[summer]

This is such an interesting irony here, from the article:

Such advances, predicts Esther Dyson, a technology consultant, will bring "a huge reduction in inefficiency everywhere." That, in turn, would be an unsettling force for all sorts of industries and workers

So, in other words: eliminating "inefficiency" is predicted to cause a lot of initial angst. Wow! I always thought eliminating "inefficiency" would result in the OPPOSITE response from people! Seems the writer is implying humans are more comfortable in the current, inefficient mess!

[DB]

How would you like to be in the Real Estate multiple listing business at this point in time? The same is true for many other areas of business. Business and technologies are being made obsolete quickly these days. That always makes people that work in these areas apprehensive (to say the least).

[Gondring]

So, in other words: eliminating "inefficiency" is predicted to cause a lot of initial angst. Wow! I always thought eliminating "inefficiency" would result in the OPPOSITE response from people! Seems the writer is implying humans are more comfortable in the current, inefficient mess!

Inefficiency props up many peoples' income in the Western economies. Think efficiency is a good thing? Just wait for the great wail to go up from those who believe that it's a birthright of Americans to earn ten times the salary as an Indian. Increased efficiency will allow the market to level things even more and bring American salaries down to where they are comparable to others.

[GAB-1955]

"So, in other words: eliminating "inefficiency" is predicted to cause a lot of initial angst. Wow! I always thought eliminating "inefficiency" would result in the OPPOSITE response from people! Seems the writer is implying humans are more comfortable in the current, inefficient mess!"

Many people, industries, and nations rely on "inefficiencies" in the market to make a living. Tarrifs, transport costs, laws, and labor contracts, for example, may create artificial barriers to the free movement of goods and services. Think of the opposition to NAFTA in the 1990s, with Ross Perot noting "the giant sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico. Ironically, China is sucking those same sorts of jobs away from the Mexicans.

What eliminating market inefficiences does is to force some people out of business and others to be on the qui vive to innovate and fight for customers and suppliers. In the long run, it's beneficial for all involved, but boy does it hurt in the short run!