Perhaps recessions are a thing of the past? There is enough capital going around that a recession just doesn't happen these days
Part of the cause of recessions is investors deciding to wait until better days to spend when a small slump occurs, and this feeds back to create a bigger slump.
The rich can and do can wait out slumps. It's often how they get richer. For example, buy up real-estate in normally high-demand areas, wait for the recovery, then sell it at double your purchase price.
You are redefining terms. And just because 3% growth was common for many decades doesn't mean it's the norm. Growth has slowed for most "mature" nations. And why I should listen to "Forbes"? They are a biased publication.
By the way, I suspect growth would be higher if it were not bottle-necked at the top.
This is the second longest the US has gone without a recession, per the roughly decade-long "business cycle" that's been recurring more or less since the end of the Civil War. Thus, something will probably happen within a year or two. The only real question is how big the downturn will be, and what sectors will be most affected.
This is the kind of research that should be subsidized because of the potential health benefits of reducing herbicides in our food.
Market forces alone will not entirely "care" because they are weighing costs and profits, not long term consumer health.
True, it may make things easier for organic farmers, but if weed bots get cheap enough for regular crops, then either they are cheaper than herbicides, or herbicides can be banned because weed-pulling robots would a sufficient alternative.
...if Microsoft manages to get even the slightest lead over everyone else, their innovation will grind to a screeching halt and anything they do do will be exclusively for their own benefit.
It's interesting that flightless birds had a pretty strong reign during the early recovery phases. They were often the dominant hunters of the time.
It's often speculated that mammals eventually replaced those giant flightless birds as the alpha hunters not because mammals are more powerful than big birds, but rather because mammals learned to better leverage pack hunting: social coordination. Otherwise, this era would have resembled Dinosaurs 2.0, with 40-foot birds: Sqaaawwwk!! BOOOM
I have to agree, that is rather indirect reasoning to "new jobs". Besides, robots will probably be making the robots, and maybe even repairing them, at least in an ever-increasing ratio compared to humans.
Maybe new kinds of jobs will open up somewhere to replace those lost, it's just hard to say until such actually happens.
But my main point was that even IF new jobs are created, it probably won't help those who lost existing jobs. For example, cars did create new jobs when they came along, but horse breeders overall fell on hard times. It's not realistic for all farmers to uproot their families to move to the city to work in car factories. Some may not have been suited for that kind of work, and they'd be starting at base salary.
"Best browser ever, believe me! So fast it's a blur, like my wonderful hair! All A-plus; the Yuuuge crowd just loves Edge...and my hair. Chrome is for fake losers. #MEGA!"
However, [automation] is probably something that cannot be stopped.
Their goal is probably to reduce its impact on their particular job, not necessarily stop all "service bot" progress. A well-written contract could perhaps delay the inevitable for their group, giving them time to work out a personal Plan B.
The potential disruption to the work-world is amazing if you think about all the jobs that could be replaced or shrank (bot does half): truck drivers, fast-food workers, kitchen/dish cleaners in all restaurants, hotel cleaners, and construction workers, to name a few.
Now it's possible other fields will open up, but history shows that people who transfer from an "old" industry to a "new" one usually suffer via reduced wages or unemployment. There could be Yuuuge political backlash/implications.
First environmentalists caused global warming by blocking CO2 free nuclear power, then they starve us to death by blocking GMO foods...
First off, you assume they are the same people. There may be overlap, just as there is statistical overlap between the GOP and KKK, but treating them as the same group is a fallacy.
Second, GMO and nuclear power are merely band-aids on climate change at best, not a solution.
No, more like quantum chess: You don't know what's going to happen until after the particles collide, and if you try to observe it or predict its path before the collision, the observer is fired, badgered on Twitter, and locked in Schrodinger's Box along with that poor cat, who may or may not be deported, depending on the particle's golf-ball spin.
Anyone who has read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" will realize T does the exact opposite in negotiations. Either that book is obsolete, or we will lose bigly.
This would be an interesting experiment in diplomacy if it were happening in a lab or on somebody else's planet. Unfortunately, we are the guinea pigs here.
The US likely cannot get everything it wants. That's not how negotiations usually work. There will have to be compromise. Same with the Iran deal. Compromise is usually better than nothing. T seems to be of the mindset: "give me ALL or I'll throw a tantrum and insult you endlessly on Twitter."
In that case, the population would push the politician to initiate exiting the EU, like the UK did. UK showed if enough people get ticked off with EU, big things happen.
I realize Facebook is a small issue compared to many other pressing needs, but it is added into a politician's aggregate weighing of political strategies.
"Sir, I'm sorry to say we couldn't stop the enemy. Our ninja goats failed, it turns out, because their tongues snapped off. Testing them on Goat Simulator was a mistake."
A blunt/honest answer would be: "Because many of your citizens would think you are regulatory douche-bags for cutting them off from a popular global service, and you'll lose elections."
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with such citizens, only that such a move could create political backlash for those asking the question.
Slashdot Mirror
China is getting ever creepier with monitoring. Gotta "love" commies.
