#TechnologyForEconomists

[geeksfromfuture-blog]

Can Technology Change Economists?

Most economists and futurists believe that technology has fundamentally changed our society. The Future of Jobs is at the center of this debate. We need to make some changes to our current economic system, or our societies way of life will be forever changed. In our minds the two basic definitions of technology changes to the methods of production of goods and/or services and changes in the consumer behavior of consumers. You can think of it as moving from hand tools to chain saws, and vice versa. The products we use every day were not invented by governments or corporations. That original form of machinery was developed by individuals to solve a problem. It evolved over time to become more efficient, allowing people to do more work. New varieties of machinery allowed even more productivity, which led to the invention of new processes. There is no reason to think that this type of evolution has stopped. Today we have the first documented technological revolution. And if we look beyond today we can see many more. We still have hand tools, but we can turn them into machines and power them with electricity. The basic definition of technology is moving from a product being created in one place, or processed in one location, to another, or to new ways of creating the same thing. Consider all of the different ways to cut paper today. Different machines and methods mean different products. Modern businesses require very different types of knowledge and expertise from their workers than did their predecessors. The most important component of any invention is the ability to change the way something is made, the new technique allows for a change in the output. Or to say it another way, different inputs and outputs give us a product that is unique to the person who is using it. The more durable and flexible the input or output is, the more new things it can produce. We continue to innovate in new forms, and many times our new machines are applied to tasks that were previously not thought of. This change in output often leads to new jobs being created. But I am sure you do not want new inventions to create new jobs for the displaced. If we want this to happen we need to look at the changing nature of our society. Let's assume that in 20 years, technology has changed our society enough to allow all of the worker's to get employment with similar jobs. If we want to know if a change has happened, let's look at two basic types of change. One is the new input and the other is a change in output. We need to know if technology has changed our society enough to allow all of the workers to have jobs, because when we have enough people with jobs, then innovation happens. When new output replaces old output, and new skills become important to the human population, then we have found ourselves in a new environment. We can now accept our society and the changes happening around us. Even if I am misreading this Economic Study of our future, I hope I am not. There are many places where our leaders may end up taking me wrong. So I encourage all of you to please consider all this and think on it.

Will Technology Change Economists?

Will Technology Change Economists? That is a question we ask ourselves in the current economic climate. We see technology advances happening, but the same questions are being asked at each of the different economic levels. Is technological progress responsible for job losses in the US and in other countries? Is it part of the reason for the drastic decline in the US GDP? Will it play into the future price of oil? What is the role of the robots to play in the evolution of the human race? Will technological progress cause an economic breakdown? Will the advent of robotics lead to the extinction of the human race? These are just some of the questions we as a society have been asking at each level of economics. It's worth pausing to look at contemporary technology and the way that it will affect our future. We can view technology from many perspectives - social, political, historical, biological, technological and socio-economic. Each of these has a direct bearing on the future of humanity and how we think about the future. So how can we place our view on the future into perspective so we can properly understand what the impact of technological progress is on the future of mankind? Will our technological civilisation fall under the spell of the God of chaos, or will it continue to expand, develop and grow? We have seen the introduction of new technologies such as computers, cell phones, online gaming, social networking, and the Internet, that are changing the nature of employment and the future. This has led to an explosive growth in business, which has led to the present globalised economy. So how is this going to play out for the role of technology in the future? Will our economic decisions be influenced by the emergence of new technologies that are affecting the workplace? We have seen ethical dilemmas arising around technological development in areas such as medical research and the role of cloning in society. In some parts of the world there is a religious controversy surrounding the use of cloning to prolong life. The moral issues that arise from the introduction of new technologies can be seen in all these scenarios. There are also new technological developments that might lead to economic dilemmas. For example, the notion of artificial intelligence has some serious ethical implications. If the development of AI goes too far and creates a cyborg, then we are faced with the question of what it means for the future of humanity, and the future of the environment. Will our technological development continue to play a role in shaping the future of humanity? Will our ethical values take precedence over economic growth? The answers to these questions will determine whether or not we achieve the future we want or whether we have another techno-dream that is stifled by our ethics. We can observe the rise of AI, robotics and medical innovations at the same time as we watch our technological advancements. For example, the cell phone has changed the way that we communicate with one another. At the same time, new health technology such as biometric scanning and ultra sound imaging is giving doctors the ability to identify certain diseases in the very early stages of their development, before they become symptoms.

Read the full article

[geeksfromfuture-blog]

Can Technology Replace Economists?

