We use cookies where necessary to allow us to understand how people interact with our website and content, so that we can continue to improve our service.
We only ever receive anonymous information, and cannot track you across other websites.
View our privacy policy
Will AI make us all richer and more productive, or steal our jobs and impoverish us? The Industrial Revolution gives us clues about what could be about to happen.
This is an AI-written (but human-edited) summary of Gary’s recent video: Will AI destroy the economy?
Gary opens the video with a question that has been circling in public debate for the past two years: will artificial intelligence make ordinary people richer and more productive, or will it steal their jobs and leave them worse off? His answer, characteristically, is that neither of the dominant narratives is quite right — and that the past has already given us the evidence we need to work out what is actually going to happen.
The guide he reaches for is the Industrial Revolution.
Gary begins by laying out the two competing positions. The optimists argue that AI will increase productivity across the economy, raise wages, free workers from drudgery, and generate a general rise in living standards. The pessimists — the modern-day Luddites — argue that AI will automate jobs out of existence, depress wages, and concentrate wealth in the hands of whoever owns the technology.
We can stop growing wealth inequality.
Gary is not dismissive of either position. He takes them both seriously and walks through the economic logic behind each one. The optimists are right that productivity growth can, in theory, translate into higher wages. But as Gary points out, this outcome is not automatic. It depends entirely on who captures the gains from increased output. And on that question, he argues, economics has a clear historical record.
The Luddites, Gary explains, are routinely mocked as ignorant reactionaries who failed to understand progress. In reality, their concerns were economically coherent. When the textile machinery of the early nineteenth century automated weaving, it did not immediately improve the lives of working people. Wages stagnated. Children worked in factories. The quality of life for ordinary workers declined before it improved. The Luddites were not confused about technology. They were angry about distribution.
This, Gary argues, is the part of the Industrial Revolution story that is usually left out. The machines themselves were not the enemy. The problem was that the productivity gains flowed almost entirely to factory owners and capital holders for several generations, while workers bore the costs of disruption. It was only after workers organised — through trade unions, through political movements, through campaigns for universal suffrage and labour law reform — that wages began to rise and living standards improved.
The technology created the conditions for prosperity. But prosperity did not follow automatically. It had to be fought for.
We can stop growing wealth inequality.
Gary spends considerable time on the question of who actually captured the gains from industrialisation. The answer, he argues, is straightforward: capital owners did, at least initially. The men who owned the mills, the factories, and the machines accumulated enormous wealth. Workers, whose labour made the machines productive, received a fraction of what they produced.
This was not an accident or an oversight. It was the structural outcome of a system in which the ownership of the means of production sat with a small class while the majority had only their labour to sell. When the machines made each worker more productive, that additional productivity showed up in profits, not wages. For wages to rise, something had to change in the balance of power — and what changed was collective action.
The parallel Gary draws to the present is deliberate and uncomfortable. We are at the beginning of a technological revolution whose scale rivals or exceeds the original Industrial Revolution. The companies that own the AI models, the data centres, and the computational infrastructure are accumulating wealth at extraordinary speed. The workers whose jobs are being automated have, so far, received very little in return.
Gary introduces Henry Ford not as a hero but as an illustration of a structural problem. Ford famously paid his workers unusually high wages — not, Gary argues, out of generosity, but because he understood that his workers were also his customers. If he paid them nothing, they could not afford to buy his cars. The productivity gains from his assembly line would mean nothing if there was no purchasing power in the economy to absorb the output.
This is what Gary calls the customer problem: the economy depends on people having money to spend. When productivity rises but wages don’t, you get an economy that can produce more but has fewer and fewer people with the resources to buy what it produces. The result is not growth but stagnation — exactly the kind of low-demand, low-rate environment that Gary spent his trading career analysing and betting on.
AI, Gary argues, risks accelerating this dynamic. If AI reduces the need for human labour without a corresponding mechanism for distributing the resulting productivity gains, the economy will produce more and more with less and less purchasing power. The rich will get richer. Everyone else will get poorer. Demand will fall. Growth will stall. It is the same story he has been telling about inequality since 2008, and AI, without intervention, will make it worse.
The critical question the video turns on is deceptively simple: when AI makes a worker or a business more productive, who captures that gain? Gary’s answer, rooted in his analysis of how the current economy distributes income, is that without deliberate intervention, the answer will be the owners of capital, not the workers whose jobs have been displaced.
He is not fatalistic about this. He points out that the same was true of the Industrial Revolution — and yet workers eventually won a larger share. The reason they won it was not that the technology became fairer on its own. It was that ordinary people built political and economic power sufficient to demand redistribution. They organised. They voted. They struck. They changed the laws.
The question for the AI era is whether that process can happen fast enough, and whether the political will exists to direct it.
This is perhaps the most surprising part of the video. Gary, who has built his channel on describing the economic crisis that most public figures refuse to acknowledge, ends with something close to optimism.
His argument is not that things will automatically improve. It is that AI, in principle, represents an opportunity of historic proportions. The technology can reduce the amount of human labour required to sustain a given standard of living. It can free people from drudge work. It can generate abundance. The question is not whether the technology can do these things — it is whether the political economy will allow ordinary people to share in the results.
Gary’s position is that the same collective action that won workers higher wages during and after the Industrial Revolution can work again. The old tools still apply: political organisation, wealth taxation, redistribution of the gains from productivity. The scale of the challenge is larger. But the nature of the solution is the same.
Gary closes with a call to action that mirrors the register he uses throughout his campaign. The outcome of the AI revolution, he argues, is not predetermined. History does not automatically favour working people, but it does not automatically favour capital either. What determines the outcome is who organises, who builds political power, and who has the courage to demand that productivity gains be shared.
The Industrial Revolution ended, eventually, in higher living standards for most people — not because the technology made it inevitable, but because millions of ordinary people refused to accept that the gains should flow only to a small class of owners. The same fight is available now. The same result is achievable. But only if the people who will bear the costs of disruption understand what is happening and act accordingly.
That, Gary says, is why the channel exists.