Prof. Steve Horwitz: Does Government Create Jobs?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Many people have been talking about job creation lately, especially politicians. But is government the best creator of jobs? And is job creation the best thing for the economy? Professor Steve Horwitz explains that there is a difference between creating jobs and creating wealth. Creating jobs is relatively easy, but the most economic progress is made when jobs are eliminated because they become unnecessary. This does lead to some unemployment, but the alternatives are worse. To prevent transitional unemployment would also halt innovation, growth, and the reduction of poverty. So what is the best way to create valuable, meaningful jobs? Professor Horwitz says, "The best job-creation program in human history is the free market and the entrepreneurship it generates."
steve jobs even has word jobs in his name
and now he's dead. Obama kills jobs, period.
Ali Adeeb so true
Ali Adeeb And immigration creates jobs. :p
Yes we get that already but did you notice that jobs is another word for someone else's profits? Job means you work while someone who does not profits from your servitude. Ownership is a means of social control that we are bound to serve, not free to serve but bound to serve.
I think we are free to serve rather than bound. No one forces you to have a job. People who work own things too and Steve Jobs as well as many people who head a large company work very long and hard I'm told. There are exceptions.
I fucking love this channel. It presents superior forms of arguments that I have been offering to people in half the time!
Thank you Learn Liberty, you are amazing.
This is one of the best videos I've seen on your channel in a while.
Governments can create useful Jobs. The free market is poor at doing research with no obvious benefit.
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are very good example, they owe a huge amount of their wealth to Government jobs.
A half century of science in public universities on quantum physics, computing theory, semi-conductors, programming languages etc. made what they did possible.
Nearly all the technology of WW2 : Jet engines, radar, rockets, computers, atomic power were researched with huge government spending.
splashstrike
Then simply abolish many government regulations and restrictions and invest money into NASA.
Too many folks are afraid of change and want everything to stay exactly how it is once they are at a comfortable point in their lives ... and the world doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way.
"and market signals can indicate to the people what sorts of skills they should be investing in and where the new jobs in the future will be." Now if we can just get the people to listen. We have enough government and regulation majors.
because you turned on transcribed captions which are horribly inaccurate. Click the CC button on the bottom of any TH-cam video to turn it off.
Got to love that Learn Liberty with their talking about real fiscal solutions and important social issues. Finally some people are willing to talk about princaples and ethics over politics.
Premises:
1) Copyright was introduced by the government.
2) Copyright is enforced by the government.
3) Copyright provides monopoly on the copyrighted material to the author.
Conclusion:
Copyright is a monopoly created by the government.
Please tell me where the error in my reasoning is. Thanks.
Yeah... I can't argue with anything you say here. Thanks for the information.
The problem with "labor transitions" is that we don't know what we're transitioning to. No really, I don't know and you don't know. The people who know the least are the people in knowledge industries. Name a booming tech area, and it'll take all of a few minutes to find someone online who can't get a job in it.
The stable jobs are the ones with a periodic work cycle - the exact opposite of where the tech trends. The economic instabilities are growing overwhelming.
I intentionally did not state a position in my comment because the purpose of it was to try and further understand your position to better inform myself before taking an aggressive position on a topic that I am by no means an expert on. If you'd care to answer my questions I would be happy to then do my best to present my position.
If I wanted to find more music like what's in the background of this video, what should I search for?
I don't understand what you're saying exactly, if the Fed shrunk the economy, didn't it already enlarge it before? And what I mean by economy I actually mean the money supply.
Also if a bad bank fails it should fail. Bad banks should not be propped up.
Friedman said if creating jobs is your goal then you can create MORE jobs by making the people dig with spoons.
The obvious goal of any person should be to work as efficiently as possible. That way he produces the most amount of goods and services that he can.
More goods and services produced in a society = higher standard of living for that society
When a society wastes labor resources by making people dig with shovels instead of machines they are wasting potential labor resources.