If you've ever heard the words 'technology and economics', you may have jumped up and left the room, just thinking about how technology can replace economists? But before you go that far, let me explain what I mean. In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that we need to start rethinking our own economic models for use in explaining technological change. Because at the end of the day, no matter how sophisticated our technology, it's still just a simple thing that gives us more information. We can't know the future and be certain that the economy will continue to run on the way it has been doing so far. The same goes for economics. Sure, new things can change things but they don't give us knowledge about what will happen in the future, because all they can do is provide us with more information. It doesn't give us any kind of 'forecast' or forecast at all. So while we continue to use a relatively simple and well tested economic model to explain the world of today, the next few decades may not be predictable in terms of economics and technology. New technologies are likely to have greater effects on the economy and society than we ever thought possible, giving us a new paradigm and altogether different set of problems to solve, as they will have a greater impact than we could have ever imagined before. Now this raises the question, is the current economic system still fit for purpose? We may be at a turning point when the economic system will become obsolete and will not be able to do its job anymore. As technology becomes more advanced, it will change our whole lives and society. If this is the case, will we still be able to use a technological system to predict the future and explain our society and the way it works? Will technology replace economists? I think not. If this was to happen and technology replaced economics, then a lot of things would change. There would be an overall lack of information and predictability for everything that happens. Everything would be dependent on the whims of science and technology and not the natural laws of the world. Although, the same may not be true of the economic system, because although the information, analysis and predictions made by economists may change, their economic model can keep changing with the changes that technology causes. And if the predictions of economists become increasingly wrong, then it won't be wise to rely on them too much. Things would shift again and the entire system would come apart at the seams. Technology, for all its changes and innovations, remains something that is independent of nature and very dependent on humans, in many ways. That's why economists still have a place in predicting the future. They are still uniquely qualified and able to make predictions about how the world will change, what will happen and what will be the consequences. Although, this might mean that the knowledge and opinions of economists will start to fade. But for the time being, it is the best tool we have, and that's why we use it. So now, would it really be smart to go away from the economists altogether and use something else, such as the laws of thermodynamics? It would seem that thermodynamics, which has its roots in the early 1900s, is one of the better alternatives that we have to use to explain the world of today. But is it really more efficient than economists, in terms of explaining the future? I doubt it, because there is little doubt that people like Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Bernoulli and Thomas Young have done more to explain and predict the future than anyone else, not even including those who wrote about it. What it really comes down to is that whatever we use to explain and predict the future, it's basically all using the same thing, which is still a simple framework that shows us more information, but doesn't tell us anything about the future itself. and it's one of the biggest problems that our society faces, namely what to do about the future.

Will Technology Replace Economists?

Will Technology Replace Economists? Yes, it is quite possible. I remember the frustration when people used to ask me, "Will Economics Fall Out of the Sky?" It is too easy, and people need to be aware of this. However, there is no reason why we cannot make a rapid transition to technology - and a smarter future for the world. Perhaps you will not like this answer but, well, if you think about it, it would be hard to find a better answer. I don't like to get involved in politics, I am not an economist, I don't write these articles, and I do not know much about the subject matter. So, let's keep that in mind. Let's look at people from the past who didn't have all the modern conveniences - and for most people, they seem to have been happy. Even today, in the developed world, when some people have more than others, that doesn't seem to be cause for worry. When you think about it, it makes sense. You see, in the Industrial Revolution, things changed dramatically. Things were far more efficient and were starting to change the nature of work. The pace of life was changing and the change could be very good for the human race, as long as it happened slowly and in an orderly fashion. In other words, not all of this technology should have been rushed into existence. Instead, there needs to be a lot of introspection and a debate about the direction of the future, how things will change and where they will head. Then, and only then, should the changes start to be made. That's how it has been for centuries. It seems that some scientists and futurists think that scientists are still doing experiments on everyday people, in laboratories in the world of science fiction. It seems to me that is highly unlikely to happen in the real world any time soon. Let's face it, science fiction is a very long way away from what is likely to happen in the real world, I hope. We are entering a period where some people are working with technology that is far more advanced than anything that was ever imagined in our history. If we do not leave the way that we came from, that won't be the end of mankind. For sure, there will be some backlash against this development. But, what is much more important, is to ask yourself how you are going to respond to these changes and how you will integrate it into your lives. How you are going to adapt to this faster, smarter future? How will you be able to adapt and deal with those changes? Many people are unsure about how they are going to handle the changes and that is, of course, why there is some backlash in the real world. But, remember, these changes are here, and we must change or we will be forgotten species - history will not remember us as a species. There are some issues that should be discussed and others that will take a little bit longer to get to an appropriate place. We can only hope that we are able to understand these changes and they help us to adapt, when they come. Read the full article

[geeksfromfuture-blog]

Can Technology Save Economists?

