Inflation mystery. An Aha! moment for me.

[kandrathe]

It actually surprised me how little was done by automation, and how much was still hand assembly.

I did say "modern". I've gone to Renaissance fairs, but I don't assume all butter is hand churned.

There are two factors slowing automation: labor unions and cost. The first is becoming less powerful as the economy becomes more globalized. The second is becoming less important as the robots themselves are being built by robots.

Might look a little strange to us, but there's no reason to think it will cause the economy to implode.

My crystal ball is broken, and I'm not a seventh son, so I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

There is good evidence showing a massive decrease in manufacturing jobs worldwide. There is also an increase in the amount of goods being manufactured, and a corresponding decrease in the the prices for these goods. Yes, some of it was outsourced to places where they pay less, and have fewer laws, but that doesn't explain the bulk of the job losses in the sector.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econom...e_in_.html

The question I have is whether all these blue collar workers retrained themselves into engineers, or fry cooks.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The question I have is whether all these blue collar workers retrained themselves into engineers, or fry cooks.

Neither. They're now economists, theologians, and philosophers.

--Pete

[Jester]

Neither. They're now economists, theologians, and philosophers.

What's the objection? Aesthetics? If we can make what we need cheaply and easily, what else do we need people do do with their lives?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Hi,

The question I have is whether all these blue collar workers retrained themselves into engineers, or fry cooks.

Neither. They're now economists, theologians, and philosophers.

--Pete

And, what is the difference between those three?

[eppie]

Neither. They're now economists, theologians, and philosophers.

What's the objection? Aesthetics? If we can make what we need cheaply and easily, what else do we need people do do with their lives?

-Jester

What about thinking about ways to make things in a sustainable way?
This is by far not the case at the moment.

[Jester]

What about thinking about ways to make things in a sustainable way?
This is by far not the case at the moment.

In general, the ability to produce enormous volumes of things cheaply, also requires them to be produced efficiently. Otherwise, they would consume scarce resources, and the input price would go up. In general, large-scale, streamlined mechanization improves environmental outcomes for a given standard of living. Nothing wrecks the environment quite like poverty.

But yes, I think improving sustainability and reducing waste is a great use of extra labour - the more we get out of each resource, the more valuable it is to conserve and reuse them.

-Jester

[eppie]

What about thinking about ways to make things in a sustainable way?
This is by far not the case at the moment.

In general, the ability to produce enormous volumes of things cheaply, also requires them to be produced efficiently.

-Jester

But what do you call efficiently? Burning rainforest is very efficient to create palm oil plantings.
Low tax on airplane fuel makes flying cheaper than taking the train.
Efficient cattle farming is different if you have millions of acres of pastures.

I am not sure how 'in general' this is. Even though I agree that mass production is more efficient than one by one production of course.

Efficient and sustainable are not the same.

[kandrathe]

But what do you call efficiently? Burning rainforest is very efficient to create palm oil plantings.

Isn't the culprit population? If we focus on Brazil, they've converted 587,000 km² to agriculture use (as of 2000) from a total of 5,500,000 km².

"The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat), is 0.5 of a hectare per person. This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies. Very few populous countries have more than an average of 0.25 of a hectare. It is realistic to suppose that the absolute minimum of arable land to support one person is a mere 0.07 of a hectare–and this assumes a largely vegetarian diet, no land degradation or water shortages, virtually no post-harvest waste, and farmers who know precisely when and how to plant, fertilize, irrigate, etc. [FAO, 1993]"

If we apply the .5 hectare per person to their 2010 Census of 190,732,694 we would expect them to be needing 953,664 square kilometers of agricultural land to sustain their population. Or, they could trade something for their needed food, and looking at their economy I see they export aircraft, electrical equipment, automobiles, ethanol, textiles, footwear, iron ore, steel, coffee, orange juice, soybeans and corned beef.

Low tax on airplane fuel makes flying cheaper than taking the train.

I think if they added a routine cattle prodding to air travel screening, I'd just surrender and advocate eliminating air travel all together.

Efficient cattle farming is different if you have millions of acres of pastures.

Well, there is such a thing as trade. The US has 250,233 km² of pasture land. The ecological disaster happened over here about 100 years ago, and people do like eating meat in their diet. So, why not take advantage of those areas that are suited for livestock to produce them?

I am not sure how 'in general' this is. Even though I agree that mass production is more efficient than one by one production of course.

Efficient and sustainable are not the same.

At some point, the cost of making things out of steel forced manufacturers to turn to something cheaper, like tin or aluminum. Cheaper usually means that the raw materials are more abundant, and take less energy to produce.

The only way to prevent garbage(disposable) products from being produced is to educate people to not consume them.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Isn't the culprit population?

Yes. It IS the problem. Everything else is just a symptom. As long as we don't address that problem -- and address it by radical means -- all that we are doing is giving aspirins to a cancer patient.

Of course, addressing the symptoms to keep the patient alive long enough for the real cure to be effective is not wrong. Focusing only on the symptoms is wrong.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Yes. It IS the problem.

Brazil has brought their population growth down to .9%. So, their land use should stabilize, and they should be able to minimize further exploitation of the rain-forest (it's down to about 12K km² per year). But, there is always the greed factor, in forestry, farming, etc.