3 ms·

While I don't think tariffs are a solution to economic troubles, I have to admit I see a fair amount of irony in your comments about education[1]. > We are ne

While I don't think tariffs are a solution to economic troubles, I have to admit I see a fair amount of irony in your comments about education[1]. > We are never going to be able to compete with the Chinese or other southeast asian countries with human labor costs Immediately followed by: > The next part of the solution is education and re-education of the labor force We educate our labor, they educate their labor; theirs is still cheaper. A knowledge-based economy isn't a panacea; knowledge, like capital, is really cheap to move around (compared to manufactured goods). The GGP says "Artificially 'creating' or 'protecting' jobs doesn't help anyone, at least not in the long run". Having worked in a large company, I find that statement quite amusing. The proportion of "actual" jobs to "artifical" jobs is tremendous. I'm not saying that all those people with "artifical" jobs don't do anything, but from a pure economic efficiency standpoint their work is probably unnecessary. So if successful companies can do it, why not at least entertain some amount of protectionism at a country level? [1] With that said, I think education is important for the long term health of our society. I just don't think education will fix the economic struggles currently facing many residents of the US.

ahnick 9y ago
Knowledge is not cheap to move around. (At least not currently) Information is cheap to move around though. This perhaps is a subtle distinction, but an important one. Maybe eventually when we can directly write knowledge into peoples' heads (something akin to the Matrix) then I'd agree knowledge is cheap, but until that day comes knowledge will remain expensive. Chiefly because to be highly knowledgeable a great deal of time is involved in mastering the relevant information. I actually agree though that Chinese citizens or anyone else can learn the same information, so overtime we can expect these jobs to become cheaper as more and more people learn them. In fact, I think some re-balancing of economic power is inevitable as a knowledge based economy likely favors the country with more brains. (This is why I think the US should actually be encouraging immigration or at least not actively trying to deter it) The one downside China has going for it (which is perhaps a benefit for the US) is the level of totalitarian control that exists with the government. If China was more of a democracy then I think the economic future of the US would be in even more jeoparady. People don't like to be controlled and more information will make people resistant to that control. I don't think a knowledge-based economy is a panacea, but it's much better than what we currently have going and I think UBI will play a role in providing the country-level protectionism you reference.
perl4ever 9y ago
One may ask then, if large corporations have so much dead weight, then why do they exist? My surmise is that the dead weight fraction in a large company may make them less competitive, but the ease of sharing knowledge within a company versus between companies compensates on average.

ahnick 9y ago

Knowledge is not cheap to move around. (At least not currently) Information is cheap to move around though. This perhaps is a subtle distinction, but an important one. Maybe eventually when we can directly write knowledge into peoples' heads (something akin to the Matrix) then I'd agree knowledge is cheap, but until that day comes knowledge will remain expensive. Chiefly because to be highly knowledgeable a great deal of time is involved in mastering the relevant information. I actually agree though that Chinese citizens or anyone else can learn the same information, so overtime we can expect these jobs to become cheaper as more and more people learn them. In fact, I think some re-balancing of economic power is inevitable as a knowledge based economy likely favors the country with more brains. (This is why I think the US should actually be encouraging immigration or at least not actively trying to deter it) The one downside China has going for it (which is perhaps a benefit for the US) is the level of totalitarian control that exists with the government. If China was more of a democracy then I think the economic future of the US would be in even more jeoparady. People don't like to be controlled and more information will make people resistant to that control. I don't think a knowledge-based economy is a panacea, but it's much better than what we currently have going and I think UBI will play a role in providing the country-level protectionism you reference.

perl4ever 9y ago

One may ask then, if large corporations have so much dead weight, then why do they exist? My surmise is that the dead weight fraction in a large company may make them less competitive, but the ease of sharing knowledge within a company versus between companies compensates on average.