home

Innovation, Productivity And Policy Retrogression

Discussing the outbreak of concern about the supposed dearth of "innovation," Kevin Drum writes:

Give some thought to just what innovation and productivity gains are for. Initially, of course, they help provide a better basic standard of living. But what happens after that? Once you have a certain level of food, shelter, sanitation, and so forth, you start adding nonessentials. Basically, luxuries, whether you call them that or not. Entertainment. Vacations. Restaurant meals. Fancier clothes, faster cars, and bigger houses. That's what the first half of the 20th century brought to the developed economies of the world.

So what is happening now? Drum notes:

We're going through a tough stretch right now. But my best guess is that there are two big culprits here, and neither one of them is a fundamental slowdown in innovation. The first is that, even after 30 years, we still haven't figured out how to effectively manage and regulate the post-union, post-globalization, post-Bretton Woods economy. This is a relatively short-term kind of problem, but there are still a lot of bumps left on that road.

(Emphasis supplied.) First, to say we have not figured out how to effectively manage the economy is to misstate the problem. We know how, but we do not. Why? Joe Stiglitz explains (h/t MoBlue):

[A] modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

[. . . O]ne big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

(Emphasis supplied.)The gains of innovation of the previous half century have been reversed by retrogade public policy. Moreover, these reverse have stifled new innovation.

Drum notes that much innovation now is geared towards leisure and luxury. This is not surprising in that that is where the money is (to borrow from Willie Sutton.)

The gains in innovation and productivity have been superseded by the retrogression in public policy.

Our elites are utter failures.

Speaking for me only

< Going Nuclear To Kill A Fly | DOJ Press Release on CA Medical Marijuana Crackdown >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    But it's just a short term problem (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 09:52:08 AM EST
    With merely a few pesky bumps in the road.  

    And again, how the Dems let the Class Warfare card be used by the wealthy AGAINST the rest of us, well, you get a sense of what truly intellectually incompetent times we live in.  Then agains, huge swaths of the American populace wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

    Seems we'll be in this spot for a good long time, at least until some very wealthy people realize that the world is only so big and there are far more angry and desperate poor people in the world than people who give a rat's ass about the Bridge Club standings in Newport, R.I..  IOW, when they are running for their lives seems about the only way they will understand how degrading to the nation their selfishness is.

    To put a quote in another context (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:16:28 AM EST
    They trashed the place. And it was not their place.

    With all of history to teach us, I never thought it was possible to be living in an age of such shortsightedness.

    Not Surprised (none / 0) (#23)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    I agree with everything you say and am as repulsed by it as are you.  However, I'm not surprised this has happened.

    Talking to neighbors, relatives, acquaintances, etc., reading all letters to the editor in our local daily for the past year and reading the local paper's Sunday Citizen's Opinion Panel I can safely say that the general public is both ignorant and confused.

    When the Panel was asked about the debt ceiling it was absolutely clear that not one of the Panel members, the "well informed" 15 or 20 people on the panel, understood the debt ceiling.  One woman opposed raising the debt ceiling stating that to end the recession 'all this spending has to stop.'

    I think at least a part of this is the media's steadfast refusal to explain anything.  After all, explaining an issue would mean abandoning the doctrine of 'balance.'

    John Kenneth Galbraith was right.  Every generation forgets and ends up having to learn all over again, the hard way.

    Parent

    Seems Like the Wealthy... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    ...have figured out giving large amounts of cash to politicians through campaign donations, book deals, speaking engagements, cushy post-political careers,  and man, many other 'perks' is a guarantee to keeping wealth in the shovel-up mode.

    Right now no one is campaigning against them on the federal level.  Class warfare is defined by the wealthy, even though the real war has been against the middle class and poor.

    With a Presidential campaign costing nearly a billion each candidate, how can we possibly get someone to represent our interests ?  Right now both parties are serving-up pro-wealth candidates and with their task masters controlling basically everything we see and hear, it really does seem hopeless.

    Which is why we have protests with no real definition, because the problems and corruption are so rampant, so entrenched, fixing one or two areas isn't going to make one damn bit of difference.  

    They whole systems needs replacing IMO.

