Friedman, as a simple matter,
is right.
I belive this fits the definition of injustice.
It is. Look up the Luddite fallacy- it isn't as fallacious as it once was. Are there stenographers? Phone operators? Stationers? Can these people reasonably expect to learn some kind of certification in cloud computing, or the like? Look at the Postal Service falling apart. Don't tell me that this doesn't support a middle class lifestyle. Expect this kind of thing to happen much more in the future- technology rendering mass segments of the economy obsolete. I fear 9% unemployment may be considered "good in the future", and, compounded with an noncompetitive economic structure and a utterly ineffectual government, perhaps we'll see 25% unemployment and astronomical inequality. More advanced computers will be able to do more and more complex tasks and even management (Chile actually had such a system in the 70s. One day, maybe, we'll wake up and find that computers will be able to do all of our work for us. Then will follow the bitter realization that in a world where computers can do all the work we can, we are all out of a job. In short: the actualization of the Luddite fallacy.
Half of Chinese applicants at one college got 800 on their SAT math. Hyperbole? Not quite. I, for one, feel rather inaqadate with my 760 now.
And I suppose the rash of self-iimmolations that folled Bouazizi's were completely independent and unrelated? And the revolutions as well? Surely the fact that Israel followed Egypt would be surpreising and mention worthy.
The inernet gives people a greater choice in news, so now even the most traditional paper must pander to the lowest common denomiator.
\
Censorship is a lot harder with the internet.
Pardon my spelling, the syping screen is acting up.
