collar workers represented 50% of employment and drove roughly 75% of discretionary consumer spending. The businesses and jobs that AI was chewing up were not tangential to the US economy, they were the US economy."
Imagine a man in the early 20th century writing: "Farmers represented 50% of employment and drove 75% of discretionary consumer spending. The businesses and jobs that tractors were chewing up were not tangential to the US economy; they were the US economy."
This is the lump of labor fallacy , assuming there is only a finite amount of work to be done in the world. The economy is not defined by "white-collar jobs"; it is defined by the continuous satisfaction of infinite human desires.
“Technological innovation destroys jobs and then creates even more”. This was the most popular and convincing counter-argument at the time. It was popular and convincing because it’d been right for two centuries. Even if we couldn’t conceive of what the future jobs would be, they would surely arrive.Every new job, however, required a human to perform it."
What job does a robotic arm, a printing press, or a tractor create? Maybe 1% of the jobs that they "destroy". This is Ludditism masquerading as intellectualism.
"AI is now a general intelligence that improves at the very tasks humans would redeploy to. Displaced coders cannot simply move to “AI management” because AI is already capable of that."
This is like saying: "A scribe can't move to printing press management because a printing press doesn't need to write." Why the singular focus on software as if these human workers couldn't possibly adapt to any other industry that the massive surplus AI will expectedly generate will benefit?
"They write essentially all code. The highest performing of them are substantially smarter than almost all humans at almost all things. And they keep getting cheaper.AI has created new jobs. Prompt engineers. AI safety researchers. Infrastructure technicians. Humans are still in the loop, coordinating at the highest level or directing for taste. For every new role AI created, though, it rendered dozens obsolete. The new roles paid a fraction of what the old ones did."
This is quite literally false. Go tell all the engineers working at NVIDIA that "the new roles paid a fraction of what the old ones did." Citrini themselves are proof that new roles don't pay any less. They use AI to increase their productivity in their articles, including AI-generated images, and thanks to that they can put out more content and even hire writers, therefore creating jobs.
"White-collar openings were collapsing while blue-collar openings remained relatively stable (construction, healthcare, trades). The churn was in the jobs that write memos (we are, somehow, still in business), approve budgets, and keep the middle layers of the economy lubricated. Real wage growth in both cohorts, however, had been negative for the majority of the year and kept declining."
This makes absolutely zero sense. AI is creating trillions in surplus, we need data centers in the millions, and somehow real wage growth is going down, even in blue-collar jobs. That contradiction was never explained in any part of the memo, just mentioned, and understandably so because it can't be sustained.
"AI got better and cheaper. Companies laid off workers, then used the savings to buy more AI capability, which let them lay off more workers. Displaced workers spent less. Companies that sell things to consumers sold fewer of them, weakened, and invested more in AI to protect margins. AI got better and cheaper."
Where is the surplus going?
If the US hasn't gone full communist, it goes to shareholders. Then Americans would be celebrating because everyone has access to a brokerage and everyone would be rich as hell. Again, second-order effects. It's macroeconomics 101.
Citrini accidentally describes a utopian explosion of economic productivity as a crisis. The author is trapped in a Keynesian paradigm, obsessing over "falling aggregate demand" (measured in nominal fiat terms) while explicitly acknowledging that companies are radically shrinking their operating costs while maintaining output, which is a dream scenario in any economy.
If overall corporate spending shrinks because production costs collapse to near zero, the result is massive price deflation. Companies competing for market share will pass these savings onto consumers. The "displaced workers" who are allegedly spending less nominally will find that their reduced incomes now purchase vastly more goods and services. A feedback loop of constantly falling production costs requires no "natural brake" because making society’s standard of living cheaper to maintain is the exact opposite of an economic problem. The obsession with sustaining high nominal spending blinds the author to the explosion of real wealth occurring right in front of them.
"India was the inverse. The country’s IT services sector exported over $200 billion annually... But the marginal cost of an AI coding agent had collapsed to, essentially, the cost of electricity... The engine that caused the disruption got better every quarter, which meant the disruption accelerated every quarter... We were asking what happens to a consumer-credit economy when consumers are being replaced with machines."
The collapse of India’s IT outsourcing monopoly is a painful but necessary market adjustment based on shifting comparative advantage. If a service that previously cost $200 billion can now be performed for the cost of electricity, global consumers have just been handed nearly $200 billion in real savings to deploy elsewhere. That is good for the economy when you take off the glasses of doom.
