And there are two kinds of people in this world — people creative enough to think outside the box and those who aren’t.
Amazingly, Bank of Canada technocrats sometimes fall into this former category. Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn “Chaos” Wilkins said robotics will “re-energize underwhelming productivity” in Canada.
After all, you can’t debase the wages machines don’t earn.
Of course, all this hoopla about job losses stems from economic illiteracy. There are always going to be people needed to program and code these robots. Many new technologies have threatened older industry establishments without causing mass starvation and economic deterioration.
The argument for a basic income guarantee is an argument for free money you didn’t earn. Full stop.
So where’s the outrage over the job losses in the candlestick making industry? What about horse-and-buggy taxi carriages?
Why not mimic the old Soviet Union and have the state employ people to endlessly produce steel for no reason?
Why not do one better than the communists and have people believe they are truly doing business in a market while taxing and regulating everything and everyone for desired effect?
That seems to be the way Canada is going, unintended consequences and all.
The Bank of Canada warns of a future where robotics make our lives better, but also create unemployment and income inequality.
Insomuch that robots create unemployment, those people will find new jobs. As for income inequality, there is nothing wrong with that.
A recessionary future has more to do with the Bank’s monetary policy than it does with robots takin er jerbss.
But I can’t help but agree with the BoC technocrat: “Innovation is always a process of creative destruction, with some jobs being destroyed and, over time, even more jobs being created… We’ve seen this process in action throughout history.”
We’ve also seen where state interventions in the economy have led.
Anymore taxing or regulating of economic actions and soon the whole system will become an all-around bureaucratic order.
And we’ve seen that process in action throughout the 20th century. It wasn’t pretty.
Far from it.