Well the thing is that I think that corporations that behave the way they do now will lose its sense in a world without UBI that doesn't need human labour.

I mean, think about it. Those corporations produce things for consumers.
In a world where human labour isn't needed, only those who control the means of production have any income.

​

Now, you can imagine (keeping things simple) 2 worlds here:

​

1º- Is the one you suggest. Corporations manage to avoid taxes and to keep a "Only profit" approach. Consumers accept that, countries accept that.

What would happend? Well, most of those corporations woud have to stop their production anyway, because there will be no one to buy their products and services. Only the owners of other corporations will have an income, some the owners of the corporations would produce for themselves. Does that world make sense to you?

​

2º- As human labour dissapear from the world, states begin to raise taxes little by little. Tax increase has to be lower than productivity increases from technology to not slow down technological progress.

Corporations that try to avoid taxes get taxed anyway in the form of import taxes and indirect taxes over prices... Or lose access to the markets of some countries and in the long turn, dissapear because of that. Remember that all that production only makes sense if there is someone to consume it. Of course, producing only makes sense if you want the income of that people.

Countries don't want chaos so to avoid riots, as unenployment raises they increase the money on social support programs. Those programs, eventually, become UBI.

This is gradual. Little by little, it allows everybody to win in the long term:

-Countries will keep existing and (mostly) in control, and with their income they will also be owners of quite a lot of the means of production

-Corporations (and capital owners) will keep being richer than most people

-"Normal people" will keep existing and their living standard will keep improving as a consecuence of the productivity increase

​

Also, another good thing about this scenario, is that money would keep being a good indicator of what is and what is not beneficial, which is probably better than any centralized option to decide.

Now, there will be people who will be in a tought spot. As unenployment raises the first years, some the social programs will lag behind. Some jobs will dissapear, and in the begining people will be expected to find other jobs. Some will, and others not.

That people will probably suffer in the short term... But that has always happend.

​

The thing is that I think that the world evolution will be more similar to this second scenario than to the first.

​

Or at least is what I think, I could be wrong and maybe we will all die a horrible death :D