Sorry, was supposed to be "ain't was nothin'
(correction: "your")
Part of the cause of recessions is investors deciding to wait until better days to spend when a small slump occurs, and this feeds back to create a bigger slump.
The rich can and do can wait out slumps. It's often how they get richer. For example, buy up real-estate in normally high-demand areas, wait for the recovery, then sell it at double your purchase price.
You are redefining terms. And just because 3% growth was common for many decades doesn't mean it's the norm. Growth has slowed for most "mature" nations. And why I should listen to "Forbes"? They are a biased publication.
By the way, I suspect growth would be higher if it were not bottle-necked at the top.
Aaaachooo!
Alexa: "Confirmed, you new Maserati is on its way..."
This is the second longest the US has gone without a recession, per the roughly decade-long "business cycle" that's been recurring more or less since the end of the Civil War. Thus, something will probably happen within a year or two. The only real question is how big the downturn will be, and what sectors will be most affected.
This is the kind of research that should be subsidized because of the potential health benefits of reducing herbicides in our food.
Market forces alone will not entirely "care" because they are weighing costs and profits, not long term consumer health.
True, it may make things easier for organic farmers, but if weed bots get cheap enough for regular crops, then either they are cheaper than herbicides, or herbicides can be banned because weed-pulling robots would a sufficient alternative.
Uh, so instead we let Google pull that.
It's interesting that flightless birds had a pretty strong reign during the early recovery phases. They were often the dominant hunters of the time.
It's often speculated that mammals eventually replaced those giant flightless birds as the alpha hunters not because mammals are more powerful than big birds, but rather because mammals learned to better leverage pack hunting: social coordination. Otherwise, this era would have resembled Dinosaurs 2.0, with 40-foot birds: Sqaaawwwk!! BOOOM
I have to agree, that is rather indirect reasoning to "new jobs". Besides, robots will probably be making the robots, and maybe even repairing them, at least in an ever-increasing ratio compared to humans.
Maybe new kinds of jobs will open up somewhere to replace those lost, it's just hard to say until such actually happens.
But my main point was that even IF new jobs are created, it probably won't help those who lost existing jobs. For example, cars did create new jobs when they came along, but horse breeders overall fell on hard times. It's not realistic for all farmers to uproot their families to move to the city to work in car factories. Some may not have been suited for that kind of work, and they'd be starting at base salary.
"Best browser ever, believe me! So fast it's a blur, like my wonderful hair! All A-plus; the Yuuuge crowd just loves Edge...and my hair. Chrome is for fake losers. #MEGA!"
Their goal is probably to reduce its impact on their particular job, not necessarily stop all "service bot" progress. A well-written contract could perhaps delay the inevitable for their group, giving them time to work out a personal Plan B.
The potential disruption to the work-world is amazing if you think about all the jobs that could be replaced or shrank (bot does half): truck drivers, fast-food workers, kitchen/dish cleaners in all restaurants, hotel cleaners, and construction workers, to name a few.
Now it's possible other fields will open up, but history shows that people who transfer from an "old" industry to a "new" one usually suffer via reduced wages or unemployment. There could be Yuuuge political backlash/implications.
First off, you assume they are the same people. There may be overlap, just as there is statistical overlap between the GOP and KKK, but treating them as the same group is a fallacy.
Second, GMO and nuclear power are merely band-aids on climate change at best, not a solution.
No, more like quantum chess: You don't know what's going to happen until after the particles collide, and if you try to observe it or predict its path before the collision, the observer is fired, badgered on Twitter, and locked in Schrodinger's Box along with that poor cat, who may or may not be deported, depending on the particle's golf-ball spin.
Many of such deals are not signed. It's a bit different than business-to-business transactions.
Anyone who has read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" will realize T does the exact opposite in negotiations. Either that book is obsolete, or we will lose bigly.
This would be an interesting experiment in diplomacy if it were happening in a lab or on somebody else's planet. Unfortunately, we are the guinea pigs here.
The US likely cannot get everything it wants. That's not how negotiations usually work. There will have to be compromise. Same with the Iran deal. Compromise is usually better than nothing. T seems to be of the mindset: "give me ALL or I'll throw a tantrum and insult you endlessly on Twitter."
FarfegNewton
Totally fake news! Loser scientists just want crooked government money, believe me! Bigly rigged.
This is /.
We like it that way.
In that case, the population would push the politician to initiate exiting the EU, like the UK did. UK showed if enough people get ticked off with EU, big things happen.
I realize Facebook is a small issue compared to many other pressing needs, but it is added into a politician's aggregate weighing of political strategies.
"Sir, I'm sorry to say we couldn't stop the enemy. Our ninja goats failed, it turns out, because their tongues snapped off. Testing them on Goat Simulator was a mistake."
So there's no middle-ground?
A blunt/honest answer would be: "Because many of your citizens would think you are regulatory douche-bags for cutting them off from a popular global service, and you'll lose elections."
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with such citizens, only that such a move could create political backlash for those asking the question.