https://twitter.com/Cepaderefusse/status/576946518533472257
Is poverty in America not having a cell phone, or not having a smart phone?
13 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture, poverty and inequality, technological progress Tags: cell phones, creative destruction, iPhones, technological diffusion
The difference between 2000 and 2015 in one image
09 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
in economic history, technological progress Tags: The Great Enrichment
The difference between 2000 and 2015 in one image. http://t.co/FJKP6XylLA—
Benedict Evans (@BenedictEvans) March 05, 2015
Despite all this talk of the coming stagnation, technology diffusion is quickening
06 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
Charts showing there’s never been a better time to own a car
06 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
in population economics, technological progress, transport economics Tags: the good old days, The Great Enrichment
Are humans getting cleverer?
06 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of education, technological progress Tags: Flynn effect, IQ
…if the Americans of 100 years ago took today’s tests, they would have an average IQ of 70 – the recognised cut-off for people with intellectual disabilities. To put it another way, IQ has been rising at roughly three points per decade.
HT: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31556802
Atari computer demonstration, 1979
04 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
Atari computer demonstration, 1979. http://t.co/eHzSJp6yFW—
History Pics (@HistoryPixs) February 16, 2014
Bryan Caplan on the economics of Star Trek replicators (that is, artificial intelligence)
03 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
in labour economics, labour supply, technological progress, unemployment Tags: artificial intelligence, Bryan Caplan, creative destruction, demand for labour, star trek, Star Trek replicators, supply of labour, technological unemployment
Bryan Caplan wrote a blog a few years ago, explaining the labour economics of artificial intelligence, using an exam question he poses to his graduate students:
Suppose artificial intelligence researchers produce and patent a perfect substitute for human labour at zero MC.
Use general equilibrium theory to predict the overall economic effects on human welfare before AND after the Artificial Intelligence software patent expires.
He then gave the answer about a week later:
While the patent lasts, the patent-holder will produce a monopoly quantity of AIs. As a result, the effective labour supply increases, and wages for human beings fall – but not to 0 because the patent-holder keeps P>MC.
The overall effect on human welfare, however, is still positive! Since the AIs produce more stuff, and only humans get to consume, GDP per human goes up. How is this possible if wages fall?
Simple: Earnings for NON-labour assets (land, capital, patents, etc.) must go up. Humans who only own labour are worse off, but anyone who owns a home, stocks, etc. experiences offsetting gains.
When the patent expires, this effect becomes even more extreme. With 0 fixed costs, wages fall to MC=0, but total output – and GDP per human – skyrockets.
Human owners of land, capital, and other non-labour assets capture 100% of all output. Humans who only have labour to sell, however, will starve without charity or tax-funded redistribution.
His logic is quite good. Caplan drew attention in the responses to his blog of Capt J Parker and Alex Godofsky in the comments section of his blog.
My comments at the time were as follows:
- An artificially intelligent robot that was a perfect substitute for human labour sounds like the replicators on star trek?
- Who operates the machines? who tells them what to do? what not to do?
- After the patent expired, would anyone care if the poor stole/copied the AI machines and made them for for themselves. who cares if a free good is stolen?
- Is it a crime to steal a replicator on star trek?
At Last Count: Global status of GMO crops | Genetic Literacy Project
02 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
in economic history, economics of media and culture, health economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, technological progress Tags: Anti-Science left, GMOs
Recent Comments