I admit, tests like these can be a bit flawed through own responses, since I consider Keynesian to be a bit of an insult, and I don’t fully agree with Keynesian doctrine, even though on those it’s probably the closest to my view.
But I do fundamentally agree with the state interfering fiscally.
It’s just that in general, or perhaps in the long-run, I prefer a state that isn’t very regulated and has lax fiscal policies.
Many industries simply will never be viable in countries like Ireland though. I don’t see much viability in the “new industry” argument when it comes to developed economies.
I mean let’s take the United States, which is pretty much the zenith of development in terms of diversity. Every industry is established. What else to protect?
Yes, the book was only published some 400 days ago.
Heck, it even explicitly argues that the IT revolution is not remotely comparable to previous revolutions, since it did not fundamentally alter life as we know it. Even extends to say that the prospect of driverless cars is possibly one of the most overhyped ‘microchanges’ to life.
However, the book doesn’t really agree with the concept of post-scarcity possibility, which is what many people talking about quantum computing generally lean to anecdotally.
Sure, but then, if you think about it, doesn’t that ultimately stop human progress in itself and just confirm his views that our lives will never again be changed in a revolution-like way?
We live radically different daily lives from our great great great grandparents, great great grandparents, great grandparents, grandparents but to a lesser extent our parents, where it is fairly comparable and hearing stories you’d hardly be surprised at what’s happening, since it’s basically you’re life. Will our grandchildren live a life remotely different to ours?
The book is some 750 pages long, you’d rather benefit more from the author’s own two-A4 summary.