Subscribe in a reader
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
« "Hubble Sees Infant Galaxies at the Edge of the Universe" |
| "Mathematicians know how to admit they’re wrong" »
I haven't seen that movie, but this seems like an apt analysis.
Posted by Craig on 05:30:00 AM in Economics
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Yes, the movie's economics are bizarre and ill thought-out (as in another recent sci-fi flick, In Time). No surprise, I guess.
Jack PQ |
February 19, 2014 at 08:57 AM
I watched the movie and I must ave missed something. The author assumes a lot here based on one man and one corporation. How do we know this guy wasn't just some freak who craved perfection, or that the rulers weren't just pulling his chain for fun? And then there's "want" vs "need". Too many assumptions for me.
But the biggest difference seems to be the author seeing this as a normal working society with an income gap. I saw this as pure slavery ala the Pharaohs of old. When you have true slavery, economics is a bit different I think.
That the author suggested that giving the slaves a bit of healthcare would appease them showed some serious underestimation.
Overall this type of argument highlights the real problem with all of these arguments. That there is one best solution and everyone has the same motives. Sure the rules want more robots, but maybe not at the expense of healthy slaves (who would be more able to revolt). Or maybe not because the few rulers with the better robots would hold more power. Etc. Just because a solution may make sense on the whole doesn't mean enough people want that solution.
February 20, 2014 at 09:57 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Find new books and literate friends with Shelfari, the online book club.