I believe in fair trade. I support strong tariffs or even outright embargoes on all countries with whom we have a trade deficit. Stop shipping our hard-earned money into the coffers of multinational conglomerates and perpetuating de facto slavery in the developing world.

I think computers and the internet fall short. The internet duplicates existing activities like mail order catalogues but there are still mail order catalogues. The internet is supposed to be a substitution for paper but paper usage has actually increased (netflix is a glorified mail order catalogue, hardly a revolutionary invention). Most of the internet just changes an activity from one medium to another. Youtube is just home videos streamed on the internet. But the bigger point is compared to historic inventions the computer hasn't led to an economy wide increase in multi-factor productivity. Computing only created a short-term increase in MFP in the durable sector, non-durables actually decreased in MFP over the same period.

Also, computer prices have plummeted indicating the value of speed & memory has declined. Heck, PC sales are currently in free fall.

"Also, computer prices have plummeted indicating the value of speed & memory has declined. Heck, PC sales are currently in free fall."

The value (or, more accurately, price) of speed and memory have declined because we as a society have spent billions of dollars on them, spurring more than million-fold increases in capacity in a few decades. How this counts for evidence of unimportance or stagnation I'm not sure.

I can't believe what I'm reading. Computers and the internet have changed almost everything. To reduce it to a glorified mail order catalog is outrageous. You obviously use the internet pretty much every day. How can you not appreciate what a paradigm shifting piece of technology it is? How can you be so naive to think computers in general haven't had a huge impact on the economy, in a way barely comparable to any other gigantic technological advance in history?

I mean, really. We're living in a period that's leading to changes as radical as those of the industrial revolution.

http://guru.cincom.com/

Something that *only* computers could make happen. Configuration engineering done with out the use of thousands of pages of catalogues and then an engineer to determine if it is all compatible together. RFQ to Quote to Order in minutes, not days or weeks.

Prices fell because people wanted stripped down netbooks with minimal capabilities,, and then ipads which met the same demand. Nobody has a need for high powered computers.

prices fell because costs fell, demand for PCs have fallen while demand for netbooks and tablets and smartphones have taken off. The noble PC was something which nobody saw a use for 40 years ago, now having three 'personal computers' wouldn't be unusual (a phone, and a laptop, at least) : If that is a sign of decreased demand i don't know what is.

Foldit is an example of increased co-operation between humans, doings tasks which were previously impossible/unimaginable - and it's not alone, projects like Zooniverse are likewise leveraging the internet in ways which were not possible before.

Wiki-fucking-pedia is a great example of collaboration. That co-ordination of massive numbers of humans allows non-linear multipliers of human productivity. In ways which were not possible before; youtube is not just home videos, it is free publishing, ~zero barrier to entry to the market, which massively stimulates creativity - changing the game entirely.

Well, putin, the discussion was about computers, not just PCs. PCs are becoming somewhat less important because computers are becoming *more* ubiquitous.

"Nobody has a need for high powered computers."

At least now we have a confirmation on how much time you spend around scientists.

"Prices fell because people wanted stripped down netbooks with minimal capabilities,, and then ipads which met the same demand. Nobody has a need for high powered computers."

What? You're just making things up now to try and salvage your point.

This is what Putin33 sounds like when it comes to technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE7mi-gdIYw

"Nobody has a need for high powered computers. "

Really? So I and my fellow software developers don't need quad core systems with 8 gigs of RAM? And the internet servers some of us code for don't need 16 or more cores and 64 gigs of RAM and RAID arrays to serve up the internet sets you use?

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2009-03-10/how-low-can-pc-prices-go-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

"Well, putin, the discussion was about computers, not just PCs"

Go back and look, I specifically mentioned the price of PCs.

"At least now we have a confirmation on how much time you spend around scientists."

If only there were enough scientists to fuel demand for the entire economy.

Now if we could only solve the riddle of why you three are physically incapable of not acting like total jerks at all times.

"What? You're just making things up now to try and salvage your point."

Then why did Orathaic make the same point.

"This is what Putin33 sounds like when it comes to technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE7mi-gdIYw"

Does it ever get tiring trying to impress people without actually saying anything?

Seriously, why can't you disagree with someone without insulting them Invictus, Semck? Is it genetic?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19399368

"Rather than buy a mainframe, many companies now rely on banks of cheap PC-based servers for their number-crunching needs."

"Market-research firm Gartner said the mainframe market was seeing a long-term decline.