When did private industry build the infrastructure(and i'm not talking about contractors working for gov projects)? Secondly, industry moves toward monopolization w/out government regulation, as history has shown over and over and currently showing now.
Now for a pay-into-the-pot system, this is taxes and i think democracy is the best way anyone has found so far. It is WHY America was founded after all, you know "no taxation with out representation"? Anyway your argument is a non-sequitur.
It was Ludwig Von Mises who said the shovels comment not Friedman Steve Horwitz.
Good videos, but please stop putting dead links to external website at the end of them.
People have disliked this video? What's to dislike? The truth?
Using you example. Have you ever noticed that the price of the vegetables never goes down?
It doesn't matter. Whenever the workers go the price of production goes up. This is a lie and it is not about wealth creation but it is' about greed creation.
What is IT?
Anyway, what creates wealth and why does it matter what IT is about?
Specifically Act Utilitarians. Mill is often criticised because him harm principle seems directly anti-Utilitarian.
There was a hell of a lot more depressions and recessions before the federal reserve was made.
It's ironic that he mentions value creation, and then brings up agriculture. Yes it is fruitless to create jobs for the sake of employing labor. In some cases however these increases in efficiency have lead to a loss of quality in products. Food is now more widely available as a result of increased efficiency in production but the quality generated by these processes has been torn to shreds.
without a monetary system, economic calculation and indirect exchange would be impossible, which means that specialization and the division of labor would also disappear. Without money, we are doomed to a primitive barter existence, which is exactly what happened when the USSR briefly tried to function without money. You have correctly identified that our current fiat paper money system is corrupt and harmful, but you have incorrectly concluded that all money is inherently evil - this not true.
Is this a small part of a documentary-speech (or something)?
If so what is the full name of this documentary-speech (or something)?
Thank you!
Why are we even talking about Bill Gates? He doesn't even run, or work for Microsoft for some time now, he's been more focused on his foundation.
The word "socialism" means that the govt. determines the price and distribution of commodities( That is what makes it slavery, commercial rights are impossible) If that govt, permits ownership(even though property rights without commercial rights are meaningless, it is still socialism, still slavery) it is called "fascism" and if that govt. prohibits ownership it is called "communism" The word "capitalism" simply means the govt. DOES NOT determine the price and distribution of commodities.
That trope come up every time an increase in the minimum wage is taken up and every time the numbers afterward show no such increase in unemployment.-
dub-u-dub-u-dub-u.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/new-paper-finds-modest-minimum-wage-increases-have-little-impact-on-employment
I agree with what your saying about productivity and how less people can do more work, but I totally disagree that jobs created by governments are non-productive and do not create wealth. If a government during an economic slump decided that while a central bank is pumping liquidity into the market and there are likely to be massive lay off in say manufacturing because of high cost to export, and construction would likely be a follow on, then starting a major road rail and port infrastructure upgrade will keep the construction sector employed with up to date skills and the manufacturers will have lowered costs in the long term meaning the jobs are kept, people don't need to be retrained, and once the recovery has started and there is private demand for these skills again they will be there.
Don't forget when public sector is unionised we the private sector workers pay more taxers to pay the public sectors increases demanded by unions . I hate unions
Yeap, but this work only as a stopgap policy during severe crisis (like Great Depression). This is not economically efficient, as it main goal is to preserve skilled workforce and to prevent total collapse of economy, not to create wealth.
It may work as a crash program facing a severe economical crisis, but is not a functional model for a stable economy.
We don't want jobs we want things. People work to live better, to put food on thier table. If we could get everything for free then we wouldn't need any job. You can't create things from thin air so this isn't possible though.
The only way to create jobs is to create something someone wants, either for yourself or for someone else. How are the robots going to get built? How are people going to manage the robots? Will the robots be better then humans at everything? Who will profit from it?
,The word "socialism" means that the govt. determines the price and distribution of commodities( That is what makes it slavery, commercial rights are impossible) If that govt, permits ownership(even though property rights without commercial rights are meaningless, it is still socialism, still slavery) it is called "fascism" and if that govt. prohibits ownership it is called "communism" The word "capitalism" simply means the govt. DOES NOT determine the price and distribution of commodities.
