Harry,
I'm starting a new thread because, where you wrote:
<<<<
Your divisions are interesting for discussion but are useless in an
analysis of production.
>>>>
. . . I agree. And so is yours. They're both the sorts of things one reads
in text books by way of retrospective summaries. They're "stop" statements
rather than "step" ones. Our argument was a bit of fun -- in my case at
Henry George's expense -- but it doesn't take us forward. Instead, there
are many other questions that need to be discussed, such as:
How is the job structure changing?
What will be the next energy technology that can replace the burning of
fossil fuels?
How should children and young people be given equal opportunities?
What is the continuing role of the Internet?
How do present individual wealth disparities compare with those of the past?
Do national aggregations (e.g. a country's GDP) mean anything any longer?
What actually motivates consumers beyond simplistic notions of "greed" or
"envy"?
Does evolutionary biology have anything to contribute to economics?
What role will genetics play in future business?
What will be the effect of continuing job specializations?
Why has the financial sector become so large in recent decades?
Does the declining birth rate in advanced countries mean ultimate extinction?
Is money a valuable good in its own right or is it a piece of paper?
What consumer products, presently enjoyed by the rich, await mass production?
When we know how to divide ourselves into two species who will be motivated
to do so?
Will there be an economic benefit in becoming two or more separate species?
How do we put an economic value on the ecosystem?
All of these are important modern questions which classical economists
could not even have asked, never mind answered.
Keith
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