It estimated that annual sales would fall in 2012 and keep falling every year until at least 2016."

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7833.pdf?new_window=1

Seriously, why can't you disagree with someone without insulting them Invictus, Semck? Is it genetic? "

Asshole hypocrite. So you insult someone because you don't like their insult. Typical webdip Fucktard.

Putin - why can't you disagree with someone without lying and making stuff up?

Also....why do you support the rape of children? Because we know that your personal belief is that if one member of a group states something or does something, that applies to the whole group. You claim to be a teacher, teachers sometimes rape children...therefore you're a rapist. Why is that?

"'Well, putin, the discussion was about computers, not just PCs'

"Go back and look, I specifically mentioned the price of PCs."

I know, and you did so while making an argument in a discussion about computers in general; so to the extent that you were narrowing to talk about only PCs, you were committing a fallacy.

"Also, computer prices have plummeted indicating the value of speed & memory has declined."

Sort of! We've gotten much better at producing speed and memory, so relatively speaking, yes, the value of *the same amounts* of speed and memory as before have declined. In 1990, normal hard drives held about 40-50 MB of data. Now they hold in the hundreds of thousands of MB. Why would you pay the same amount for literally 1/10000th the space?

That's not at all to say the value of space and speed _in general_ has declined! If anything it's at an all-time premium as more and more functions become automated. But declining prices is just an indication here that newer and better goods are available.

"Rather than buy a mainframe, many companies now rely on banks of cheap PC-based servers for their number-crunching needs."

Who ever wrote that article is simply full of shit. Walk in a computer room at even a midsize 100+ person firm and you don't see "banks of cheap PC-based servers". Blade servers and other rack servers cost 10x what a PC server does and the processors, memory, and hardrives are significantly faster, more xpansive, and more durable. Even the OS they run is a server OS. The only thing they share in common is the fact that the equipment is made by the same folks who make cheap PCs. But GM makes Corvettes and Caddies as well as lower end models. Ford makes Mustangs and Lincoln MK-Xs as well as the Focus. That doesn't mean a Corvette is just a performance Malibu or the Mustang a tuned Focus. They have very different technologies from the low-end cars and only share a manufacturers name plate and maybe some insignificant things like the lights or the stereo.

"I know, and you did so while making an argument in a discussion about computers in general; so to the extent that you were narrowing to talk about only PCs, you were committing a fallacy."

Are you actually going to address the point about mainframes, or just going to ignore it because it doesn't conform to your narrative?

Average consumers want lower capability computers and businesses want lower capability computers. Just admit you're wrong.

Who needs the BBC and macroeconomic data when you have Draugnar's anecdotes.

Who needs the BBC and their lack of knowledge (you really think some reporter interviewing some economics idiot knows IT like an IT professional?) when you have experienced IT people who have *built* these rooms for SMBs.

Putin33 can never be wrong, that's why.

"Are you actually going to address the point about mainframes, or just going to ignore it because it doesn't conform to your narrative?

"Average consumers want lower capability computers and businesses want lower capability computers. Just admit you're wrong. "

No, I'm not going to address the point about mainframes, because it's similarly irrelevant. The number of computers in the world (or in any given first-world nation) continue to skyrocket, and as they become ever more ubiquitous, *some* tasks that were done by the last decade's iteration are taken over by specialized or more targetted computers instead. You're going to continue to try to focus on single slices of the computer market and insist that it captures the whole thing, because it's the only way you can come close to crafting a narrative that will support your ridiculous hypothesis that computers are irrelevant even as they are entrusted with managing almost every aspect of human life.

Most modern cars (to take one example) contain over 30 computers. None of these would show up in your "PC sale" or "Mainframe usage" statistics. As usual, you're just trying to substitute a different question for the one to which you originally gave a ludicrous answer to distract from the shortcomings of your position.

"You're going to continue to try to focus on single slices of the computer market and insist that it captures the whole thing, because it's the only way you can come close to crafting a narrative that will support your ridiculous hypothesis that computers are irrelevant even as they are entrusted with managing almost every aspect of human life."

If they're so ubiquitous and manage every aspect of life why haven't they resulted in productivity gains in the non-durable sector of the economy - which is the lion's share of the economy? Why haven't more jobs become automated?

The so-called "computers"in cars are low powered and barely have any memory or speed, so I don't really get what they have to do with the general point about speed & memory not being in high demand any longer. That it's a durable that has electronic components there is no doubt, but that completely sidesteps what I've been saying.

