Isn't what you've described capitalism's analog to physics' perpetual motion machine? It just seems that there should be frictions and inefficiencies and equilibriums such that it would require severely anti-capitalist intervention to make it happen.
Now, that's not to say we aren't seeing severely anti-capitalist intervention on a daily basis. A major consulting firm in my state got passed a bill to require consulting software developers to be licensed as engineers, then promptly got themselves exempted from it, claiming their "economic interest" compelled them to secure well-trained engineers, even if they weren't licensed.
But if a single actor has all of the money, then wouldn't the money becomes useless? People need things--shelter, food, clothing--not money. Money is only useful if it is a convenient medium for trading labor for things. And if people can't get the things they need, then wouldn't we all just walk away from the old system.
And if a single actor has all the property, then what's the point if there's nobody to charge rent?
Again, barring severely anti-capitalist intervention, like a government ban on travel.
Now, that's not to say we aren't seeing severely anti-capitalist intervention on a daily basis. A major consulting firm in my state got passed a bill to require consulting software developers to be licensed as engineers, then promptly got themselves exempted from it, claiming their "economic interest" compelled them to secure well-trained engineers, even if they weren't licensed.
But if a single actor has all of the money, then wouldn't the money becomes useless? People need things--shelter, food, clothing--not money. Money is only useful if it is a convenient medium for trading labor for things. And if people can't get the things they need, then wouldn't we all just walk away from the old system.
And if a single actor has all the property, then what's the point if there's nobody to charge rent?
Again, barring severely anti-capitalist intervention, like a government ban on travel.