4 ms·
I would suggest reading the article beyond the second paragraph. To avoid the HN snark police (oops), here is a relevant passage: > They are definitely right
by zzzeek 9y ago
I would suggest reading the article beyond the second paragraph.
To avoid the HN snark police (oops), here is a relevant passage:
> They are definitely right about the long period of painful adjustment! The aftermath of the Industrial Revolution involved two major Communist revolutions, whose death toll approaches 100 million. The stabilizing influence of the modern social welfare state emerged only after World War II, nearly 200 years on from the 18th-century beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.
- elipsey 9y agoYeah, I also misunderstood this at first. The article begins by _rebutting_ the claim that automation did not cause changes in the employment market that were disruptive and destabilizing. The thesis seems to be that we should consult historians, not just economists, on this subject.
- ThomPete 9y agoI would actually claim that technologists are more important than historians but in general agree that economist does not understand what is going on.
- coliveira 9y agoModern economy theory is laughable when looked from a historical perspective. All modern economic theories look at society as in stable equilibrium, since they believe that prices tend to equilibrium by nature. Of course you just need to look at history to verify that such equilibrium is nothing more than momentary, the big economic changes really happening as the result of unexpected disruption, like world wars, "unpredictable" banking collapses, etc.
- ThomPete 9y agoYeah but you can't ask a historian why this is happening and thus you can't ask them what to do about it moving forward. A technologist on the other hand is able to advice on why it's happening and help outline potential solutions. But it's details in general I agree that Economists are the least interesting people to ask.