Showing posts with label services. Show all posts
Showing posts with label services. Show all posts

September 10, 2016

If an algorithm can be the boss, why don’t we use our own algorithms to be our own bosses?

Sir, I refer to Sarah O’Connor’s enlightening and interesting “When the boss is an algorithm” September 10.

I would not mind at all getting rid of my car, if I was sure there was a service out there that could respond reasonably well to my needs.

But my needs are in essence somewhat different than Uber drivers’ needs. I want a taxi when I need it, and they offer a taxi when their drivers feel like it.

So, in my neighborhood, and I care little about neighborhoods hundred of miles away, why could we not have a transportation cooperative, run by algorithms decided upon between users and drivers?

In fact, even if I got rid of my own car, I can easily imagine myself providing driving services using my neighbor’s car, with his remunerated permission of course, or using some collective neighborhood cars.

@PerKurowski ©

November 14, 2012

Last miles and gene pools should be considered when discussing manufacturing jobs.

Sir, John Kay writes about “Our fetish for making things fails to understand ‘realwork’” November 14. Of course, services is as real as any manufacturing job, but, as an economist, I still want to see some solid real assembly line manufacturing jobs close to me, for two reasons: 

First, the just in case; I do not want the last mile for delivering me ploughs, cloth, guns and batteries, to have to go over enemy land. 

Second, manufacturing is part of the biodiversity of a strong economy, and so I would like to keep some good solid real jobs for manufacturing workers, just like you would like to keep some heavy horses, “the Suffolk, the Clydesdale and the Percheron vie”, for your nations’ diversified gene pool reserve. 

Does that make me a manufacturing fetishist? I do not think so. The fact that I can get all on the web, does not mean I can get it all when the web is out.

May 13, 2005

We need a more win-win CAFTA

Sir, You rightly lend your support to the Central American free trade agreement, CAFTA, especially since not doing so would make it seem like you are joining the ranks of those opposed to free trade and also because in today’s world any relations are always better than none. Nevertheless, you need to reflect more closely on the reasons why it is so difficult for CAFTA to gain general acceptance and why, if finally approved, it might not be able to deliver on its promises.

CAFTA, as all trade negotiations in vogue, concentrates basically on how to split the ever shrinking cake of manufacturing and agriculture; how to impose a stricter respect for the intellectual property rights of the developed nations; and how to be able to enforce it, but, as often happens, it shies away from treating the issues that really seem to matter for the future. When currently 40% of Central America’s workforce works abroad, mostly in the US, mostly in services, it should be clear that it is really in the area of services and immigrations that these two partners need better and more generous free trade pacts. For instance instead of exchanging a few textile jobs that could soon anyhow be lost to other places of the world, why do not the partners look for economic growth and jobs in areas such as health and attending the needs of the rapidly aging population. That seems much more like a win-win CAFTA to me.