Except the oldest continuously run corporation run in America (East Jersey Board of Proprietors) was about 314 years old toward the turn of the millennium... you know, but just ignore any data that doesn't add up... we're trying to prove a point here! Like that corporations somehow gained personhood through some legal chicanery by the opposition! ... except that they've always had personhood, and have been operating longer than the US...
Who likes jobs? I want to make more and work less. Unfortunately, I'm paying a significant amount of my money to pay for someone else to have a job.
Please check the subtitles in the future, they are way off. Milton Freedman = Military Men. Jobs = Jokes, etc... Has a detracting effect when watching and possibly reduces from the force of the points being made in the video
no, The word "socialism" means that the govt. determines the price and distribution of commodities( That is what makes it slavery, commercial rights are impossible) If that govt, permits ownership(even though property rights without commercial rights are meaningless, it is still socialism, still slavery) it is called "fascism" and if that govt. prohibits ownership it is called "communism" The word "capitalism" simply means the govt. DOES NOT determine the price and distribution of commodities
I haven't deleted my statements, I don't shut anyone up, not to mention I can't possibly do it. If you were so kind to show some arguments I would appreciate it.
Dude if you are not for allowing people to organize themselves as they see fit you are for brute force, interment, reeducation, concentration and death camps to do so, you are either for voluntarism or against it there is no HALF way...
I'm going to have to laugh, as this is probably out of date, but I finally got the "tulip bulb" joke... #niceone
who ever said gov was concerned with creating wealth or jobs that mean anything, they know this can't work they are only concerned with their own power nad wealth. since gov cannot create wealth, and no printing money outof thin air is not creating wealth, only people who actuallyproduce something people want create wealth. gov they want to reduce wealth for the masses because a wealthier working class is harder to control, harder to enslave then poor ones but you cannot cme out and say that you have to make it look like your just making mistakes and not acting with intent.. just check out the poor in third world nations where gov is totally controling job creation,wages, health care (if they get any at all) etc. they are in total poverty and enslavement. wealth comes from you r mind your innovation, your ideas you learning how to fish instead of hand out of a fish. wealth is shared simply because you cannot prevent it from not being shared, you create a car but you need people to buy your car in order to give you something you need (like food or clothing or to increase car production which requires invesments of real assets and resources including others to invest real assets to produce roads and maintain those roads so people can buy cars and drive them, which leads to more job creation of stores and markets forming along those roads and farmers and industry increasing production to meet the demand of just one large commodity, a car. the gov on the other hand is used by people who want to steal wealth (not actually create wealth but redistrubute to themselves) they are trying to circumvent the morality of economics to get wealthy without having earned it or added anything of value to other people's lives. they basically want to steal all the gold you worked hard to dig out of the mines over many years wiht all your invesments into it, they just wait on the road until you start to deliver your gold to the bank and rob you on the way. easier then working for it yourself.
Unemployed people also create more crime and require government assistance so as to not starve or do what I previously stated.
Imminent Domain allows a Corporation to take persons priviate land.
Holy crap I was saying this stuff when I was 11 and my parents got hella annoyed.
Free market entrepreneurship is the best Job Creator not Govt.
People create jobs, not government
Alex Fralin - "People create jobs, not government"
Not if those jobs pay Government Money (USD, CAD, AUD, etc).
National Currency is a monopoly.
Taxes denominated in National Currency function to create unemployment.
When a monopolist restricts supply you get excess capacity, inotherwords, you get unemployment.
Unemployment is therefore evidence that the government has not spent enough to cover the tax bill and the desire to save.
The last time I checked the government was made up of people. Your comment is nonsensical.
"just give them spoons"
holy shit lol superconvinced
As a computer programmer, I am routinely writing software that puts unskilled labor out of work. If that process continues, I imagine eventually robots and AI will advance enough that there will be very little need for unskilled labor of any kind. How will the free market handle that scenario? Will everyone need to go to college or get a PhD?
