4 ms·

That is an economic fallacy. http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L8 http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0....

That is an economic fallacy. http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L8 http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.... Please read that. It is a 40's era book that disputes several economic fallacys, specifically the "Curse of the Machine".

FD3SA 15y ago
Indeed. I am quite familiar with the Luddite fallacy. Unfortunately, it is predicated upon two assumptions:(1) humans are infinitely capable and re-trainable, and (2) technology creates more jobs than it automates. Both of these assumptions are quite untenable given our understanding of human biology and technological progress.
- skylan_q 15y ago
  If we have reached the point where 2) is true, then there is no more work to do and everything is done! :D
  - Cushman 15y ago
    And in a world where you need a job to have food, we all starve to death.
  - steins 15y ago
    re. Cushman: Or maybe some people can move to farms, supplying more farm labor, sending farm worker wages down, and lowering the price of food to close to nothing? Ohh wait... minimum wage laws stop that from happening.
exit 15y ago
being a 40's era book is not a selling point
- skylan_q 15y ago
  The point is that this kind of stuff was debunked 70+ years ago. (Actually, you can go back to Bastiat with "The seen and unseen") We keep falling for the same mistakes. It makes me wonder why people hold their convictions for their theories of economics so strongly as opposed to, say, the theory that the speed of light can't be surpassed. If we can approach physics with humility and admit ignorance until further study, why do people not adopt this attitude with things like economics? :(
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    For thousands of years, horses were productively employed in the transportation industry. When the automobile was invented, they were unable to find gainful employment and their wages fell below subsistence levels. This hasn't happened to humans yet because technology has not replaced all possible jobs humans can do. That doesn't mean it can't happen, it just means it hasn't happened yet.
  - asmithmd1 15y ago
    Because economics is not a science. Don't believe me? When was the last time someone published the results of an economic experiment and another economist was able to reproduce it?
    - skylan_q 15y ago
      Economics is a social science, not an empirical one. This is why people who perform those experiments fail; they fail to see the difference between the success of empirical approaches to the natural sciences, and the failure of it to the social sciences. Social sciences are advanced through dialect and reason. But this still doesn't mean that we shouldn't approach these studies with humility and be careful about the things we postulate. I'm long past the point where someone was ignorant of something and it upset me. I've come to realize that I, myself, am ignorant of many things. I no longer see it as a crime. What I see as a crime is people acting and opining on things they haven't given plenty of thought to. We all need to be careful to not spout-out answers and opinions that we always carry at the tip of our tongue. It's worth it to be humble and skeptical all at once, but it's tough.
cabalamat 15y ago
Maybe some things that were true in the 1940s aren't true now. The world is a qualitatively different place now than it was then, because: 1. computers replace people's minds, not their muscles 2. the machinery discussed in the article was physical machinery, which takes time and effort to manufacture and trnasport around the world. But software isn't a physical object, and it costs nothing to replicate a useful program a billion times and put it on every computer; therefore the extent to which software can concentrate wealth is a lot greater than machinery could.

FD3SA 15y ago

Indeed. I am quite familiar with the Luddite fallacy. Unfortunately, it is predicated upon two assumptions:(1) humans are infinitely capable and re-trainable, and (2) technology creates more jobs than it automates. Both of these assumptions are quite untenable given our understanding of human biology and technological progress.

skylan_q 15y ago
If we have reached the point where 2) is true, then there is no more work to do and everything is done! :D
- Cushman 15y ago
  And in a world where you need a job to have food, we all starve to death.
- steins 15y ago
  re. Cushman: Or maybe some people can move to farms, supplying more farm labor, sending farm worker wages down, and lowering the price of food to close to nothing? Ohh wait... minimum wage laws stop that from happening.

exit 15y ago

being a 40's era book is not a selling point

skylan_q 15y ago
The point is that this kind of stuff was debunked 70+ years ago. (Actually, you can go back to Bastiat with "The seen and unseen") We keep falling for the same mistakes. It makes me wonder why people hold their convictions for their theories of economics so strongly as opposed to, say, the theory that the speed of light can't be surpassed. If we can approach physics with humility and admit ignorance until further study, why do people not adopt this attitude with things like economics? :(
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  For thousands of years, horses were productively employed in the transportation industry. When the automobile was invented, they were unable to find gainful employment and their wages fell below subsistence levels. This hasn't happened to humans yet because technology has not replaced all possible jobs humans can do. That doesn't mean it can't happen, it just means it hasn't happened yet.
- asmithmd1 15y ago
  Because economics is not a science. Don't believe me? When was the last time someone published the results of an economic experiment and another economist was able to reproduce it?
  - skylan_q 15y ago
    Economics is a social science, not an empirical one. This is why people who perform those experiments fail; they fail to see the difference between the success of empirical approaches to the natural sciences, and the failure of it to the social sciences. Social sciences are advanced through dialect and reason. But this still doesn't mean that we shouldn't approach these studies with humility and be careful about the things we postulate. I'm long past the point where someone was ignorant of something and it upset me. I've come to realize that I, myself, am ignorant of many things. I no longer see it as a crime. What I see as a crime is people acting and opining on things they haven't given plenty of thought to. We all need to be careful to not spout-out answers and opinions that we always carry at the tip of our tongue. It's worth it to be humble and skeptical all at once, but it's tough.

cabalamat 15y ago

Maybe some things that were true in the 1940s aren't true now. The world is a qualitatively different place now than it was then, because: 1. computers replace people's minds, not their muscles 2. the machinery discussed in the article was physical machinery, which takes time and effort to manufacture and trnasport around the world. But software isn't a physical object, and it costs nothing to replicate a useful program a billion times and put it on every computer; therefore the extent to which software can concentrate wealth is a lot greater than machinery could.