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 AI boom's economic impact extends beyond direct investment. With AI plays driving 80% of stock market gains, a powerful 'wealth effect' is created. This disproportionately benefits the top 10% of earners, who in turn drive the majority of US consumer spending, fueling the broader economy.

For 2026, AI's primary economic effect is fueling demand through massive investment in infrastructure like data centers. The widely expected productivity gains that would lower inflation (the supply-side effect) won't materialize for a few years, creating a short-term inflationary pressure from heightened business spending.

During major platform shifts like AI, it's tempting to project that companies will capture all the value they create. However, competitive forces ensure the vast majority of productivity gains (the "surplus") flows to end-users, not the technology creators.

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 tangible economic effect of the AI boom is currently concentrated in physical capital investment, such as data centers and software, rather than widespread changes in labor productivity or employment. A potential market correction would thus directly threaten this investment-led growth.

Marks questions whether companies will use AI-driven cost savings to boost profit margins or if competition will force them into price wars. If the latter occurs, the primary beneficiaries of AI's efficiency will be customers, not shareholders, limiting the technology's impact on corporate profitability.

The top 10% of US earners now drive nearly half of all consumer spending. This concentration suggests the macro-economy and stock market can remain strong even if AI causes significant unemployment for the other 90%, challenging the assumption that widespread job loss would automatically trigger an economic collapse.

While AI investment has exploded, US productivity has barely risen. Valuations are priced as if a societal transformation is complete, yet 95% of GenAI pilots fail to positively impact company P&Ls. This gap between market expectation and real-world economic benefit creates systemic risk.