I am sure you are right Jed "artificial inefficiency (or make-work) is ridiculous". However, we do not need that. There are many things not invented yet. (Even LENR might be funded by a few enthusiast having nothing else to do but what interested them. Even today some people write blog posts without any chance to be paid - must be interest??:) ) The situation was the same when the industrial revolution happened. People said it was better to do real (farm work) than to make automobiles for rich spoiled people. We change and our values change also. Our problem is that we are not prepared to jump to the new era. We are afraid of the change. Not such a new phenomena. America was early in the industrial revolution. GB, which was a more powerful country a hundred years ago decided that its colonies would keep GB in top. Well . . .
Nigel, I think your fears are making you try to find an answer to the question; which came first the hen or the egg? In a society where we can offer everybody the basics - trust will evolve. Debatable if it is good or bad but I think we are more alike now then we were a hundred years ago. I do agree that there is period when some people will take the opportunity to abuse the system but that is the cost of progress. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote: > > I wonder whether a more workable/realistic alternative is to introduce >> artificial inefficiencies into society such that more people need to work. >> > > See Frederic Bastiat, "The Candlemaker's Petition:" > > http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph3.html#S.1, Ch.7, A Petition > > > See also: "A Negative Railroad:" > > http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph4.html#S.1, Ch.17, A > Negative Railroad > > > QUOTE: > > M. Simiot raises the following question: > > Should there be a break in the tracks at Bordeaux on the railroad from > Paris to Spain? > > He answers the question in the affirmative and offers a number of reasons, > of which I propose to examine only this: > > 'There should be a break in the railroad from Paris to Bayonne at > Bordeaux; for, if goods and passengers are forced to stop at that city, > this will be profitable for boatmen, porters, owners of hotels, etc.' > > Here again we see clearly how the interests of those who perform services > are given priority over the interests of the consumers. > > But if Bordeaux has a right to profit from a break in the tracks, and if > this profit is consistent with the public interest, then Angoulême, > Poitiers, Tours, Orléans, and, in fact, all the intermediate points, > including Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc., etc., ought also to demand breaks in > the tracks, on the ground of the general interest—in the interest, that is, > of domestic industry—for the more there are of these breaks in the line, > the greater will be the amount paid for storage, porters, and cartage at > every point along the way. By this means, we shall end by having a railroad > composed of a whole series of breaks in the tracks, i.e., a *negative > railroad*. > > END QUOTE > > > Put that way, artificial inefficiency (or make-work) is ridiculous. > > - Jed > >