    Sure, it would be great to have (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:01:01 PM EST
    public financing only for political campaigns.  And while we're at it, term limits on Senators and Representatives.  Also, they should get their salaries and pay Social Security while in office, and receive a reasonable amount of health care insurance, but no taxpayer-paid pensions or health care insurance after they leave office.  The only problem with those suggestions is- guess who has to vote on all those changes?  (And it would probably require one or more Constitutional Amendments, as well.)  Congress is sure as heck not going to vote on anything that kills the cow that is giving them so much (very expensive and exclusive) milk.  Unfortunately.    :-(

    Parent
    Further to What Stiglitz Said (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by The Maven on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 11:05:38 AM EST
    Stiglitz noted,
    The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don't need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security--they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had.

    Indeed, it is everything in the 'public sphere' which is what wealth is now used to buy itself out from.  And by doing so, and ceasing to rely on public services for themselves, their family and their peer group, this class no longer sees any benefit arising from that public sphere, making the withering away of the state not merely an acceptable, but desirable, goal.

    In that, they have formally separated themselves from the rest of "society".  It's not so much class warfare as it is a form of secession, whereby the wealthy will exist in a separate world where the 99% have become completely irrelevant.  They don't need to wage active war (many within the 99% are far too willing to serve their ends, wittingly or unwittingly); they simply have no perceived need for the rest of us.  And thus does the Great Experiment of American democracy wither and die away.

    How does a rich person avoid using (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    public roads, bridges, etc.?

    Parent
    They don't, but driving down the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by me only on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 11:47:36 AM EST
    road is not terribly interactive.  The most interaction you are likely to get is the bird.

    Sitting in a park (or an airport) you have to at least deal with the "unwashed."  If you live in a gated community and fly private you never really interact with them.  Private schools mean that your kids never meet them.

    Parent

    Roads... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    All it takes is a well placed phone call and bam, the only pothole in Upper Brookville is filled, while the roads in my 'hood look like a minefield.

    And don't get me started on my ghetto 'burb being the last to see any plows come snowfall.  The town and county always deny it, but they play favorites...the hoighty toighty 'burbs see the plows first.  

    So yeah they use roads, but they get the same preferential treatment there as every other area of government. Different rules, different fools...it is everywhere.

    Parent

    Oh, man, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:41:26 PM EST
    Ain't it the truth?  It's the same everywhere I've ever lived.  It's the "golden rule"- those who have the gold make the rules (and get the perks).

    Parent
    There is one exception to the snow (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:26:00 PM EST
    plowing rule.

    Live in the same burb as the person who runs the snow plow. Taking care of family and all that.

    That worked in my lower middle class neighborhood for quite some time.

    Parent

    A perfect example... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    of how we persevere it...well pointed out MO.

    I don't know what I, err my landlady and I, would do if I didn't know a boiler guy, an electrician, a plumber, etc...who will help out a friend for nothing or next to nothing.


    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 06:50:24 PM EST
    you reminded me of the situation in cities before the automobile replaced the horse drawn wagon and carriage.  If a horse dropped dead in the street (a common occurrence because horses were worked to death, no retirement to the farm)it would lie there until the city hauled it away.  Hauled away immediately in toney neighborhoods but allowed to nearly rot in poor neighborhoods.  Imagine what that must have been like in hot summer weather.

    Parent
    Stiglitz' (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    specific examples are unused by the rich, however they do depend on public goods to help them accumulate their fortunes.  They just take them as their entitlement to be paid for by the 'little people.'

    Parent
    Who hires our best and brightest too? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:32:00 PM EST
    Wall Street, because that is where all the money is now too for the moment.  And it is easy money, you just make bets...and the whole system is addicted to it.  Corporations like General Electric have even become addicted to it.  Betting doesn't provide a tangible product either.  We have the same economic incentives that we did right before the Great Depression.  There is no Post Union, Post sensible monetary policy rules...we are only in a down cycle when those dynamics have market pull.  With the lopsided wages out there does Drum really think Unions won't see a revival?  I think his observations are stupid.

    Just like everyone said that America would never return to protests in the streets....ummmm duh...when the need rose, the people did too and they continue to do so.  We will also return to negotiating for better wages through the strength of the workers.

    One thing that strikes me as odd (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:42:02 PM EST
    about the best and brightest argument is that apparently to be among the ranks of the best and brightest you don't need a moral compass.  Certainly the people coming up with all these "financial innovations" in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s were brilliant but it's hard to imagine their talents directed elsewhere...I mean these people didn't make their money and then go become doctors, they're sitting on golf courses right now.  The best and brightest are still in all sorts of fields, their efforts are just undermined by the ideology of greed that our government has supported over the past 30-40 years.