"Can Technology Save Economists?" That is the title of a recent Wall Street Journal editorial. The article presents a debate among several prominent economists, who agree that technology is making a difference to both the ways that we live and to the type of jobs that we have. While this may be true, it's not the big picture perspective that we should be focusing on. As I wrote in my recently published book, The Age of Diminishing Returns, our economic system is failing in many ways. It seems more that we are at the point where we need to examine the potential of technology and innovations in order to get the job done better. Technology is providing tools for many people, but it's not providing an economy that is working for everyone. While certain things may improve, the truth is that we're doing much more with fewer resources. We're eating too much food to be healthy, and there's a lot more and bigger stuff to transport than there is to carry it. And since the ecological footprint on the planet is growing, this will affect the health of our living world. Economies based on the concept of a lot of people consuming a lot of resources is problematic. As the environmental footprint grows, we'll have to face some major challenges. The traditional theory of economics says that the more that society gets, the more that it produces. If you want to see economic growth, don't forget the price of water. More of our society is being affected by the global financial meltdown, and we're experiencing the effects of the subprime crisis. It's not just the subprime market, but mortgage lending and other housing finance activities. The structural problems are clearly affecting the economies of many countries. There's no doubt that many economists and policymakers understand these issues, but as long as they are tied to the notion of economic growth and that economic growth is the only thing that matters, it's not going to matter what's happening to the environment. We may continue to think that economic growth is important, but we need to adjust our thinking and start looking at how we are using the planet. We need to know what we are doing to make things better. Think about the digital entertainment industry - how many people have cell phones? I bet that number is even larger than the number of people who have televisions and/or computers. It's hard to believe that we need to get digital in-home entertainment into the hands of everyone so that they'll want it, but we do. Now, is that a great idea? If we need to go to this level of entertainment, then it's probably a huge leap in technology that is in our future. If we don't, then there's much more to worry about. But what we need to do is invest in big data, big idea, big science, and big research. We need to see all of these technologies working together and producing jobs rather than problems. Now, while we're facing some big challenges, we also know that the subprime crisis and the global financial meltdown have helped us see the future, even if it's not the one we were hoping for. We're far more connected than we've ever been before and it's up to us to make the most of it and grow our economies.

Will Technology Save Economists?

Is the future of economics waiting on the shoulders of the technology industry? It may be time to ask that question now as the road ahead is still clear. For some of the most educated, technology gurus in the business are making big bets with their companies on innovations in robotics, 3D printing, and synthetic biology. While these are huge technological developments, they still have a long way to go. Certainly, they are not as far as economics is, but they will help at least add a new layer to the sort of financial economics we are familiar with. Technology has always been critical to the production of goods and services. That's true today more than ever before. The key is to constantly evolve that technology into the modern world. The problem is that so many of these innovations fail to deliver in the short term, and become obsolete long before they truly provide benefits. In fact, it seems as if we are witnessing the death of the new technologies, like the Internet, as we learn what works. After all, the advantage to introducing a new technology is that it will improve the customer experience by improving cost-effectiveness, and it may also help people learn new things. These advantages of innovations tend to work against them as consumers continue to be skeptical about the efficiency of new technologies. The problem, however, is that innovations change the way people think about the world in much the same way as the traditional models that were in place in our economy prior to the introduction of the computers and the Internet. In the case of most consumers, the first thing they consider when they search for something is the price, the efficiency of the service, and the quality of the product. That's because new techniques require an evaluation of the outputs of processes for a company to optimize its profits. The most advanced innovations do not just create new products and services but also enhance existing ones, including improvements to the way the company produces goods and services. It is also important to note that economic theory is concerned with the success of the industry and not just the ways in which the company performs its core activities. By focusing solely on the production process as a whole, companies lose sight of how that activity can improve both their overall production and its profit. For instance, if an automobile manufacturer has a design which offers better performance, they can apply the same process to the assembly line where vehicles are produced. However, there's nothing preventing the firm from replacing certain models of cars with the more powerful model or applying other processes to the assembly line, thus improving their efficiency and lower their profit margins. In fact, many financial economists believe that the long-term stability of the market itself is at risk as many new innovations are going into services, like, robotics and artificial intelligence. Yes, robotics and artificial intelligence are just as much about analyzing and optimizing data as it is about making products, but they also have the potential to impact the nature of that market in a very significant way. As more people buy and use the new technologies, that translates into more value being added to the business. If the business can re-model their service offerings in order to generate more revenue, they can be able to absorb that cost and their production costs will decrease. While it is possible to predict future technology with the accuracy and granularity that would have been impossible just a few years ago, it is also important to be realistic about the efficiency of new technologies. Ultimately, the future of technology is still likely to require much investment and innovation.

Read the full article

[geeksfromfuture-blog]

Can Technology End Economists?

