Instead of a universal productivity boom, AI will eliminate repetitive white-collar jobs. This will shrink the consumer base, reducing overall demand and creating a powerful deflationary force, further entrenching a feudal economic structure with fewer 'lords' and more 'serfs.'

The U.S. economy is entering an 'efficiency era' where AI-driven productivity allows GDP to grow without a proportional increase in jobs. This structural decoupling makes traditional economic health assessments obsolete and fuels recession fears.

Widespread AI-driven job loss will reduce consumer spending. In response, businesses will be forced to cut costs further by accelerating AI adoption, which in turn leads to more job losses and even lower consumption, creating a vicious cycle.

The assumption that AI will create trillions in corporate profit overlooks a key economic reality: only 1% of global GDP is profit above the cost of capital. Intense competition in AI will likely drive prices down, meaning the vast majority of economic benefits will be passed to consumers, not captured by a few monopolistic companies.

A paradox of powerful AI is that it can be 'GDP-destroying.' When AI substitutes for a service you would have paid for (e.g., hiring a contractor), it creates immense personal value but removes a transaction from the economy. This makes GDP a poor metric for AI's true economic contribution, which may be understated.

The Citrini essay posits that as firms replace labor with AI, spending shifts from wages (fueling consumption) to data centers. This inflates GDP metrics without creating broad economic circulation, resulting in a hollowed-out 'ghost GDP' that doesn't reflect real consumer health.

For current AI valuations to be realized, AI must deliver unprecedented efficiency, likely causing mass job displacement. This would disrupt the consumer economy that supports these companies, creating a fundamental contradiction where the condition for success undermines the system itself.

The US economy is currently experiencing near-zero job growth despite typical 2% productivity gains. A significant increase in productivity driven by AI, without a corresponding surge in economic output, could paradoxically lead to outright job losses. This creates a scenario where positive productivity news could have negative employment consequences.

Even if AI drives productivity, it may not fuel broad economic growth. The benefits are expected to be narrowly distributed, boosting stock values for the wealthy rather than wages for the average worker. This wealth effect has diminishing returns and won't offset weaker spending from the middle class.