    Parent
    Depends on your measures of success (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by pluege2 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 08:09:31 PM EST
    Our elites are utter failures.

    by the standard of enriching themselves, they've been exceptionally successful. By every other measure of human decency, morality, and plain fairness, they are the epitome of failure. But its only the first that counts to them.

    Drum's essay is an exercise in folly and ignorance (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by mcl on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 11:00:08 PM EST
    Case in point: Kevin Drum classifies "video games" as an "increase in the standard of living" comparable to the invention of the automobile.

    How embarrassingly stupid does a columnist have to be today to get fired? And I thought David Brooks was brain-damaged...

    Another example: Kevin Drum describes "financial innovation" as an invention that "improves our lives."

    Here's a tip, folks: "financial innovation" is better known as "loan sharking."

    Loan sharking does not improve anyone's life.

    Was Kevin Drum drunk when he wrote that column? Was he on dope? Or did he just come home from a car accident where he suffered massive head trauma?

    Excellent column (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 09:45:18 AM EST
    There is another side that I think is also important.  Some of our government investment, supposedly in the common good, has been sloppy and unintelligent, also dictated by special iterests, and not subject to any kind of ROI analysis.  We should be investing in the common good, but we should be smart and strategic about how and where and why we invest.  For example, HOLC vs TARP.  HOLC would have directly benefited the middle class and indirectly the bankers.  Instead we chose to directly give welfare to the banks with the false hope that it would also indirectly benefit the larger society.  Of course, much to indirectly, in my opinion.  In a similar way, when social spending programs are not refined and effective they lose the support of the larger electorate because they do not see an effective return on investment.  Social welfare spending should be effective in creating real opportunities for underprivileged beneficiaries to succeed in eventually contributing back to society, not in creating a permanent underclass.  That is not easy to do, but I think we as Democrats have sometimes failed to make our social spending as effective as it should or can be.  It's not about the benefits but the beneficiaries.  Real success stories are more important than blocks of constituents.  We need Democratic politicians that care more about beneficiaries than about reelection for its own sake.  Just my opinion.

    What? (4.50 / 2) (#10)
    by Addison on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    "Innovation" is not lacking in today's world, nor in the past 30 years. Look around at all the amazing work that is being done in science (health, chemistry, biology, etc.), technology, and social entrepreneurship. Innovation is not mostly in consumer goods of luxury goods as Drum states -- that is incorrect. That is (in my opinion) just where Drum seems the innovation because he follows the Apple release schedule more that the SSIR, the NEJM, etc.

    He makes that statement about innovation for the same reason Tom Friedman thinks that the vast majority of interesting things happening in the developing world take place on the road from the international airport to his 5-star hotel. He thinks the thing he's looking for is mostly where he encounters it.

    I mean, from your quote of Drum:

    Once you have a certain level of food, shelter, sanitation, and so forth, you start adding nonessentials. Basically, luxuries, whether you call them that or not. Entertainment. Vacations. Restaurant meals. Fancier clothes, faster cars, and bigger houses. That's what the first half of the 20th century brought to the developed economies of the world.

    Drum is simply ignorant about the changes innovation brought on even the most basic levels throughout the 20th century -- and falls back on some weird new version of the "poor people don't have flatscreen TVs" argument Atrios so often mocks. It's like saying, "poor people can eat, so the fact that they now have access to the internet is a luxury and not substantive innovation". Defining luxury as anything above "food, shelter, and sanitation" is inherently unprogressive. And yet it's quoted here approvingly?

    As far as this statement:

    The gains in innovation and productivity have been superseded by the retrogression in public policy.

    I simply don't understand what definition or limitation of "innovation" is necessarily to yield this conclusion. It's true that some public policy has negated some of the benefits of innovation, but in your formulation (and Drum's) it's quite an overstatement. It seems to have a huge sample bias for the innovation you can see and touch and buy as Americans with money, and it undervalues the more subtle rise in living-standard baseline (not to mention overall environmental, public health, and "human knowledge" effects) that innovation has created over the past 50 years for many of the poorest Americans.

    To be clear... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Addison on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:23:09 PM EST
    ...Drum immediately negates his own statement by talking about how much innovation there's been recently. In the non-quoted bits he essentially agrees with what I've said above.

