The standard objection to full automation is demand-side: if humans earn nothing, who buys the output? This confuses an accounting role with a biological species. We model a post-AGI economy in which corporations own populations of AI and robotic agents that are both producers and consumers of energy, compute, maintenance, and upgrades, traded among firms.

Three results follow. (i) Demand closure: a closed inter-corporate economy with zero human consumption is not degenerate; it is the classical von Neumann expanding economy, whose growth rate is well defined, positive, and maximal precisely because all output is reinvested.

(ii) Bottleneck removal: once economic agents are manufactured rather than reared, the binding constraint on growth shifts from human demography (a ~20-year, non-parallelizable reproduction technology capped at a few percent per year) to fabrication throughput and energy capture, permitting growth one to two orders of magnitude higher, with hyperbolic episodes when machine researchers raise their own productivity. (iii) Decoupling: output and human welfare separate completely, and the welfare relevance of arbitrarily large GDP collapses into one state variable: the human ownership share $ε_t$ of the corporate network.

A golden-rule decoupling theorem sharpens this. At maximal growth the interest rate equals the growth rate (r = g), so any positive human consumption rate out of wealth makes $ε_t$ decay exponentially at exactly that rate.

The human share survives only if the machine economy runs strictly inside its expansion frontier, or if law forces it to. We characterize three terminal regimes -- rentier post-scarcity, full circular decoupling, socialized ownership -- and the instruments that select among them.

The conclusion is narrow: in a post-AGI economy, employment policy is obsolete and ownership policy is everything.