>Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment

>>59446170

i think he meant that hes actually not an economist but a theoretic physicist

he left these stupid statements behind so people had a reference of something dumb he said and could compare it accurately against the genius stuff in physic

>>59446170
You need less goys if you have robutts. Automation tax would be the answer but if you have too many shitskins you wont have enough tax money to go around.

>>59446170
It means your mother loses her job because sexbots are a thing now, get with the times cuck.

>>59446186
But Economics is basically Mathematics, anon, and Einstein excelled at Math.

Also, he didn't say anything wrong.

>>59446242
>But Economics is basically Mathematics

wrong

>>59446242
>and Einstein excelled at Math
he didn't though, he failed all his math classes

>>59446170
He means the globalists have been working to soft-kill the peon-population for several decades now by putting nasty stuff in the food.

>>59446253
[citation needed]

>>59446170
You're living it you dumb piece of shit!

>>59446252
lrn2econometrics, pleb

File: tmp_24899-FB_IMG_1489762575776-674900724.jpg (40KB, 460x696px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 460x696px

We live in a post-workforce-scarcity economy, but our system is not able to handle that situation correctly.

>>59446253
>conflating flailing a class with being good with a set of concepts

>>59446170
well technological advancement never brings the predicted five-hour workweek because there are always a bunch of people who are either ambitious or just need the money, and choose to continue working longer hours to produce more output and earn more, instead of keeping their income constant and working less.

employers naturally favor these people and try to avoid hiring folks who would rather work less. So the workaholics set the curve in the labor market.

Economics is a social science.

>>59446917
So are accounting and actuarial science, yet those too are 100% math.

>>59446541
destroying jobs doesn't "hinder the free market" it's the result of the free market... the job market you dumb nigger

>>59447058
>applying an objective discipline to model non-objective scenarios makes the models objective
no!

>>59447095
How stupid are you?

He's right though. Look at what happened in the first industrialization combined with unchecked capitalism in the 1800's. People starved because companies didn't need them even though there wasn't an actual lack of food.

Capitalism in certain doses is necessary for innovation, but unchecked it leads to a situation where people starve not because of a lack of food, but because no company needs them.

>>59447145
capitalism is not necessary for innovation. put two teams of competing scientists in two different labs with the same goal and kill the group that doesn't meet your goal first.

>>59446186
Economists are losers who are too dumb for real math

>>59447235
economists are losers who are not autistic enough for real math and too autistic for finance

>>59446170
>trust me goyim

>>59446170
Burger flipping is a robot job.

File: GFF200.jpg (73KB, 603x495px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 603x495px

>>59447121
Did they just defrost you?

It might come as a surprise, but modern math has tools to deal with uncertainty and lack of information.

Git gud.

>>59446170
He meant that tptb don't care about people. Tech progress is fine but it's not going to create a utopia for the plebs.

>>59447145
>in the 1800's. People starved
pls
Starving and living like shit was commonplace prior to the 1800s. There was a population boom, a decrease in infant mortality and an increase in life expectancy in a rate never seen before thanks to automation. Luddites are fucking retarded.

>>59446170
He was wrong, period.

>all these Schumpeter retards that don't understand that modern automation is nothing like previously
Protip: not everyone can become educated enough to not be replaced by machines this time.

>>59449053
The point is no one cares about tiny outbreaks of unemployment in extremely specific areas, and you have no right to demand that I lower my standard of living by not having access to the superior automated production because muh jobs.

>>59446186
/thread

>>59449122
Indeed. Capitalism cannot be stopped anyways, Ludd was a retard.

But you'll still be faced with either giving the plebs enough to live or killing them all.

>>59449162
Nothing bad is going to happen to "the plebs" just to extremely specific and small groups of people like the guy that used to refill oil on street lights. Luddism is on the level of protectionism as counter-intuitive, destructive economic practices that only serve for politicians to point at people and claim "ha, I saved your job now suck my dick".

>>59449053
It doesn't matter if automation ends up creating unemployment in the future, Einstein was wrong at the time he made the statement. There's no way around that fact.

>>59449254
Undeniable. However he does have a way to becoming right over time, remember the cosmological constant thing?

Anyways I wouldn't really use him as any sort of argument from authority since he wasn't even an economist.

>>59449208
>the entire transportation industry
>most if not all of banking and insurance
>small
I wish I had your confidence, but there is a very real possibility for SHTF.

>>59446170
>Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all.

I guess he meant that technological progress frequently has not the same pace as the improvement of the average living conditions

Neat

>>59446253
>By his own words "I never failed in mathematics … Before I was fifteen I had mastered differential and integral calculus."

The Solow model was constructed 1 year after he died. So of course he thought something completely incorrect about Economics.