This happens to varying levels during most economic crises. Basically it results in contraction of the economy as companies cut expenses, I.e. wages. Usually there is some consolidation so that fewer, stronger firms can survive the downturn.
Then things get better.
If it happens gradually, then some will go out of business while others will modify the ordering to appeal to those with money. If it happens suddenly that people don’t have money to spend, then governments will try to bail them out with public money, thus accelerating the public’s descent into poverty and then some will go out of business while others will modify the offering, etc.
But the thing is, people who have the financial power or political influence to prevent common people from going into poverty don’t stand to loose from this collapse. People with power and money increase their power and money both when thighs go well and when they go bad. Unfortunately more so when they go bad.
Unless, of course, the French Revolution happens.
Unless, of course, the French Revolution happens.
Unfortunately I think the only sort of revolution any country in the “West” is likely to see in the near future is a fascist one. Things haven’t been going too great for the past N+1 years, so morons are flocking to the extreme right in droves because they promise easy solutions to complex problems – namely murderizing the fuck out of anyone who’s not like them
Well, the French Revolution wasn’t really that goes for the people of the time either. It was an extreme event which punished innocents too. The eventual changes in society were the beneficial ones. The same is true about WW2 I guess.
Yeah that’s true, their revolution did fail in many ways and basically just turned into more of the same for a long time
Oh, i see you have stumped onto one of the main inconsistencies of capitalism