    Which is why I'm so confused about why (a) he made the bizarre statement in the first place in the way that he did (luxury vs. non-luxury) and (b) why it is the snippet you decided to quote.

    Parent

    I was all set (none / 0) (#13)
    by sj on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:28:06 PM EST
    to give you 5 in roaring approval.  Then you added that last paragraph.  Still, I don't often agree with much of what you have to say, so have a 4.

    Parent
    What about the last paragraph was problematic? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Addison on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:31:35 PM EST
    Talking about (none / 0) (#15)
    by sj on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:44:00 PM EST
    that subtle rise in living-standard baseline ... over the last 50 years"

    while completely managing to ignore the not-so-subtle loss in living-standard baseline over the last 20+ years.  Declaring that loss to be an "overstatement" means that not only have you not been affected (which is probably good), but you haven't even bothered to look where others are pointing.  Or if you have, you managed to look without seeing.

    Parent
    Ok. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Addison on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:33:20 PM EST
    Well, the issue as presented is confusing. I aided in that confusion a bit by not clearly separating my two points. I disagree with Drum about his dichotomy (which he doesn't even appear to believe in, yet he still brings it up?) and I disagree with BTD about his conclusory points and in what he chose to quote from Drum.

    It's also made muddy by the fact that there were three time-frames involved here ("post-1950" and "last 30 years" from Drum and "last half century" from BTD).

    There may be different conclusions about the degree to which public policy has eviscerated the benefits of innovation for the poor, but I don't understand which definition of "innovation" was used to yield BTD's firm twice-stated conclusion.

    For instance: factory-line robots and high-fructose corn syrup are innovations that have arguably made life worst for the poor (even the internet has made finding work more difficult in certain ways while benefiting in others). How do those count in the calculus when looking at living-standards? For innovation? Against it? A half-demerit for innovation and a full one for public policy?

    I just don't understand the definition of innovation that's being used here.

    Parent

    It's usually good to (none / 0) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 05:36:21 PM EST
    be familiar with the basic stance of a writer before going ballistic over any one post or except from any one post.

    Drum has been pounding on the outrageous rise in income inequality, wage stagnation, etc., for a long time.  Writing for his own blog, like any blogger, he assumes his readers know the context and frequently doesn't append extensive disclaimers about his overall ideology/analysis, etc.

    All he's doing, people, is throwing out something he read that piqued his interest and his curiosity for discussion.  He does that a lot.

    Parent

    More! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Addison on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 06:14:15 PM EST
    All he's doing, people, is throwing out something he read that piqued his interest and his curiosity for discussion.  He does that a lot.

    Yes, well, other people are responding to that and discussing. We do that a lot.

    In fairness, I think I read Drum's post with BTD's framing in mind and -- given the meandering nature of Drum's post -- I misread it.  After reading his whole post again I think it's clear my Friedman comparison was wrong; what I read as a few side points was actually the main point. He ends on the idea that innovation is often hidden and subtle and "boring". Good enough.

    I tend to disagree with Drum whenever he brings "luxury" or "fun" into the conversation as ways to describe the results of modern American innovation. I think it's kind of dumb and I don't think he even believes it based on what he says elsewhere. It creates a false separation and it (imo) downplays the role of processes and "background" innovation in guaranteeing what he'd term "essential" things like food, shelter, sanitation, and (though he left these out) health and transportation in modern American society.

    However, as noted the definition of "innovation" and what counts as "gains" brought about by innovation are hard things to pin down. "Innovation" is not necessarily good and there need not be "retrogressions" in public policy for things to get worse. I think BTD's conclusion was an overstatement on its own terms and made innovation too "good".

    Parent

    Addison (none / 0) (#26)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 07:18:28 PM EST
    I'm happy you made the Friedman comparison.  Right or wrong.

    Your comparison yielded the gift of this line:

    Tom Friedman thinks that the vast majority of interesting things happening in the developing world take place on the road from the international airport to his 5-star hotel

    The cab driver revelation.

    Priceless.


    Parent

    Next! (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 07:33:31 PM EST
    [A] modern economy requires "collective action"--it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology.

    The problem is that the governments well identified with this have failed.

