I documented in the thread from which those quotes originate. You can click the link on a quote to go to thread (and post) where it comes from.
Specifically a recent Oxford study predicts 45% of all existing jobs will be lost to automation by 2033. This confirms we are in a period of radical technological unemployment. This appears to happen every 78 years. The difference is this time we are all tied together in socialism by central banks. You can re-read my quotes from the prior post to weigh the gravity of this thud of a realization.
If you are arguing that automation will lead to long-term unemployment, I think you are wrong. Authors have written extensively on this subject since the 1900s (and perhaps earlier). Many were worried that machines would replace men. What we have seen is that automation simply results in higher efficiency and unforseen job opportunities on the automation side. This seems obvious to me, so you must be arguing something else despite what I'm reading here.
He is arguing something else. He is arguing that collectivism is nearing the point where it causes general economic collapse. Furthermore he is arguing that when such a collapse occurs the populace will demand yet more collectivism in tragic feedback loop.
Could the counterargument be that capital seeking collectivism (i.e. not open source collectivism) requires capital to be immobile and easy to seize, and that we now have systems to keep capital extremely mobile and difficult to seize? I.e. used to be that to have a lot of capital, you either stored it in a bank or property, both of which are difficult to move and easy to seize, while now we can store a lot of capital in digital currencies, and those who own it can't simply have it taken from them, and can easily move around the world undetected if they need to.