I don’t think I agree with this premise at all, unfortunately.
The article describes extraction or manufacturing as the sole ways to increase “actual wealth” (apart from government works) but it’s just sophistry to embed the author’s biases against the value of information and services. That’s because services and white collar jobs both (a) can represent intrinsic value, and (b) can both directly and indirectly be subject to international trade.
To explain, the author would define manufacturing a refrigerator as “actual wealth,” but the knowledge of how to do so as not “actual wealth,” even though the knowledge is equally a prerequisite for the refrigerator, and is a more valuable unit for trade with other nations or economic growth.
The conclusion about focusing on long term “wealth” creation is fine, but that premise isn’t necessary to get there and detracts from the credibility of the argument.
Yeah, you’re right. I think the author tried to contrast jobs that add real value to the economy against financial trickery, which he accused of only serving the rich.
But indeed, white-collar jobs have played a tremendous role in the economy in the last 50 years or so.
I don’t think I agree with this premise at all, unfortunately.
The article describes extraction or manufacturing as the sole ways to increase “actual wealth” (apart from government works) but it’s just sophistry to embed the author’s biases against the value of information and services. That’s because services and white collar jobs both (a) can represent intrinsic value, and (b) can both directly and indirectly be subject to international trade.
To explain, the author would define manufacturing a refrigerator as “actual wealth,” but the knowledge of how to do so as not “actual wealth,” even though the knowledge is equally a prerequisite for the refrigerator, and is a more valuable unit for trade with other nations or economic growth.
The conclusion about focusing on long term “wealth” creation is fine, but that premise isn’t necessary to get there and detracts from the credibility of the argument.
Yeah, you’re right. I think the author tried to contrast jobs that add real value to the economy against financial trickery, which he accused of only serving the rich.
But indeed, white-collar jobs have played a tremendous role in the economy in the last 50 years or so.