The Intelligence Displacement Spiral
"Displaced white-collar workers did not sit idle. They downshifted. Many took lower-paying service sector and gig economy jobs, which increased labor supply in those segments and compressed wages there too."
Right, because there isn't anything apart from white collar that is high-paid. Once you need to expand data centers massively because of the tremendous ROIC, there couldn't possibly be construction-related and other manufacturing jobs created that a worker could possibly transition to or a student could pursue.
There's a massive surplus in the economy and somehow it just stays in shareholders' brokerages and doesn't escape it. No one benefits from massive data center buildouts (may I remind you NVIDIA racks are still assembled by hand in big 2026), no one benefits from all the massive energy deployments, grid developments, raw material needs, data center constructors... Nope, money magically goes away and the data centers just appear out of nowhere.
"A friend of ours was a senior product manager at Salesforce in 2025. Title, health insurance, 401k, $180,000 a year. She lost her job in the third round of layoffs. After six months of searching, she started driving for Uber. Her earnings dropped to $45,000."
The $180,000 salary for a mid-level manager was likely an artifact of the credit-fueled tech boom, a price signal distorted by cheap money. The drop to $45,000 is the discovery of the true market value of labor in a post-scarcity intelligence world.
Furthermore, Citrini, yet again, ignores second-order effects on the economy.
If a company can now operate without that $180,000 expense, it has $135,000 of liberated capital. That capital is either reinvested (creating demand for different, more productive jobs), paid out to shareholders (who then invest or consume), or used to lower prices for customers. The "wage compression" in the service sector also means the cost of services falls. If your Uber ride, your food delivery, and your home repairs become 40% cheaper because of this labor influx, the real wages of everyone else in the economy increase, even if their nominal paychecks stay flat.
"By February 2027, it was clear that still employed professionals were spending like they might be next. They were working twice as hard (mostly with the help of AI) just to not get fired, hopes of promotion or raises were gone. Savings rates ticked higher and spending softened."
Again, acting as if the whole economy were just about white-collar workers. Could you imagine how productive the economy could become if we really removed 99% of managers, advisers, and administrative workers? It'd be wonderful. Companies could reduce their prices so much, and we would all become so much richer. Suddenly your $500k in savings would double in real value, you'd demand much more goods and services, therefore generating new jobs in the economy. The economy would find a way. People are smart, jobs will be created, and in fact, we'd be wealthier than ever.
"The top 10% of earners account for more than 50% of all consumer spending... They are the demand base for the entire consumer discretionary economy. When these workers lost their jobs... the consumption hit was enormous... By Q2 2027, the economy was in recession... we’d had two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth."
This analysis suffers from the fundamental "demand-side" fallacy: the belief that consumption drives economic growth. It treats money spent on vacations, renovations, and luxury cars as the engine of prosperity, rather than the destruction of it. Consumption is the result of production, not the cause.
If the top 10% curb their spending to preserve savings, that capital does not vanish. It is redirected through the banking system (or financial markets) into investment. The "recession" described here, defined by falling GDP, is merely a contraction in monetary turnover, not necessarily a contraction in real wealth. If AI produces goods and services more cheaply, nominal GDP can fall while the standard of living rises. A society where high earners stop buying overpriced luxury goods and instead hoard capital is a society that is recapitalizing itself, not destroying itself. The pain felt by the luxury sector is the necessary realignment of resources away from bubble-era excesses.
"The most dangerous part was the lag... The hard data didn’t confirm the problem until it was already old news in the real economy... The S&P dropped 6% over the following week."
The obsession with "lagged data" and stock market drops is just a confusion between the financial economy and the real economy. The stock market correction and the "recession" are not the disaster; they are the cure. The disaster was the preceding period of false prosperity where resources were misallocated into sustaining bloated white-collar hierarchies that produced less value than they consumed.
The lag is simply the time it takes for the illusion of wealth to dissipate.
