first than nothing, discussion about the topic is great as most of the times is @hn, but I have this felling about this post:
why this kind of post keep appearing in HN? is this also going to go the same way of decadence as slashdot to end up being another Yahoo answers?
Let start to dissect the post:
The tenet is:
"Consumption doesn't improve economy or humanity in general. Neither does production. If you want to help, start automating things."
first thing first, where is the cold, hard data supporting this, or is this another "I would write some fancy stuff on my blog and get it re-blogged, I'm so tweet-in"? this is starting to be a trend, in which people throw a lot of poorly supported stuff to their blogs so they look "in".
Poor argument, emotion driven conclusion, at the beginning of the second paragraph is stated:
"Imagine"
but he later concludes:
"At this point, both of them are getting fat from their excessive consumption and working harder pay for it all."
what the heck does being fat has to do with the idea behind it all? is this a slimfast supporting post? what does the fat analogy means? was an analogy?
"Both are now working harder for things they don't need"
why they both should work harder? if they did not want ice cream or cookies the example is flawed in first place, economic should start with things that are required and go up to things we want a la Maslov.
"Of course, if they were intelligent people they'd try to improve the production of cookies and ice cream" it's called "competition" and it does already exist, it force you to create new technology to make the process cheaper and have better income from the same products allowing you to get your prices low (because you have better earning marging) and still be profitable, it's what prevents you from start making average tennis shoes, or cookies or ice cream because someone else is already way better at doing that; PLEASE do not come to the argument of "if they were intelligent" explain why is better.
"Is it true that we will only automate the processes we're working on once we're <<working long hours for things we don't need?>>" at this point I'm starting to think this is about a existential problem/phase of the author.
and I'm pretty sure you can start dissecting any part of the post with arguments pro and against it, as with anything else, it's the lack of any new light that bothers me, please don't tell me this will start to be the "throw some random stuff so I can show I'm cool" place.
why this kind of post keep appearing in HN? is this also going to go the same way of decadence as slashdot to end up being another Yahoo answers?
Let start to dissect the post: The tenet is:
"Consumption doesn't improve economy or humanity in general. Neither does production. If you want to help, start automating things."
first thing first, where is the cold, hard data supporting this, or is this another "I would write some fancy stuff on my blog and get it re-blogged, I'm so tweet-in"? this is starting to be a trend, in which people throw a lot of poorly supported stuff to their blogs so they look "in".
Poor argument, emotion driven conclusion, at the beginning of the second paragraph is stated: "Imagine" but he later concludes: "At this point, both of them are getting fat from their excessive consumption and working harder pay for it all." what the heck does being fat has to do with the idea behind it all? is this a slimfast supporting post? what does the fat analogy means? was an analogy?
"Both are now working harder for things they don't need" why they both should work harder? if they did not want ice cream or cookies the example is flawed in first place, economic should start with things that are required and go up to things we want a la Maslov.
"Of course, if they were intelligent people they'd try to improve the production of cookies and ice cream" it's called "competition" and it does already exist, it force you to create new technology to make the process cheaper and have better income from the same products allowing you to get your prices low (because you have better earning marging) and still be profitable, it's what prevents you from start making average tennis shoes, or cookies or ice cream because someone else is already way better at doing that; PLEASE do not come to the argument of "if they were intelligent" explain why is better.
"Is it true that we will only automate the processes we're working on once we're <<working long hours for things we don't need?>>" at this point I'm starting to think this is about a existential problem/phase of the author.
and I'm pretty sure you can start dissecting any part of the post with arguments pro and against it, as with anything else, it's the lack of any new light that bothers me, please don't tell me this will start to be the "throw some random stuff so I can show I'm cool" place.