Free markets wont handle that scenario because people will demand regulation. So we will never know.
What will happen is that working hours will go down. If we cut your working hours in half, two workers will be needed to write the code that you write on your own today, so one new job has been created. The second thing that will happen is that mandatory education will become longer and longer and eventually most adults will have skills equivalent to what a PhD graduate has today.
Shorter working hours and longer mandatory education are trends that have been progressing for generations, mainly because people demand them to be legislated. These trends will continue.
I think that "meaningful" jobs are the ones which are sustainable and which create something of tangible value for the masses. I have a degree in IT and many years experience in the field. As such I can state unequivocally that Gates has done more to destroy jobs than to create meaningful jobs. Web enabled globalization is a prime example. We've 3rd world people competing (and preferred) for 1st world jobs. What is the answer? Who knows. But using Gates and Jobs as an example is fallacy
Flawed reasoning.
If we elimitated the fast food workers by making the grills and delivery systems automated that wouldn't create more jobs somewhere else.
We can today automate 76% of all jobs, meaning 76% of all jobs are pointless for humans to do, where do you want all these people to go?
Mystogan Edolas
1: fast food would be cheaper due to increased economic efficiency. people being more able to afford food is a good enough think on it own.
2: there would be more jobs in creating, designing, building and servicing these machines.
Sam Dawkins
1: To bad people don't have jobs anymore, so no matter how cheap it gets they still can't buy it.
2: That fuck!? There are 3 billion people working today, if we automated everything we could, then by your "rational" we would have 2.28 billion people creating, designing,building and servicing machines.
Btw only the servicing part can't be fully automated yet, so we would have 2.28 billion people working maitinance, and you don't see any problem with that?
Mystogan Edolas
im only talking about fast food jobs or similar type jobs
1: yes the people now unemployed will find it hard to buy a burger even if food is cheaper but most of society will find it easier to buy food is on the whole society is better of
2: 3 billion people dont work in fast food, so we are on diff wave lengths on this one
in regards to the ideas that the rise of AI will significantly reduce the need for human skills/labour on a scale never imagined possible until recently, i do agree this may be a very very big deal in the future. you may see jobs like nurses, police and lawyers actually over taken by computers one day.
all that can be said is we really cant stop it. you cant hold back the tide. just like its impossible to imagine the tractor, or airplane, or electricity being made illegal to increase job opps, so to is it going to be impossible for these advancements from being prevented. even if in Australia it was illegal to have a computer of certain ability used in a work place, its still going to happen elsewhere, and those that refuse to use the advanced technology will just be unable to complete economically. like i said we cant hold back the tide
+Mystogan Edolas
The reasoning works if you look at the bigger picture, rather than just at securing one particular type of job.
Think back to 1972 with the first desktop PC, people were afraid that computers would eliminate most "office jobs". But we know the computer industry has become a huge employer worldwide.
+Mystogan Edolas IDC. They need to get better skilled or/and find work at cheaper wage - an option which is disabled under minimum wage law. Taxpayers are not obligated to give them jobs they don't even need, and certainly businesses are not obligated to give them jobs at their cost.
Now, finding "Where" is exactly what market is there for. It's not an answer you or some government agency finds for other people. It's something they gotta find out themselves on market. It's called entrepreneurship. And yep, again, you need to get rid of government regulations to allow people to try all sorts of new businesses.
Where would people find funding to try new businesses? Making loans from bank using the money saved by not having these wasteful jobs in the first place. This is really where loans should be made - making capital investments - instead of subsidizing worthless college degree or wasteful SUV sails.
This notion that a government job is always worse than a private job is nonsense. As an example, the Medicare system is more cost efficient and affordable that private health care. For some things the government does a better job than the “free” market and vice versa. Videos like these are ideological and overly simplistic. When you actually study the data, you will see that things are actually more complicated and nuanced.
The government has a LOT of money, so they do have the potential to create jobs - if not directly, then via research and development.
