I enjoyed the authors article. However, I think he misses the mark with some of his assumptions. Unlike some in this thread, I am NOT trained in economics. But:

I enjoyed the authors article. However, I think he misses the mark with some of his assumptions. Unlike some in this thread, I am NOT trained in economics. But: 1) I think the author incorrectly tries to nullify the family budget metaphor for economic prescription. While any metaphor only goes so far, he attempts to compare the micro-economic interactions within the family ("essentially communist") with the macro-economic revenue/spending/balancing act for a national budget. He misses the point that, in observing that we must "understand a family as a group of people functioning a single economic agent" we must consider the requirements of that economic unit to adhere to reasonable financial policies, such as making sure revenues are sufficient to cover debt service and expenses. 2) I think the author mis-characterizes the post WWII affluence of the American economy as a result of the wartime government spending combined with some magical wealth redistribution scheme inherent in a wartime economy. In reality, I believe the great American prosperity was more to do with the nation's near monopoly on manufacturing capacity after most of Europe was decimated (and Japan as well). 3) I agree with the author that "trickle-down": economics (actually more of a political thing than a real economic theory) is inherently flawed. I think he also misapplies the family metaphor here, as well, mixing the micro with the macro. All in all this was an enjoyable and well-written article, and I appreciate the author's ideas about the "Robot Utopia." I don;t agree, but what fun is it if we always agree, right?