We are living in a world full of technology, from shopping to travel and education to healthcare, the ability to quickly and effortlessly make decisions has made life easier for everyone. But can technology end Economists? Or do we need to figure out some more radical ways to make our lives better and more fulfilling? When I say technology can end Economists, I don't mean that only computer-based learning and technology have a place in this equation. We can also use all of our senses to the best of our abilities. We just need to make sure that our senses get the most use possible. I also don't mean that we should make use of all media and computers in our lives. I want to ask you something; when you go to the grocery store, do you see the prices listed on the display? Do you see the canned goods? Or are you paying attention to all the small things that help you save money and live a happier life? This question has always bothered me. Why is it that it's cheaper to buy paper and keep track of Dixie cups than it is to use that electronic price tag for food? To do this, we need to find the consumer service quality that is equal to or better than what we get online. It is obvious that consumers expect the same level of service as they would get if they went out of their way to go to the grocery store. We cannot create a system of different price tags at different locations for different items because the customer wants to get the same thing for the same price. The competition between the different locations will never work if the consumer's expectation of the consumer service does not rise to match up with the online prices. Prices are affected by our brain processes that we pay attention to when we are going to pay for something. Every time we leave our homes, we feel anxiety, apprehension, and fear about whether or not we are going to pay for something and then pay for it. We need to pay attention to this for us to be able to find out if our product is going to be worth it or not. In the case of shopping, most people who go to the store are facing this problem because it is our job to make sure we pay attention to it when we go to the grocery store. Sometimes, the need to make sure we pay attention to the price really does take over our brain. A more efficient grocery store might charge slightly more for the same amount of items but then have small bags that they put the product in. The customer would pay the cost difference. If we think about it, there are several reasons why the current price is higher than the cost that is listed online. People might pay more in cash when they buy groceries, they might be buying the same item twice, the credit card companies are charging the customer more than the average person, and they might be paying a higher price for those items that you do not even notice until you get home. Each one of these things costs more than the cost that is listed on the price tag. Consider some consumer review sites. They list reviews and feedback from other consumers, as well as the complaints and opinions. These sites give consumers tips on what to look for in a grocery store and how to avoid many of the problems that exist in grocery stores. And when people give these sites a star rating, it makes it more likely that the site will be accurate and will provide consumers with the best information. As someone who grew up in a farm environment, I remember trying to buy eggs or other fresh produce. The last thing I wanted to do was pay $5 for a dozen eggs. Instead, I kept an eye on the price, found the better deal, bought a couple of them, and then had a taste test so I could know which ones I liked best. Now that I am a parent, I try to make sure my kids are always on time to go to the grocery store. as, well.

Will Technology End Economists?

Many economists argue that the latest invention in technology, the internet, has led to the death of free economic enterprise. Most people would agree that the internet is good for spreading knowledge and ideas and good for making it easier to communicate with others. But one thing the internet cannot do, according to many free market advocates, is to create jobs. They argue that the internet will only replace existing jobs, which is the same thing that is happening with more traditional businesses. Why does the internet not allow for more jobs? Is it true that the reason the internet cannot generate jobs is because of the competition inherent in a market economy? According to both free-market theorists and traditional economists, when economic activity expands, jobs are created in the process. So is this true? In order to find out, let's examine the evidence. When economists analyze job creation, they are looking at new jobs created. The number of existing jobs being destroyed and created is not being analyzed. Hence, the economic growth associated with the internet is attributed to the number of new jobs, rather than the number of existing jobs. If the number of new jobs created via the internet is not taken into account, the number of new jobs created via traditional businesses is only slightly lower than the number of new jobs created via the internet. In other words, the available number of jobs created through business is more than the available amount of jobs created via the internet. This implies that the number of jobs created via the internet is greater than the number of existing jobs, so it must be due to the amount of wealth being created in the economy. Traditional businesses create a certain amount of wealth that is then passed onto the person holding the business, but the net effect of this activity is limited to the economies in which the business operates. Whether or not the economic growth created via the internet was larger than the economic growth created by traditional businesses, the net effect of the new wealth created via the internet is worth more than the amount of wealth created via traditional businesses. This would imply that the economic growth created via the internet is greater than the economic growth created by traditional businesses. It is worth noting that this also implies that the net effect of new jobs created via the internet is greater than the net effect of new jobs created via traditional businesses. Is this evidence that more jobs can be created via the internet than can be created via traditional businesses? Perhaps not. Just as the internet can't create jobs, so it cannot destroy jobs. Just as the internet cannot create jobs, so it cannot destroy jobs. It is possible to create jobs via the internet, but these jobs are unique in that they are not available anywhere else. If jobs can be created via the internet, these jobs will be unique and not available anywhere else. Therefore, while it may seem possible that the creation of new jobs can occur via the internet, it cannot be proven conclusively. But this begs the question: Can the internet create jobs? Can the internet create enough jobs to replace those created by traditional businesses? One thing is certain: The Internet can't create jobs. It cannot create enough jobs to replace those created by traditional businesses. And, as this article has proven, the internet cannot create enough jobs to explain economic growth in this economy.

Read the full article