Friday, February 23, 2018
FATAL ECONOMIST TAR BABY MOVE
Rodrik blunders into talking about convergence...
Economist Tar Baby move!
He calls it redistribution, but he is talking about redistribution on a global scale, not redistribution, as it is normally discussed, in obsolete domestic economies, take from the rich and give to the poor.
No.
This redistribution is take from all rich countries' citizens (including even the super rich) and give to poor countries' citizens (and their new super rich), on an enormous, unprecedented scale.
It is called global income convergence.
He suggests a New Deal FDR type tiny band aid for this enormous, deep, and lasting economic gash in advanced Western countries' economies.
Piketty was frankly smarter than Rodrik: he wouldn't touch the economists' tar baby subject of income convergence at all!
Terms search: offshoring economists:
The thesis re robots he says was a universal assumption at the conference, not a hypothesis.
He thinks this assumption has had disastrous implications for policy (what kind he doesn't say).
He says predictions are hard, especially about the future, so robots taking over all jobs, or contributing to inequality, are not something one should as an economist try to predict: one should just let the future unroll by market forces, presumably.
So, he seems to think that it is not an economist's job to predict the future, based in part on the fact that he believes that those economists who predict a robot takeover are wrong (already). Do you see the circularity here, or is it just me?
And, a related point, if is not an economist's job to predict the future, then what is an economist for?
Krugman seems not to know for sure what an economist is for. Trust me, I am with him on that!
So, not robots. Automation not to blame. So what did happen to American workers over the past 40 years (his number; I count from 1945, almost 80 years of mostly masked relentless decline)?
He doesn't say! I can tell you the reasons why, but why not put on your thinking cap? And why not wonder why he doesn't say?
Progressives shouldn't fall for facile technology fatalism. Then he recounts some of the most unsettling facts in industrial history, analogizing them to robotics, poo poo ing their profound and catastrophic effects, as if history didn't matter at all to progressives in search of a higher truth.
British mechanization almost wiped out Indian and Turkish textile fabric production, which had been boomed prior to that, almost overnight, and put a huge dent in carpets in Persia, resulting in deindustrialization of those areas thereafter.
Is tech disruption accelerating? (This is what you are supposed to worry about, acceleration, not its relentless march forward at a certain already widespread killing pace anyway.)
Not 'accelerating', according to Krugman's data, so, not to worry your pretty heads over this wonkish false signal detail of his account.
Because he focusses intentionally and misleadingly only on domestic employment, he omits the 800 pound gorilla in the room, that of globalization's diffusion of tech throughout the underdeveloped and developing world, and the rise of attacker states using it to impoverish Western worker wages while they raise their own, etc. It has been known for a long time to lead to the obsolescence of billions of workers worldwide, in spite of what Krugman said, yesteryday.
riday, March 15, 2019
DON'T BLAME ROBOTS BLAME KRUGMAN
Let's just go line by line through this mother:
He was at a conference the other day.
One can gather, just from his remarks, about the assumption about robots taking good jobs or jobs in general away resulting in both lagging wages and soaring inequality, that it was strictly an economists' conference....
Who else would reach such a consensus about the effects of robots on wages?
Who asks such questions?
Economists. (To be continued. Check back.)
The thesis re robots he says was a universal assumption at the conference, not a hypothesis.
He says that what everyone (all economists) knows isn't true. Bingo.
All economists are wrong about this but him, it seems.
We are back to my fatal economist tar baby Boomerbutt post, the favorite recent post!
He thinks this assumption has had disastrous implications for policy (what kind he doesn't say).
One disastrous implication, for him, is that it has lead to a clamor, from the left, for universal basic income, on the related assumption that robotics will lead to truly vast (and by implication frankly limitless) unemployment.
Bear in mind that his whole discussion here if framed by its implications for only the domestic economy.
That is one of the economists' fairy tale assumptions, related here to the robotics assumption, and to the end of work assumption.
Krugman doesn't like any of that, but he trades here on the domestic economy fairy tale assumption.
Take a few guesses why.
He says predictions are hard, especially about the future, so robots taking over all jobs, or contributing to inequality, are not something one should as an economist try to predict: one should just let the future unroll by market forces, presumably.
So, he seems to think that it is not an economist's job to predict the future, based in part on the fact that he believes that those economists who predict a robot takeover are wrong (already). Do you see the circularity here, or is it just me?
And, a related point, if is not an economist's job to predict the future, then what is an economist for?
Krugman seems not to know for sure what an economist is for. Trust me, I am with him on that!
So, not robots. Automation not to blame. So what did happen to American workers over the past 40 years (his number; I count from 1945, almost 80 years of mostly masked relentless decline)?
He doesn't say! I can tell you the reasons why, but why not put on your thinking cap? And why not wonder why he doesn't say?
