headers
Eugene Coyle | 28 Aug 2012 17:27
Favicon

The most important econ book of the year?

I recommend to many of you the book RACE AGAINST THE MACHINE by Eric Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee. I'm
trying to write something about the book, and I will get something out soon. But it struck me in the midst of
my struggles to write a few pages, that this is an important book for those interested in the issue of
cutting working hours, so I'm sending along this recommendation while my essay is still pending.

This is a VERY important book.

It is also PROFOUNDLY flawed.

First the important part: In about 50 pages the authors, in a very high position in the academic world, make
the case that technology, specifically digital technology, is poised to speed up and wipe out jobs.  They
provide an up-to-date description and analysis of technology which they believe may result in
astoundingly large reductions in necessary human employees.  The entire book is easy to read.

Second, the deeply flawed part: It is just as important to understand WHY they fail so completely in policy
recommendations.  Once they've made the case that jobs may be disappearing, they turn to policies to
respond to that. And here they really provide a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. Their policy
recommendations, a numbered set totalling 19, starts with some on education.  Recommending education
for some social problem is the last refuge of scoundrels, not that these authors are such.  The entire 19
could have been read on the editorial pages of the Wall St. Journal over the past few years.  And of course
they don't recommend cutting working hours, though one of the authors seems to be getting around to that.

And as I wondered why these authors fell into the flaw, and separately as I've wondered why economists in
general use only a sneer to dismiss cutting the working week as a response to unemployment, I think I now
understand why.  Standby for that.

The book is available for digital download for $3.99. I have a paper copy and that was $14.99.  Sadly, it is
only available from Amazon -- another flaw in the book.

For a very important book, a deeply flawed book, it is easy reading and the text is only 76 pages. There are a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tom Walker | 28 Aug 2012 19:33
Picon

Re: The most important econ book of the year?

I'm all ears. My theory is what Hayden White called "the technique of ostensive self-definition by negation," which "appears as a kind of reflex action in conflicts between nations, classes, and political parties, and is not unknown among scholars and intellectuals seeking to establish their claims to elite status against the vulgus mobile." I take White's "not unknown" to be a sarcastic understatement.

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Eugene Coyle <eugenecoyle-viWR4oFGN3Q@public.gmane.org> wrote:

And as I wondered why these authors fell into the flaw, and separately as I've wondered why economists in general use only a sneer to dismiss cutting the working week as a response to unemployment, I think I now understand why.  Standby for that.

--
Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Carrol Cox | 28 Aug 2012 21:24

Re: The most important econ book of the year?

While it must happen in isolated instances, I have never encountered an
instance of _anyone_ changing a basic position because of arguments against
it. To put it in traditional political terms, argument/persuasion exists
only in the realm of propaganda, in which the intended readers already agree
with the central principles involved and are actively seeking to deepen
their understanding of those principles;  argument/persuasion never works in
agitation or in fundamental theory! This raises difficult questions re the
origins of "new" fundamental views, but those difficulties are themselves
theoretical 'problems' and cannot be solved by 'arguing' that 'argument'
works.

Robert Owen's thought, if I remember correctly, from his 'naïve' assumption
that machinery should reduce human labor. (Marx quotes an ancient writer who
made that assumption in discussing the water wheel.) But with the
development of full-scale industrial capitalism that 'naïve' assumption no
longer had a grounding in "common sense" and therefore could no longer from
the point of departure for further theory. 

Reporter: What  is?

Marx (in his old age): Struggle.

That exchange and the origin of new opinions or of new theory can be
understood if Thesis 11 is understood as a proposition in epistemology, not
'ethics' or 'politics."

When new struggles emerge, more or less accidentally, over the length and
intensity of the working day many more intellectuals will come to understand
and accept the arguments put forth by Gene Coyle & Tom Walker. 

Carrol 

-----Original Message-----
From: pen-l-bounces@...
[mailto:pen-l-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Eugene Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:28 AM
To: Pen-l Pen-L; Pen-l Pen-L
Subject: [Pen-l] The most important econ book of the year?

I recommend to many of you the book RACE AGAINST THE MACHINE by Eric
Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee. I'm trying to write something about the
book, and I will get something out soon. But it struck me in the midst of my
struggles to write a few pages, that this is an important book for those
interested in the issue of cutting working hours, so I'm sending along this
recommendation while my essay is still pending.

This is a VERY important book.

It is also PROFOUNDLY flawed.

First the important part: In about 50 pages the authors, in a very high
position in the academic world, make the case that technology, specifically
digital technology, is poised to speed up and wipe out jobs.  They provide
an up-to-date description and analysis of technology which they believe may
result in astoundingly large reductions in necessary human employees.  The
entire book is easy to read.

Second, the deeply flawed part: It is just as important to understand WHY
they fail so completely in policy recommendations.  Once they've made the
case that jobs may be disappearing, they turn to policies to respond to
that. And here they really provide a textbook example of cognitive
dissonance. Their policy recommendations, a numbered set totalling 19,
starts with some on education.  Recommending education for some social
problem is the last refuge of scoundrels, not that these authors are such.
The entire 19 could have been read on the editorial pages of the Wall St.
Journal over the past few years.  And of course they don't recommend cutting
working hours, though one of the authors seems to be getting around to that.

And as I wondered why these authors fell into the flaw, and separately as
I've wondered why economists in general use only a sneer to dismiss cutting
the working week as a response to unemployment, I think I now understand
why.  Standby for that.

The book is available for digital download for $3.99. I have a paper copy
and that was $14.99.  Sadly, it is only available from Amazon -- another
flaw in the book.

For a very important book, a deeply flawed book, it is easy reading and the
text is only 76 pages. There are a few more pages of notes and
acknowledgments etc.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane