James Drogan

*****

My sense is that Roubini, Brynjolfsson, McAfee, Wladawsky-Berger, and others are talking about a significant restructuring of the economy as a subsequent stage of development following on the agrarian > industrial > services sequence.  This restructuring, as Ken points out, has, as did the other restructurings, significant social impact.

It’s not just the development of income inequality, which we all know about, but there seems to be the development of a capability gap which, while likely always there, has been underscored by the authors mentioned above.  I doubt the area of the two squares is proportional to the data, but I often think in pictures and this is what emerged.  IC means the combination of income and capability.

There is a bridge between the two groups and people move back (see The Vanishing Male Worker: How America Fell Behind) and forth over that bridge.  How they move back and forth is related to the prior topic of discussion between several of you.  Whether people want to move back and forth is a different and equally interesting question.

I am unable to imagine any alternative to the above picture short of revolution.  Under the assumption that revolution is not desirable, then some way must be found to manage the IC structure for maximum mutual benefit (Dave’s “We are each better off when all of us are better off”).  Trickle down?  Socialism?  Single party rule?

Final point.  It’s generally true that the Higher IC consume more resources per capita than Lower IC.  What are the resource limitations that should concern us?

“May you live in interesting times.”  Supposed Chinese curse.

*****