Progressives shouldn't fall for facile technology fatalism. Then he recounts some of the most unsettling facts in industrial history, analogizing them to robotics, poo poo ing their profound and catastrophic effects, as if history didn't matter at all to progressives in search of a higher truth.
British mechanization almost wiped out Indian and Turkish textile fabric production, which had been boomed prior to that, almost overnight, and put a huge dent in carpets in Persia, resulting in deindustrialization of those areas thereafter.
Is tech disruption accelerating? (This is what you are supposed to worry about, acceleration, not its relentless march forward at a certain already widespread killing pace anyway.)
Not 'accelerating', according to Krugman's data, so, not to worry your pretty heads over this wonkish false signal detail of his account.
Because he focusses intentionally and misleadingly only on domestic employment, he omits the 800 pound gorilla in the room, that of globalization's diffusion of tech throughout the underdeveloped and developing world, and the rise of attacker states using it to impoverish Western worker wages while they raise their own, etc. It has been known for a long time to lead to the obsolescence of billions of workers worldwide, in spite of what Krugman said, yesteryday.
Here is a prior post, and a reference, on the subject:
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Published in English in 1997, over 20 years ago.
Only three journalists were allowed to attend the Conference. One of them wrote the book.
Perhaps Krugman attended, as an economist. There were some.
See: The Global Trap, State of the World Forum, Wikipedia
Here was a video from the 1995 Forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_OWyr0C-5s
(To be continued, again.)Friday, March 15, 2019
DON'T BLAME ROBOTS BLAME KRUGMAN
Let's just go line by line through this mother:
He was at a conference the other day.
One can gather, just from his remarks, about the assumption about robots taking good jobs or jobs in general away resulting in both lagging wages and soaring inequality, that it was strictly an economists' conference....
Who else would reach such a consensus about the effects of robots on wages?
Who asks such questions?
Economists. (To be continued. Check back.)
The thesis re robots he says was a universal assumption at the conference, not a hypothesis.
He says that what everyone (all economists) knows isn't true. Bingo.
All economists are wrong about this but him, it seems.
We are back to my fatal economist tar baby Boomerbutt post, the favorite recent post!
He thinks this assumption has had disastrous implications for policy (what kind he doesn't say).
One disastrous implication, for him, is that it has lead to a clamor, from the left, for universal basic income, on the related assumption that robotics will lead to truly vast (and by implication frankly limitless) unemployment.
Bear in mind that his whole discussion here if framed by its implications for only the domestic economy.
That is one of the economists' fairy tale assumptions, related here to the robotics assumption, and to the end of work assumption.
Krugman doesn't like any of that, but he trades here on the domestic economy fairy tale assumption.
Take a few guesses why.
He says predictions are hard, especially about the future, so robots taking over all jobs, or contributing to inequality, are not something one should as an economist try to predict: one should just let the future unroll by market forces, presumably.
So, he seems to think that it is not an economist's job to predict the future, based in part on the fact that he believes that those economists who predict a robot takeover are wrong (already). Do you see the circularity here, or is it just me?
And, a related point, if is not an economist's job to predict the future, then what is an economist for?
Krugman seems not to know for sure what an economist is for. Trust me, I am with him on that!
So, not robots. Automation not to blame. So what did happen to American workers over the past 40 years (his number; I count from 1945, almost 80 years of mostly masked relentless decline)?
He doesn't say! I can tell you the reasons why, but why not put on your thinking cap? And why not wonder why he doesn't say?
Progressives shouldn't fall for facile technology fatalism. Then he recounts some of the most unsettling facts in industrial history, analogizing them to robotics, poo poo ing their profound and catastrophic effects, as if history didn't matter at all to progressives in search of a higher truth.
British mechanization almost wiped out Indian and Turkish textile fabric production, which had been boomed prior to that, almost overnight, and put a huge dent in carpets in Persia, resulting in deindustrialization of those areas thereafter.
Is tech disruption accelerating? (This is what you are supposed to worry about, acceleration, not its relentless march forward at a certain already widespread killing pace anyway.)
Not 'accelerating', according to Krugman's data, so, not to worry your pretty heads over this wonkish false signal detail of his account.
Because he focusses intentionally and misleadingly only on domestic employment, he omits the 800 pound gorilla in the room, that of globalization's diffusion of tech throughout the underdeveloped and developing world, and the rise of attacker states using it to impoverish Western worker wages while they raise their own, etc. It has been known for a long time to lead to the obsolescence of billions of workers worldwide, in spite of what Krugman said, yesteryday.
Here is a prior post, and a reference, on the subject:
He was at a conference the other day.
One can gather, just from his remarks, about the assumption about robots taking good jobs or jobs in general away resulting in both lagging wages and soaring inequality, that it was strictly an economists' conference....
