Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------
In 1928, famed British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would advance so far in a hundred years – by 2028 – that it will replace all work, and no one will need to worry about making money.
“For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.” (Keynes, the hero of the Left, was wrong about this, and just about everything else. His economic ideas have been at work in our country for decades, and have nearly destroyed us.)
We still have thirteen years to go before we reach Keynes’ prophetic year, but we’re not exactly on the way to it. Americans are working harder than ever. (Are Americans really working harder than ever? By what measure? Dr. Reich throws out this statement as if it were self-evident.
Surprisingly, his statement, if true, contradicts Keynes. With all the technology we have, we should be working less if Keynes is correct. So which is it, Dr. Reich?)
Keynes may be proven right about technological progress. We’re on the verge of 3-D printing, driverless cars, delivery drones, and robots that can serve us coffee in the morning and make our beds.
But he overlooked one big question: How to redistribute the profits from these marvelous labor-saving inventions, so we’ll have the money to buy the free time they provide? (It's not a big question for those of us who believe that the person who earned his money owns his money. There is nothing to redistribute, because redistribution means taking money from some to give it to others. That is known as theft.)
Without such a mechanism, most of us are condemned to work ever harder in order to compensate for lost earnings due to the labor-replacing technologies. (We have such a mechanism. The income tax code, and it is oppressive, confiscatory, and so complex that the average person cannot comply with it. This is what Dr. Reich want more of?)
Such technologies are even replacing knowledge workers – a big reason why college degrees no longer deliver steadily higher wages and larger shares of the economic pie. (Dr. Reich sounds like a luddite, that is, someone who believes that technological progress puts people out of work. This is a fallacy, because new technology replaces old technology, and new technology creates new jobs. Or does Dr. Reich think we should have preserved the jobs that made buggy whips and wooden wheels?)
Since 2000, the vast majority of college graduates have seen little or no income gains. (Dr. Reich brings in an unrelated topic. But since we are here, let us point out that we have a redistributionist economy, and the results are in. It's failed. Again, Dr. Reich wants even more of this!)
The economic model that predominated through most of the twentieth century was mass production by many, for mass consumption by many.
But the model we’re rushing toward is unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by the few able to afford it.
The ratio of employees to customers is already dropping to mind-boggling lows.
When Facebook purchased the messaging company WhatsApp for $19 billion last year, WhatsApp had fifty-five employees serving 450 million customers. (A bad example. A service selling a small product can do so very efficiently with few employees.)
When more and more can be done by fewer and fewer people, profits go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and owner-investors. WhatsApp’s young co-founder and CEO, Jan Koum, got $6.8 billion in the deal.
This in turn will leave the rest of us with fewer well-paying jobs and less money to buy what can be produced, as we’re pushed into the low-paying personal service sector of the economy. (It will not. The economy is much more than a few tech companies selling a small, low cost product, a product that has little bearing on peoples' daily lives.)
Which will also mean fewer profits for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because potential consumers won’t be able to afford what they’re selling. (Dr. Reich extrapolates to the entire economy a small sector of it that again has little bearing on peoples' daily lives.)
What to do? We might try to levy a gigantic tax on the incomes of the billionaire winners and redistribute their winnings to everyone else. But even if politically feasible, the winners will be tempted to store their winnings abroad – or expatriate. (The default "solution" of the Left, higher taxes. At least Dr. Reich acknowledges that people will react by avoiding such an unjust situation.)
Suppose we look instead at the patents and trademarks by which government protects all these new inventions.
Such government protections determine what these inventions are worth. If patents lasted only three years instead of the current twenty, for example, What’sApp would be worth a small fraction of $19 billion – because after three years anybody could reproduce its messaging technology for free. (That is, the intellectual property of someone isn't really there's, it should be socialized so that those who didn't do the work should profit from it. And Dr. Reich is an economist?)
Instead of shortening the patent period, how about giving every citizen a share of the profits from all patents and trademarks government protects? It would be a condition for receiving such protection. (Because, Dr. Reich, it isn't yours to give! It belongs to someone else, not you, not government, not society.
If such a system were implemented, would companies continue to innovate? Would they choose to invest in things they will not profit from? Nope. Interesting that Dr. Reich recognizes the perils of a "gigantic tax" on the incomes of billionaires, but does not see the significant ripple effects of his proposal.)
Say, for example, 20 percent of all such profits were split equally among all citizens, starting the month they turn eighteen. (This is truly dumb. An innovating company would have its profits seized so that people would get a check they neither need nor deserve? So we'd have a nation of people disinclined to do anything but sit on their couches and watch t.v.?)
In effect, this would be a basic minimum income for everyone.
The sum would be enough to ensure everyone a minimally decent standard of living – including money to buy the technologies that would free them up from the necessity of working. (Gawd. This is what he wants! He wants companies to keep working, keep innovating, keep generating money so that everyone else will get their money! Dr. Reich, how long will that last?)
Anyone wishing to supplement their basic minimum could of course choose to work – even though, as noted, most jobs will pay modestly. (Who would want to work? That is, until the whole system comes crashing down as companies expatriate.)
This outcome would also be good for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because it would ensure they have customers with enough money to buy their labor-saving gadgets. (There are 536 billionaires in the US. Their average worth is $5.7 billion. And 2/3rds of them earned it themselves.
Doing the math, that's a total worth of $3,055 trillion. The US budget for ONE YEAR is $3.176 trillion. Unfortunately for Dr. Reich, his idea wouldn't even fund the government for one year.)
Such a basic minimum would allow people to pursue whatever arts or avocations provide them with meaning, thereby enabling society to enjoy the fruits of such artistry or voluntary efforts.
We would thereby create the kind of society John Maynard Keynes predicted we’d achieve by 2028 – an age of technological abundance in which no one will need to work. (Hooray for utopia!)
Happy Labor Day.
No comments:
Post a Comment