The Main Problem
A lack of an overall life-guiding philosophy, which would have the needed implications on not only government forms (and business, science, education, individual attitudes, and international relations), but on government policies and funding.
The government does not have any money of its own. It is our money.
Bullshit
The narrator says it's easy to create jobs but is it easy to create jobs without losing jobs? In otherwords if the government decides to hire a million people they have to take the money from others who would have hired even more people.
I can't find that. I found that a William Aberhart said it in 1935 in a Canadian newspaper. The time is right for Mises to have said it, but I can't find it anywhere on MisesDOTorg as a quote. If you find it, let me know!
Thanks, I have read some Peter Singer, he's a naturalist if I'm not mistaken. Do they share a particular ethical theory you can point me to? Are they moral naturalists?
The thing about these videos is, they start with some economic dynamic that makes sense, and then they lose me when the inevitable "Therefor, the government can't possibly help." part comes.
When the economy sits idle for years on end there is real human suffering taking place. When the market fails to provide, it is necessary for governments to step in and fill the gaps. Unfortunately, Western governments seem to have forgotten how to do this effectively in the post-1970's era.
Yeah what's up with TH-cam lately, when one tries to post it gives you an error.
I agree with this video a lot... but in a time where the Bill Gates' of the world aren't innovating or creating jobs and there is a recession and corporations aren't hiring, government coercion does help in creating new innovation in the marketplace and more jobs in general. Even if the jobs the Government produce aren't profitable, it still puts money in the hands of the starving and at the same time keeps them busy and doesn't hand them money for laziness and breed a welfare state.
The thing is in China we have a much larger and much less well educated workforce who need to be employed one way or another and won't produce more wealth than they would digging a canal with shovels if left to their own accord. Sure, this is a problem, but this is still a valid short term solution.
Yes. A short term solution yes. But human labor is quite costly in developed world. In America to hire anyone u need to give out close to 10$/hour. This is what China should aim for.
Out of curiosity, who is the character in your picture?
Dear Learn Liberty: Deaf people deserve to learn from your excellent videos. But you're using the auto-caption feature in TH-cam, so they won't be able to. The technology is still very bad, substituting "work" for "worse," and "mended in canal" for "men digging this canal." It would take one of your employees mere minutes to correct these errors.
I can't help but see irony in the fact that, for a video promoting automation over human labor, actual HUMAN LABOR is needed to caption your videos because AUTOMATION failed.
What is a "job" but a form of taxation without representation, based on the violent intervention of private servitude into society? If you change jobs you do not change the predicament of producing profits for your employer and impoverishing everyone else including yourself by sacrificing your working life to someone else's profit. It should be no secret that economists and their employers regard the working poor as half child half savage remnants of the uncivilized world in need of tutelage. Listen to Horowitz, then turn off the sound and study the animation. This video is directed what is assumed to be a politically impressionable and barely literate audience with virtually no conception of what is happening to them all day long at their "jobs".
I don't think this is a black and white issue.
For example. People not being employed for a long time have issues getting traction in the value generating job market.
No one will hire them, because they did not have a job in a long time, and they can not get one for the same reason.
Not having a job furthermore typically means isolation in society, that get stigmatized and get the feeling that they serve no purpose. Giving them jobs, supported by the government can help them build the self confidence and energy neccessary to compete in the "real" job market.
If that is the purpose of job creation letting people dig a channel with spoons is pointless. That would be just humiliation.
By combining social policy with e.g. infrastructure projects can even increse government efficiency if measures trying to help people get a job would have been taken what so ever.
It's not that I am opposed to technological progress. I think all these wonderous inventions and innovations are great. The last thing I'd want to do is go back to days of menial labor.
I've considered the idea of a moneyless economy, as advertised by Jacque Fresco, but I have doubts about that ever occuring within this lifetime. How does a jobless person find a job to afford a higher education/credentials, in order to get a job? What can they do now?
Oh goodie, some information regarding the effect of machines on economic progress.