Who else would reach such a consensus about the effects of robots on wages?
Who asks such questions?
Economists. (To be continued. Check back.)
The thesis re robots he says was a universal assumption at the conference, not a hypothesis.
He says that what everyone (all economists) knows isn't true. Bingo.
All economists are wrong about this but him, it seems.
We are back to my fatal economist tar baby Boomerbutt post, the favorite recent post!
He thinks this assumption has had disastrous implications for policy (what kind he doesn't say).
One disastrous implication, for him, is that it has lead to a clamor, from the left, for universal basic income, on the related assumption that robotics will lead to truly vast (and by implication frankly limitless) unemployment.
Bear in mind that his whole discussion here if framed by its implications for only the domestic economy.
That is one of the economists' fairy tale assumptions, related here to the robotics assumption, and to the end of work assumption.
Krugman doesn't like any of that, but he trades here on the domestic economy fairy tale assumption.
Take a few guesses why.
He says predictions are hard, especially about the future, so robots taking over all jobs, or contributing to inequality, are not something one should as an economist try to predict: one should just let the future unroll by market forces, presumably.
So, he seems to think that it is not an economist's job to predict the future, based in part on the fact that he believes that those economists who predict a robot takeover are wrong (already). Do you see the circularity here, or is it just me?
And, a related point, if is not an economist's job to predict the future, then what is an economist for?
Krugman seems not to know for sure what an economist is for. Trust me, I am with him on that!
So, not robots. Automation not to blame. So what did happen to American workers over the past 40 years (his number; I count from 1945, almost 80 years of mostly masked relentless decline)?
He doesn't say! I can tell you the reasons why, but why not put on your thinking cap? And why not wonder why he doesn't say?
Progressives shouldn't fall for facile technology fatalism. Then he recounts some of the most unsettling facts in industrial history, analogizing them to robotics, poo poo ing their profound and catastrophic effects, as if history didn't matter at all to progressives in search of a higher truth.
British mechanization almost wiped out Indian and Turkish textile fabric production, which had been boomed prior to that, almost overnight, and put a huge dent in carpets in Persia, resulting in deindustrialization of those areas thereafter.
Is tech disruption accelerating? (This is what you are supposed to worry about, acceleration, not its relentless march forward at a certain already widespread killing pace anyway.)
Not 'accelerating', according to Krugman's data, so, not to worry your pretty heads over this wonkish false signal detail of his account.
Because he focusses intentionally and misleadingly only on domestic employment, he omits the 800 pound gorilla in the room, that of globalization's diffusion of tech throughout the underdeveloped and developing world, and the rise of attacker states using it to impoverish Western worker wages while they raise their own, etc. It has been known for a long time to lead to the obsolescence of billions of workers worldwide, in spite of what Krugman said, yesteryday.
Here is a prior post, and a reference, on the subject:
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
ROBOTICS IS AN ECONOMISTS' FAUX RED HERRING KRUGMAN KNOWS THAT HE KNOWS IT IS NOT ABOUT ROBOTICS
Here was Mario Savio, in the 60s, excerpted from DK current post, re automation and Americans' special brand of racism:
"The most crucial problems facing the United States today are the problem of automation and the problem of racial injustice. Most people who will be put out of jobs by machines will not accept an end to events, this historical plateau, as the point beyond which no change occurs. Negroes will not accept an end to history here. All of us must refuse to accept history's final judgment that in America there is no place in society for people whose skins are dark. On campus students are not about to accept it as fact that the university has ceased evolving and is in its final state of perfection, that students and faculty are respectively raw material and employees, or that the university is to be autocratically run by unresponsive bureaucrats.... " MS
After Savio's remarks, a whole lot of these negroes went to jail, you could call it the end of history for negroes as a labor force.
As an aside, Krugman cares more about the welfare of a neighborhood dog than specifically an American negro. He is a globalist. He has bigger fish to fry.
When Trump asked American negroes what had the Democratic Party done for you, he meant the likes of Krugman baby. DK noted in passing that Democrats had done less than nothing for negroes. That sums it up.
Oh, I tell a lie: Democrats have done a lot more for white queers than for negroes. Charlie Crist looked in the mirror one day and exclaimed: Jeez, I'm a Democrat! As a Republican, he had been legendary as Chain Gang Charlie.
After Savio's remarks, a whole lot of these negroes went to jail, you could call it the end of history for negroes as a labor force.
As an aside, Krugman cares more about the welfare of a neighborhood dog than specifically an American negro. He is a globalist. He has bigger fish to fry.
When Trump asked American negroes what had the Democratic Party done for you, he meant the likes of Krugman baby. DK noted in passing that Democrats had done less than nothing for negroes. That sums it up.
