Let me ask you something: what you think of the law of diminishing marginal utility? Imagine Ford employed machines exclusively. The idea is that each car Ford produces adds fewer and fewer to his wealth, for what good is one more car you cannot drive? So he sells his cars, but he can only sell for as much as people can afford, and with so many cars on the market, this is quite low.
Ford cannot charge any more than what's offered, so the only thing he can do is accept whatever he finds more valuable among the things offered. It may be that an automated car becomes so cheap it can by exchanged for something trivial (let's call future service X), because the car has no value but to be exchanged.
This process should cause a natural equilibrium in the supply, demand and cost of cars.
Don't you find this argument at all convincing? Why?