I'm with Arthur on that one. I've been creating supply all of my life. It's the only way I've survived. :>)))
REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 10:39 PM To: 'Keith Hudson'; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] The greatest economic growth sector of them all Just as an aside. The one liner that comes to mind from way back when in economics was: Say's Law: Supply creates its own demand. Keynes: Demand creates its own supply. Though overly simplistic it is nonetheless useful at times. Arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 5:36 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION Subject: [Futurework] The greatest economic growth sector of them all Too many economists talk glibly about the "service" economy that is supposed to follow the "industrial revolution". The problem with this is that the bulk of those in service occupations in the advanced countries are being paid wages which have been steadily declining in real terms for the last 30 years and which are now appreciably less than those earned by the typical industrial worker 30-50 years ago. During the same period also, unemployment among the young (particularly males, but more recently joined by females) has been growing and seems remorseless. Certainly politicians don't know what to do about training young people because state educational system are declining in quality so much that there's little on which to base the specialized skills of the future. One of the greatest economists of the last two centuries, Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832) said that full employment and growing prosperity for all is inevitable so long as desirable products continue to be innovated and put on the market. But this chain of consumer goods has also broken down in the last 30 years. We have only had improvements (e.g. mobile phones), fashionable versions (e.g. kitchen make-overs) or amalgamations (e.g. personal computers) of products that were initially created anything from 50-200 years ago. We have tens of thousands of trivial low-profit products of course, but no longer those with the iconic, high-profit character of the photograph, the bicycle, domestic electrification, the radio, the car, the television and the personal computer of the past. One of the greatest physicists of the last century, Freeman Dyson (1923- ) has lately turned his attention to the fastest growing scientific field today and to what he calls "garage-genetics". What is very interesting and significant about genetics and its future commercial possibilities is that it is more skill-intensive and less capital-intensive than any technology that has gone before. For example, DNA-sequencer machines, which cost at least $2 billion only 10 years ago, are now available at $10,000 (a 200,000-fold reduction!). They are already down to the size of a domestic washing machine, and without doubt, will cost no more than a washing machine within another 10 years. Given massive quantities of more data from genetic research that will also be pouring out of the research labs in the next 10 year (and onwards) what will the advent of the cheap DNA-sequencer achieve? It will reveal genetic predisposition. It will stimulate the growth of the single most desirable consumer objective of all -- personal health. And this will involve not only one's own health but also, for mothers-to-be particularly, the health of one's future children. And for these services, people will be prepared to pay -- and already do pay -- prices far beyond anything else they buy. Some will spend to their last penny. It is already the case that people in the advanced countries can ensure that their children don't inherit any of the rare dominant-gene diseases that have already been identified (such as Tay-Sachs) Usually about a dozen of these are tested for so far but there are hundreds more that are rarer. And for some parents (usually infertile couples who need IVF) they can also exclude the matching-up of recessive-gene diseases (e.g. cystic fibrosis) that might occur in their children. Usually (in advanced countries), up to about 20 are routinely excluded, but there are also hundreds more recessive-genes which are rarer and can cause life-threatening disease if matched-up. And then there are the genetic predispositions which every single one of us has to particular diseases that will strike sooner or later, perhaps even in early or middle-aged life (e.g. some heart diseases or type-2 diabetes). Because these are the products of very complex gene associations in our DNA (and often constantly-changing associations, too) then these are as yet beyond diagnosis, despite the hopes of several large corporations. They will gradually yield their secrets in due course as research data accumulate. The prospects are so huge that it is already the case that the medical professions, large corporations and the politicians under their influence are already lining up to protect DNA-based prognosis and thus hope to control incomes and profits therefrom. But it's also the case that the total purview and the need are going to be so great that it will not be able to be restrained by any would-be protective minority. If anything is ever going to be a free market it is going to be DNA-sequencing and prognosis. In the coming years as youth unemployment grows, there are also going to be -- here and there -- highly talented jobless individuals and some of those are going to become genetic specialists in the same way as some have become brilliant hackers and games-makers and entrepreneurs (such as Richard Branson). And some highly talented students are going to drop out of university education to take advantage of opportunities if they arise (such as Bill Gates). And there are undoubtedly going to be many graduates in genetics, some of them geniuses perhaps, who cannot quite fit into the usual career pattern. (Here we have the example of Paul Dirac, the quantum genius, who was so socially inept that he almost didn't have an academic future.) The content of the DNA world is so astronomically vast, the commercial opportunities are so huge, and the inefficiency of our present state educational systems are so great, that thinking about that DNA-sequencer sitting in a garage or even a smaller bed-sit room a la Freeman Dyson's idea makes a great deal of sense. And, of course, the above is only the least of what DNA can do. Once the stream of incomes and profits start accumulating from health prognostics it can then be invested further into a new mainline market -- DNA can make things also. Keith Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2010/12/
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