Oh, I tell a lie: Democrats have done a lot more for white queers than for negroes. Charlie Crist looked in the mirror one day and exclaimed: Jeez, I'm a Democrat! As a Republican, he had been legendary as Chain Gang Charlie.
Friday, November 11, 2016
TECHECTOMY CONFERENCE
Sunday, July 28, 2019
FATAL ECONOMIST TAR BABY MOVE IS REALLY NEGRO ROBIN HOOD
Take from white West and give to poor colored Rest.
hursday, September 5, 2019
DICK TAR BABY MOVES
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
FATAL LIBERAL JOURNALIST TAR BABY MOVE SAME AS FATAL ECONOMIST DICK MOVE
Same fatal move, different profession.
You don't talk about equal money for all poor and middle income people everywhere in the world, although that is what you truly, truly, believe in wholeheartedly.
Leonhardt has been kindof toying with it: Tar baby move!
His fellow NYT journalists would say, if you could hear them, at the NYT: Dick Move Leonhardt!
He also questions Brooks on the good meritocracy......
Sides with Brill, against Brooks, who says our so called meritocracy is really mostly a fat cat lawyer dick move against the middle class and the poor!
Dick Liberace Move!
Liberace likes Brill's critique of Brooks' pet meritocracy.
Same solution: hard offshoring of both!
Small dingy, choppy seas, distant unknown shore.
You don't talk about equal money for all poor and middle income people everywhere in the world, although that is what you truly, truly, believe in wholeheartedly.
Leonhardt has been kindof toying with it: Tar baby move!
His fellow NYT journalists would say, if you could hear them, at the NYT: Dick Move Leonhardt!
He also questions Brooks on the good meritocracy......
Sides with Brill, against Brooks, who says our so called meritocracy is really mostly a fat cat lawyer dick move against the middle class and the poor!
Dick Liberace Move!
Liberace likes Brill's critique of Brooks' pet meritocracy.
Same solution: hard offshoring of both!
Small dingy, choppy seas, distant unknown shore.
Friday, September 6, 2019
NO DATE WITH DORIS FOR EITHER LEONHARDT OR BROOKS
Friday, March 8, 2019
RE BROOKS RISE OF THE RESENTNIKS NOVEMBER 16 2018
See Brooks versus Brill, good meritocracy bad meritocracy.
Brill as spokesman for resentniks here.
Brill as spokesman for resentniks here.
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
OTHER RACES MORE MERITOCRATIC THAN YOUR SORRY ASSES WHITES LATINOS AND NEGROES HERE
See also:
Professor
Another comment. Can't resist....
"...We all need to understand our common humanity--which is another way of saying that none of us has a monopoly on either virtue or vice...." DK
One will not ever begin to convince those civilizations, or nations, however one characterizes them (they each think of themselves as having their own civilization not merely nation), of yellow color, that either way of saying this is true at all, either that there is or ever was or ever will be such a thing as a common humanity in the first place, or that non of "us" has a monopoly on either virtue or vice, in the second, simpliciter.
Both of these locutions, or world views, are in their view, in Krugman's famous words, flatly wrong.
They never, or almost never, say such things, almost never in public, and seldom in unguarded privacy, but that is the reality below the liberal global rhetoric.
All the best
Professor
Great post. Tough going.
I criticize white black race relations here from a place above, or below, it, however one sees it; where other really really unfriendly races are already breathing down the necks of poor white or black devils here, caught up, as your post amply illustrates, in futile, interminable, and insoluble domestic racial and historical interpretive struggles.
Foreigners of other races, and more aggressive systems, see us increasingly as low hanging fruit in the global civilizational struggle they have been waging unbeknownst to us.
All the best
Another comment. Can't resist....
"...We all need to understand our common humanity--which is another way of saying that none of us has a monopoly on either virtue or vice...." DK
One will not ever begin to convince those civilizations, or nations, however one characterizes them (they each think of themselves as having their own civilization not merely nation), of yellow color, that either way of saying this is true at all, either that there is or ever was or ever will be such a thing as a common humanity in the first place, or that non of "us" has a monopoly on either virtue or vice, in the second, simpliciter.
Both of these locutions, or world views, are in their view, in Krugman's famous words, flatly wrong.
They never, or almost never, say such things, almost never in public, and seldom in unguarded privacy, but that is the reality below the liberal global rhetoric.
All the best
Professor
Great post. Tough going.
I criticize white black race relations here from a place above, or below, it, however one sees it; where other really really unfriendly races are already breathing down the necks of poor white or black devils here, caught up, as your post amply illustrates, in futile, interminable, and insoluble domestic racial and historical interpretive struggles.
Foreigners of other races, and more aggressive systems, see us increasingly as low hanging fruit in the global civilizational struggle they have been waging unbeknownst to us.
All the best
No comments:
Post a Comment