The Daisy Chain of Correlated Bets
"As many public SaaS companies traded to 5-8x EBITDA, PE-backed software companies sat on balance sheets at marks reflecting acquisition valuations on multiples of revenue that didn’t exist anymore. Managers eased the marks down gradually, 100 cents, 92, 85, all while public comps said 50.MOODY’S DOWNGRADES $18B OF PE-BACKED SOFTWARE DEBT ACROSS 14 ISSUERS, CITING ‘SECULAR REVENUE HEADWINDS FROM AI-DRIVEN COMPETITIVE DISRUPTION’; LARGEST SINGLE-SECTOR ACTION SINCE ENERGY IN 2015 | Moody’s Investors Service, April 2027Everyone remembers what happened after the downgrade. Industry veterans had already seen the playbook following the 2015 energy downgrades.Software-backed loans began defaulting in Q3 2027. PE portfolio companies in information services and consulting followed. Several multi-billion dollar LBOs of well-known SaaS companies entered restructuring."
I agree SaaS is a long-term zero. I disagree on it having such a huge impact on the overall private capital economy. It won't happen as fast as Citrini suggests, creditors would adapt gradually, and sure, there could be losses, bankruptcies, and huge balance sheet hits, but nothing more destructive than the bankruptcies we saw through the 2000s. We've already seen industry bubbles burst; it wasn't devastating. Software today isn't even half as important for the economy as the internet was in 1999, valuations-wise. Today, semiconductors and AI-related industries dominate. That's the true bubble that could burst and be devastating, not legacy software (and I don't think AI is a bubble at all).
"The US residential mortgage market is approximately $13 trillion. Mortgage underwriting is built on the fundamental assumption that the borrower will remain employed at roughly their current income level... The white-collar employment crisis has threatened this assumption with a sustained shift in income expectations... The world just…changed after the loans were written. People borrowed against a future they can no longer afford to believe in."
This is a simplistic view of the housing market, looking exclusively at nominal incomes while deliberately ignoring the purchasing power of those incomes. If AI triggers a massive deflationary wave in the cost of goods and services, which the text itself implies by highlighting how cheap production becomes, the real value of a diminished nominal salary actually increases. Furthermore, if housing prices must adjust downward by 10% or 20% to reflect new economic realities, this is not an inherent systemic flaw; it is the market efficiently clearing.
Citrini assumes that any correction in asset prices inevitably leads to a catastrophic doom loop, failing to recognize that liquidating overpriced assets allows them to be transferred to stronger hands at realistic valuations. The true danger is not the price drop itself, but the potential for institutional intervention to artificially prop up prices and prevent this necessary clearing process. Over the long term, the economy reaches a new equilibrium, this time much more favorable for consumers.
"The 'permanent capital' that was supposed to make the system resilient was not some abstract pool... It was the savings of American households... The spider web of different firms linked to different balance sheets was stunning in its opacity... genuinely unanswerable in real time."
Citrini incorrectly blames the complex architecture of private credit and reinsurance for the system's fragility. The use of offshore SPVs and affiliated reinsurers is largely a rational market response to overbearing, rigid regulatory environments, seeking efficient ways to allocate capital.
The fragility does not stem from the "spider web" of contracts or the opacity of the market. It stems entirely from the initial, artificial suppression of interest rates that made highly leveraged, long-duration software buyouts appear viable in the first place.
The text treats the symptom, the complex financial engineering designed to chase yield in a low-rate environment, as the disease. When investments lack a backing of genuine savings, they will fail regardless of whether they are held by a transparent local bank or a highly opaque offshore entity.
"The Intelligence Displacement Spiral now has two financial accelerants to the real economy’s decline. Labor displacement, mortgage concerns, private market turmoil. Each reinforces the other... the real economy engine is not driven by tight financial conditions. It’s driven by AI making human intelligence less scarce and less valuable."
This is the most glaring analytical error in the text: confusing a positive supply shock with an economic depression.
Abundance does not impoverish a society. Citrini assumes that because a specific financial superstructure could collapse, the real economy must also be declining. In reality, the financial turmoil is simply the accounting mechanism catching up to the truth. The real economy is being drastically enhanced by AI, producing drastically more with less. The "doom loop" described is merely the painful, but strictly necessary, process of discarding obsolete capital structures and mispriced debt to make way for a far more productive reality.
The Battle Against Time
"The federal government’s revenue base is essentially a tax on human time. People work, firms pay them, the government takes a cut... The output is still there. But it’s no longer routing through households on the way back to firms, which means it’s no longer routing through the IRS either. The circular flow is breaking, and the government is expected to step in to fix that."
This entire premise assumes that the current size and funding structure of the state is a natural law that must be preserved at all costs.