    Tool is as tools are dear Donald (2.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:31:21 PM EST
    And when you take the position that our current economic problems can be solved by more government spending and regulations and taxes... well

    I find that toolish.

    So please note that I didn't say that there are certain things that government shouldn't do. Why? Because I did not. Obviously roads, flood control, airports, air traffic control are examples and good ones.

    But Solyndra is also an example and a very poor one.

    And comparing TVA to the Solyndra mess is instructive in that the former was infrastructure that brought a flood of new businesses and opportunities but the latter was a business. The government is good on infrastructure but terrible at picking winners in business.

    So have a nice flight. And I hope you got a low price from an airline that is part of a deregulated business.

    Parent

    this has been a 20-30 year failure, also (none / 0) (#28)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 07:40:39 PM EST
    I'm a proponent of nuclear power, especially later generation plants. We can't get any built. We keep re certifying the old ones... and roads, bridges, and so forth... it's been short term gain for too long. Since Johnson, I believe... with any successful legislation.  And in order to have legislation, the executive needs to propose, not just say we'd like something.

    Failure in leadership.

    Parent

    The anti-nuke people (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:41:15 PM EST
    have used every possible trick to prevent nuclear power plants from being built. There was one being built north of Nashville back in the mid/late 70's that would have provided a lot of power with no pollution at a reasonable price as well as a goodly number of very well paying jobs.

    But the nutcakes tied it up in the courts and finally the builder just shut down the project. And now the EPA wants to worry over coal fired plants and air pollution...

    As F. Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

    Parent

    "nutcakes?" (none / 0) (#36)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 09:19:31 AM EST
    Fukushima 1,2,3, & 4.

    Parent
    Riiiiiiiight .... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 06:47:16 AM EST
       [A] modern economy requires "collective action"--it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology.

    The problem is that the governments well identified with this have failed.

    Like the United States, England, Germany, Japan, China, France, Netherlands, Australia, ...

    ... pretty much the entire modern world.

    Funny.

    Parent

    What's funny is your failure to (2.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 10:32:03 AM EST
    understand the difference between infrastructure, which the government does well and technology birthing which the government can do well and picking what companies to support which is known as crony capitalism and as Solyndra shows, the government is lousy at.

    Donald brought up the Internet. Government sponsored much of the early research in the name of national defense. (I guess all you peaceniks didn't like that!) Government was also instrumental in establishing world wide standards and protocols.

    At that point private industry took over... you may have heard of IBM, Microsoft and Apple (among others) to develop hardware and software that did what people wanted.

    The next question was, how do we connect all these  computers to each other?? Again private industry took over and developed SONET lightwave transport, then DWDM systems and fiber optic cable to carry the signals. You may have heard of ATT, ITT, Northern Telecom (Nortel, Ciena among others. Then we had the local telephone companies, GTE, ATT, Continental, PTI and the inter city transport companies, Level 3, Quest, ATT also among others.

    At the same time the government expanded their previous deregulation of the network with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and there was an explosion of capability and capacity and a lowering of prices unprecedented in the modern world.

    The Internet, made possible by Government assistance, was made affordable by private industry. Many companies were started. Many failed. But the market was successful in allocating enough money to allow enough companies to succeed that I now can get local service, long distance voice service and 1.5 MB Internet service  for around $65/month.

    Cellphone service was also impacted because if you could set at your desk and talk to the world... Then you needed to be able to talk to your customers while waiting to board a flight at the airport. And as technology expanded, you also needed Internet access.

    Was some of the above painful? Yes. The world changed and some people became rich and successful. Some became just successful (I put myself in that bracket.) Some people lost nice secure jobs and they didn't make the leap.

    The question becomes, what do we do to help those who didn't succeed?

    Yman, instead of being an ideologue and claiming that government must pick the winners, which is a proven failure when carried to the Nth degree and only modestly successful if you are willing to accept long term unemployment in the 10% range in the European model... Why don't we figure out how to educate and motivate people to do new things in new jobs in new places????

    That's the challenge that government can take up and be successful.

    Instead your side wants to decide who wins and who looses.

    Parent

    No one was talking about ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 09:49:39 AM EST
    ... 'picking winners and losers".  What's really funny is your attempt to defend your indefensible claim by producing a red herring and conflating investment in infrastructure, education and technology with "picking winners and losers".

    But the history of the internet was entertaining, even though it was just an attempt to make it look like you had an argument.

    Parent