Elon Musk’s vision of abundance may face its greatest obstacle not in technology, but in politics. At the World Economic Forum in Davos on 22 January 2026, Musk described artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics as “the path to abundance for all”, arguing that they could alleviate poverty and give everyone a very high standard of living. AI, robotics and new energy technologies could take humanity’s productive capacity to levels never seen before. Yet, assuming that this transformation will automatically lead to an “age of abundance” overlooks a fundamental question. I broadly agree with Elon Musk’s vision that technology could allow humanity to transcend traditional limits on production. But there is an important distinction. Technological abundance does not necessarily mean social abundance. Technology alone cannot determine who owns the abundance it creates. The question is not how much we can produce AI could take over a significant share of cognitive work. Robots could replace human labour across large parts of physical production, and advances in energy technology could dramatically reduce the cost of production. Under such a scenario, the world could produce far more goods and services than it does today. A more difficult economic question is who will own that production. Who owns the robots? Who owns the AI models? Who owns the data centres and energy infrastructure? Who controls the production platforms? And how will the economic value they create be distributed? Technology may create abundance, but technology cannot decide who owns it, who controls it or who gets to benefit from it. Abundance does not end with production Technology may reduce some traditional forms of scarcity without eliminating scarcity itself. Production may become cheaper. access to information may become more widespread, the need for human labour may decline and energy costs may fall. At the same time, ownership of capital, land, strategic minerals, semiconductor manufacturing, energy infrastructure and advanced technological systems could become even more important. That could create one of the great economic paradoxes of the future. The cheaper production becomes, the more valuable ownership may become. As machines produce more, ownership of the means of production could therefore become increasingly valuable. The real test may lie with lawmakers If AI and robotics transform labour markets on a massive scale, today’s tax and social security systems may also have to be reconsidered. Modern economies rely heavily on human labour, wages, income taxes, social security contributions and employment. What happens if the economic importance of human labour declines dramatically? How will governments collect tax revenue? How will social security systems be financed? How will the economic value created by AI and robots be taxed? And how will governments respond if technological power becomes concentrated among a small number of companies or investors? These are questions that technology itself cannot answer. Lawmakers will have to. Technological possibility and political outcomes This is not an argument against Elon Musk or against technological progress; it is quite the opposite. AI making knowledge more accessible, robotics transforming production and new energy technologies making energy more abundant could represent extraordinary opportunities for humanity. But technological possibility does not automatically translate into a particular political outcome. Musk may be right about the technology. I am not convinced that political decisions will ensure its benefits are shared by everyone. The new scarcity of power Even if technological abundance becomes possible on a global scale, economic and geopolitical competition between countries is unlikely to disappear. AI, semiconductors, energy, robotics, data centres and critical minerals are likely to remain strategically important resources. Technology may therefore reduce one form of scarcity while making another more important. Economic scarcity may decline while competition for strategic power remains. And perhaps the most important economic question of the future will be whether humanity can produce enough. Musk’s vision offers a powerful possibility that the answer may eventually be yes, but there is another question. If we can produce enough, will everyone actually be able to benefit from it? Who benefits from abundance The world envisioned by Musk may become technologically possible. Robots may work, AI may dramatically reduce the cost of knowledge and cognitive labour and energy may become cheaper. Production may reach levels never before seen in human history. But if machines can produce enough for everyone, why would everyone necessarily become wealthy? Perhaps humanity’s final economic problem will not be producing enough, but determining who owns the abundance, how it is taxed and how it is distributed. The answers to those questions will not come from AI or robots. They will come from lawmakers. Technology may make the age of abundance possible. Politics will determine who benefits from it. Sertan Ayçiçek is chairman of Switzerland-based Royal Funds.
