by matt21811 » Sun 13 May 2007, 23:19:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '
')Well cars replaced horses right? So buggy whip manufacturers (of which there would have been a minute amount compared to all the easy trucking jobs that exist now btw) probably went on to make windscreen wipers or whatever. Nothing is going to replace cars. We are talking millions of jobs in the USA alone dependent upon drivers clogging the streets.
I dislike people comparing something from 100 years ago when we only had 1 billion people world wide, and even less as a percentage living the decadent lifestyle we do now. There are no real jobs for these people to go to, and if you know of them, maybe you could lay down what all these millions of people will do when the mechanics, MacDonalds employees, gas attendants, etc, have nothing to do.
The _FACT_ is we have lived a life with so many unnecessary parts to it for so long that the population now relies upon those unnecessary things to survive. Overpopulation.
Its a shame you dont like old examples, the earliest example I could find was in the 1600's.
There are loads of examples this century of technology making a jobs obsolete. The word processor replaced the electric typewriter and gone were the typing pools. Containerisation on the water front actually saved energy and made 5 in six dock workers unemployed. Take a look at any port city and see how big the docks district is. Every port city had tens of thousands of dock workers. They are all doing something else now. Efficiency creates jobs. I know that it is hard to accept because it sounds counter intuitive. Its the same line of thinking that says that communism should work. In theory it should. In reality, the opposite happens.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'H')ere's the evidence you asked for... of course it's from a "wacky peak oil nut-job named Greenspan, or something like that.
This concept you have developed where energy markets have little impact on the general economy is embarrassing,
Be reasonable.
If you read the article you will notice that the only direct contirbution from Greenspan is that he said there is a 1 in 3 chance of a recesion. Further down in the article it attributes the slow down to higher interest rates and a housing bubble. I suspect Greenspan would not use the expresion "double whammy". I think that is the reporter analysis.
I have said I'll change my mind when you show me some evidence. I think that is reasonable. Oil prices trippled, according to the doomers, we should be looting the stores by now but I'm only asking to see a significant jump in inflation (something more than cyclical swings).