Still, I am curious about the future of human labor and money in an increasingly automated world. In order for money/currency to flow, a person has to be able to offer a service, and someone has to be able to buy it. How can this be done without resorting to artificial scarcity?
Considering how food still has a price on it, I'm concerned about how people can buy food when money itself becomes a scarcity.
A lot of successful people have failures in their past. Most honest people know this, so I don't know why you said he filed for bankruptcy in the past as if it means nothing else the man ever does or did will be the right thing, unless you're just trying to discredit a man with a meaningless personal attack.
Bad books don't sell well. They certainly don't make you rich nor do they sell sessions, which there is nothing wrong with selling btw.
Lol, Milton Friedman is a badass.
The problem of the capitalist system, is that if you use more and more technology to replace working force... then you have a greater mass of unemployed men and women, who have no money (because they have no job) and thus, cannot buy the products massively produced by the capitalists. Is an economic contradiction... this video is an irrational absurdity.
By artificial scarcity, I'm referring to certain ridiculous IP laws.
Perhaps I'm getting a few ideas confused, but still. I'm just concerned about the purchasing power of people when they do not have the money to afford necessities, due in part to disruptive technologies.
And how will something like (practically) free/sustainable energy affect the economy?
I'm sure that Mises does not have & would not want a monopoly on "shovel comments". & Horwitz does not claim Friedman was the first to make such a point. Probably Mises was not the first ether given the antiquity of such basic economic reasoning. So what is your point?
Yes of course, when government demands that more roads and bridges get created, more jobs will be made. When public schools and hospitals get created, jobs also get created.
Jobs creation depend on the market,, offer and demand. suppose there are many teachers unemployed and to help them get a new job the government build a new school but in the area are not enough children to assist school so there is not demand.Gaming developing is becoming profitable for there are plenty of demand in the market.
Then government can do everything possible to push technological innovation and create an safe environment for entrepreneurs, while investing in human capital to equip workers with the skills needed to succeed in the new jobs. Government is not inherently a bad institution and shouldn't be left out of the equation.
Go scam somewhere else please.
0:45, this could be the solution to a lot of problems in the world!
Search entry level and general office jobs in the US Government and Public Sector at www.publiccareer.org/
THIS VIDEO IS SO GOOD. Now I have something to send to people when they complain, "ROBOTS TOOK OUR JERBBS!!"
They do
You are either for voluntarism or against there is no halfway and since you cannot tolerate the notion of people organizing themselves as they see fit means that you do not support voluntarism at all. Ruttie to say tht you support something only if it fits or embraces your particular ideology does not equal voluntarism, sorry to burst that gigantic bubble you have created for yourself but it's the truth
(Extended Reply)
Also here in the island people gathering through social networking such as Twitter, Facebook helped an elderly man fix his home and even gave him a free haircut. again Voluntarism in action all this people have businesses or jobs of their own.
But the world will never run as a charity either. And the voluntary exchange of goods will continue to be the trademark to create innovation. Whether currency is used or not is irrelevant.
First of all Empires are a bad analogy because any empire by default requires the initiation of violence against someone else which goes against the non aggression principle which is what I stand for along with Voluntarism.And in times of dire need there always people who volunteer their services free of charge. Not long ago a few companies in the U.S provided their services free of charge to repair roads in disrepair. that's voluntarism in action.
It sounds like this has less to do with "government jobs" and more to do with efficiency. If government invests in infrastructure, but does so with the intention of "infrastructure" then we get greater wealth. If, however, as in the case in China, the government is simply trying to put as many people on the payroll as possible, it slows the creation of wealth. Therefore, it isn't government, in and of itself, that is stifling, but inefficiency for fear of structural unemployment.
You have to remember that much of that patent trolling was defensive. The state has created a system were people can patent an idea (even if they do nothing with it) and sue anyone who uses it. So companies have to patent as many things as possible to avoid being sued. I think Apple have patented devices with round corners just in case. Whenever there's government force involved, things get screwy.