Soft socialism.
The drop in income tax receipts would be a mechanical reality of a shifting economy. Citrini assumes the government must step in to "fix" a broken circular flow, failing to recognize that the state itself is not a productive participant in that flow, it merely extracts from it.
If the structural nature of employment changes and state revenues fall, the logical response is for the state to shrink its expenditures to match the new reality. Instead, the narrative treats government revenues as the supreme priority, completely ignoring that the "output is still there." If the output is being generated far more efficiently, the real wealth of society is expanding. The problem is not that wealth is disappearing, but simply that the state is finding it harder to confiscate it.
"The government needs to transfer more money to households at precisely the moment it is collecting less money from them in taxes... The administration... began entertaining bipartisan proposals for what they’re calling the 'Transition Economy Act': a framework for direct transfers to displaced workers funded by a combination of deficit spending and a proposed tax on AI inference compute."
Another static, interventionist view of the economy. Proposing a tax on "AI inference compute" to fund deficit-driven transfers is a recipe for economic stagnation. Capital is what drives productivity, and taxing the very computational engine that is drastically lowering the cost of goods and services will only starve the economy of the capital accumulation necessary to create a new equilibrium.
Citrini is quite literally wanting to exchange the cure for scarcity for economic poison.
Deficit spending to paper over structural shifts only consumes the savings pool, crowding out the private investment needed to build new industries. By penalizing the most productive sector of the economy to subsidize displaced workers to remain idle, the government actively prevents the labor market from clearing and adapting. This does not solve displacement; it subsidizes and prolongs it.
"The Occupy Silicon Valley movement has been emblematic of wider dissatisfaction... Their founders and early investors have accumulated wealth at a pace that makes the Gilded Age look tame. The gains from the productivity boom accruing almost entirely to the owners of compute and the shareholders of the labs that ran on it has magnified US inequality to unprecedented levels."
This displays a profound misunderstanding of how profits function in a market.
The massive wealth accumulated by the founders of these AI labs is not stolen from the public; it is the reward for creating a technology that massively increases societal output.
Again, Citrini is showing their embedded socialism. They believe capitalism is broken and that the state should come fix it. Karl Marx would probably have 10,000 paid subscribers on Substack in 2026.
High profit margins are a temporary market signal that these companies are exceptionally successful at satisfying consumer demands.
However, in a competitive market, these extraordinary profits are not permanent. As compute capacity scales and open-source models proliferate, competition will inevitably drive the cost of intelligence down toward its marginal cost of production.
As Jensen says, the long-term cost of AI is the marginal cost of electricity.
The ultimate beneficiaries of this process are not the lab shareholders, but the consumers, who will enjoy a massive deflationary wave that makes previously expensive services, like legal, financial, and administrative work, practically free. Focusing on nominal wealth inequality ignores the far more important equalization of purchasing power and living standards that comes from extreme technological abundance.
The Intelligence Premium Unwind
"This is the first time in history the most productive asset in the economy has produced fewer, not more, jobs. Nobody’s framework fits, because none were designed for a world where the scarce input became abundant. So we have to make new frameworks."
Another Luddite fallacy repackaged for the 21st century.
The assertion that "nobody's framework fits" completely ignores the fundamental reality of human action: human desires are infinite. When a new technology makes a formerly scarce input (cognitive labor) abundant, it does not mean humans run out of things to do.
It simply means that the labor and capital previously tied up in middle-management or rote cognitive tasks are now freed to be deployed toward satisfying other, previously unmet human desires that were formerly too expensive to pursue.
I know it can be hard to comprehend. As I said, economics isn't intuitive, and the most destructive ideas are usually a derivative of trying to apply intuition, instead of analysis, to it.
If intelligence becomes as cheap as electricity, entirely new industries, services, and human-centric roles will emerge that we currently cannot imagine because they are economically unviable today.
It's hard to imagine because it hasn't happened yet, just like the internet would be impossible to imagine in the medieval ages, but it's going to happen.
The "new framework" we need is not a top-down, state-managed distribution scheme, but the exact opposite: radically flexible markets, unhampered prices, and deregulation that allows human labor to pivot rapidly to the new, highly productive avenues this technology opens up.
Wrapping Up
In summary, Citrini's piece is what happens when Keynesian analysts with touches of socialism are placed in front of a technological revolution: fear and a prayer for state interventionism.
