Thank you for sharing that Tommy. You may go now.
Friedman is a complete idiot. Probably never held a real job in his life.
“New York Times columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner, Tom Friedman “
‘Twould appear that Pulitzer prizes are printed on the top of Corn Flake boxes.
We’re not talkin’ a whole lotta excess IQ there, bubba.
If we include Dorkbama the Muslim eunuch and Math-Challenged Krugman, we can include those penny Nobel (non-STEM) prizes also.
Wow, it’s so crazy all this automation technology was invented in the past week with Trump being elected!
How about we start with your job?
Selling fear.
All part of the progressive message of fear, hate, ignorance and violence.
Why would anyone, anywhere, pay attention to this NYTimes faker?
Ok then, go to school and become an automation engineer.
The employment will still be higher than no factories altogether.
Gee, this old Leftist wind bag was all for raising every fast food worker’s wage to $15/hr...no problem. With restaurants closing everywhere they adopted $15, it seems they will try to blame Pres Trump’s border tax for their loony failure.
You’re being too kind to Friedman.
TOM FRIEDMAN, if you can’t run with the BIG DOGS, stay on the porch.
Automation is real and will reduce the number of jobs. But that would happen with or without Trump. I would rather have the factories here, automated or not.
Doesn't the automation create jobs or does it just appear out of thin air?
As with Nobel Participation Prize Winner Krugman, whatever Friedman says or does - the opposite will end up being the truth!
Has this moron Friedman ever been right about anything? If BHO and Tom Friedman are examples to judge other winners by, the Nobel Prizes do not seem to be as meaningful as they may once have been.
No, it is liberal policies like $15 minimum wage and high option health insurance that drive automation to eliminate workers.
He knows he is lying. Robotics enhance productivity and benefit the economy. Would you rather have a robotic factory in Detroit or a manual factory in Mexico.
Should I sell my horse and buggy whip stock?
"He argued that the increase in population coupled with the border wall would lead to a breakdown in the US/Mexico relationship when it came to national security. “Now how are the Mexicans gonna feel about keeping that going when we're building a high wall?"
There!!! Finally an admission that the bottom line on the Liberal/Progressive/Democrat Party's absolute and unyielding hard line semantically described by the misnomer of "women's issues" is, in fact, "population control"!!
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Some dude comes in, pushes the button and everything starts up.
Everything gets made and it all gets done.
Just one big green button.