I swear to god, LL will make a video soon called " Does 1+1=2?"
LL does not get into to serious issues or dig down into those issues and propose creative ideas. They just ask questions with the most obvious answers and pretend that they're smart by answering. Oldest confidence trick.
That and just scream "government is evil!".
I know a guy who got his left hand ground up by a corn auger at the age of 9 on a family farm, his son still has the "freedom" to do the same now in this bad government America. Of course in Europe, those nasty governments have laws keeping children from such machinery. Guess he would be getting a free handout in Europe.
I gave 5 diverse examples of what government has done in the last 100 years, So I didn't provide a strawman argument, just talking off the top of my head with a 500 character limitation. But hell, if you don't know how fucked up the gilded age was with ITS allocation of the resources to the super rich, then there is really no hope for you.
Lying again Ruttie?, You not only reject the notion of people organizing themselves as they see fit but you have gone as far as caling it a a tarded idea. it's all back at SCG's video comments for everyone to see, if you haven't cowardly remove them.
All of those words are wrong. The one who prolongued the depression was Herbert Hoover, not Roosevelt.
YOU are for America for the rich. You support the very institution that enables America for the rich and keeps poverty alive. You do it because you want a parent in charge who will give you free stuff and take care of you.
Give them spoons... lol What an wit!
I wish I knew Milton Friedman earlier.
Oh yes you did, you very much posted that the notion of allowing people to organize themselves as they see fitas opposed to everyone embrace your ideology by hook and by crook was a tarded one.
what difference does that make? the government helped create the atom bomb too... it was individuals in a market that made the internet something useful to & affordable by wider society too.
People have to make a living, you know, in order to survive. If people can't even provide for themselves how do you expect them to take on all those challenges you've mentioned?
the problem is that nowadays the speed that automation is replacing human work is going equipotential, and there is no time for human workers to adapt.. to obtain new skills
this is great
My question is with the overall perspective. It supposes that the best possible outcome for such endeavors is the "creation of wealth". This is not always true. Take for example, the ideology behind higher education. One side says that a college degree is a good investment because it leads directly to more wealth for the individual workers. The other side would say that education has intrinsic value which can lead to the betterment of society. Who is right? Both in context.
So, thousands of workers benefit from hard labor rather than hundreds doing a skilled industrial job?
Don't kid yourself - those laborers still come with their upper-management and a consulting company that 'deals' in laborers. Wouldn't those workers be better off doing something else than hard labor? That's the ultimate point. If the government spends too much effort 'trying to help people' there isn't real advancement, but instead people are stuck doing undesirable jobs.
This video misses another point. When the Chinese prefer to use human labor over expensive machinery, they have decided that the project overhead should be split among several hundred or thousands of workers instead of going on to the balance sheets of heavy equipment manufacturers. This whole scenario is not based on the idea of doing things the hard way. Rather it is based on the idea that project overhead can be split in such a way as to benefit as many members of society as possible.
Although I agree FDR was possibly the worst thing to ever happen to the United States. I have to disagree about the US entering WWII. You can't really ignore the atrocities the Nazi's commited in Europe coupled with their designs on the world. They weren't going to stop with Europe. You also have to consider that you had a very expansionist and aggressive and powerful Soviet Union that believed in "spreading the revolution" world conquest. I'm not saying it was ideal, but the US couldn't sit out
I'm happy to hear that. I took a sec to read the only article I was able to find that lined up with the evidence you had indicated for Roosevelt's failure. My estimation of the article is that it is two graduate students trying to use pure theory to make a point about keynesianism. It is very difficult for me to support that assertion as the article did not provide any of the theory they used to reach their conclusions about what would have happened without intervention.
sources. The first is that in the modern area we have made a shift to electing officials based on how closely their ideologies match our own, rather than whether we believe them to be a competent leader capable of making good decisions. The result being we have incompetent presidents and congress men that are no more than puppets for the most popular position. The second is that we all emotions to govern our decision making at the highest level, namely fear.