"As usual, you're just trying to substitute a different question for the one to which you originally gave a ludicrous answer to distract from the shortcomings of your position."

Bring up all the 'slices' of the computer market you want if you think I'm not talking about a wide enough section of computing. Every time I point out that in a particular sector of computing demand for speed & memory has gone done, you move the goal posts. Point to me to any "slice" of computing where demand for speed & memory hasn't gone down. Be constructive for once instead of pedantic.

" The number of computers in the world (or in any given first-world nation) continue to skyrocket"

It'd be nice if you provided a single solitary piece of evidence for any of these claims you keep making.

"Putin33 can never be wrong, that's why."

You can be wrong?

"If they're so ubiquitous and manage every aspect of life why haven't they resulted in productivity gains in the non-durable sector of the economy - which is the lion's share of the economy? Why haven't more jobs become automated?"

*shrug* I don't know. But you're missing the point of technology. Those technologies are important and transformative that change human life in radical ways. It used to be that a good indication a technology was doing that was that it "resulted in productivity gains in the nondurable sector of the economy." If the computer hasn't done that, then so much the worse for productivity gains in the nondurable sector of the economy as a marker of technological importance. Once again, you're focusing on the old and rigidly ignoring everything that's going on around you.

Now you're fixating on speed and memory. We're not arguing about speed and memory. We're arguing about whether computers have been a transformative human technology. Haven't had a big enough impact on the economy for you? They ARE a huge portion of the economy. Google has a third the revenue of GM, Microsoft more than that.

But since we're talking about speed and memory -- no, demand for them hasn't gone down. Prices have gone down because of enormous competition, but there is high demand today for amounts of memory that could not even have been obtained 15 years ago. To ignore these order-of-magnitude increases makes your analysis as dishonest as it is silly.

"Every time I point out that in a particular sector of computing demand for speed & memory has gone done, you move the goal posts. Point to me to any "slice" of computing where demand for speed & memory hasn't gone down. Be constructive for once instead of pedantic. "

PCs, how about that? Let's take a look. We'll look at hard drive storage because it's slightly easier to find the numbers, but the signs suggest RAM would be about the same. Let's look at Seagate Technology, which makes only hard drives. Of course, their market share may have changed, and we'll keep this in mind, but they've always been one of the biggest players, so a factor of 10 at most could be accounted for by that.

In 2000, Seagate's revenue was just south of $7 billion, and in 2013 it was $14.93 billion. In 2000, a megabyte of hard drive space cost, on average, 0.7 cents. In 2012, the same megabyte of hard drive space cost 0.006 cents -- slightly less than 1/100th. So Seagate sold somewhere around 200 times as many megabytes of hard drive space in 2012 as in 2000. Please explain again about how the demand for computer memory is going down?*

*The increases are larger magnitudes with RAM, but single-sector analysis is more complicated because of the rise of digital cameras, etc.

Oh, I forgot to link my source.

http://www.jcmit.com/diskprice.htm

The 8 gig quad core laptop I develop on has more power than the mainframes of 30 years ago when I started in software development. The calculator every physics and applied mathematics student uses in school has more power than the first 2 to 3 generations of Intel based PCs. And the phone I am typing this on has a dual core processor more powerful then the first couple generations of Pentium processors.

@semck, +1 (at least)

@Putin - the non-durable economy: ok you've got a slim margin of possible points, totaly computational power harnassed is a non-durable because it continues to provide utility over time, and human computation is being harnassed on a massive scale for the first time - on a voluntary basis even, so you can't measure the market cost - but it is largely food per person to keep the brains running.

communication (ie the internet) has been multiplying the productivity of human computations in many ways - eg: youtube allows collaboration, but also encourages creativity, and disincentives duplication of effort. This is generating cultural value which may be hard to measure in pure economic terms, because it is done on a voluntary basis (which means people gain pleasure/utility from making videos, aswell as consuming them, but while it is all free it is hard to measure, that doesn't mean it's not real)

Every other piece collaboration and project which combines human and computer computations allows us amplify productivity, decrease duplication, and democratize the means of production (thinking/cpu operations)

Likewise, new software is a durable good which can be re-used many times and continues to produce. The open source movement has had a massive impact on free services available to computer owners which increases productivity (and allows us play diplomacy online, for free, == extra service => wealthier people)

The number of people online is increasing, which amplifies these effects (And i've only listed a few examples) What, are you complaining about the lack of extra bricks? well sure, our self-replicating nano-machines are a few decades off, and our free energy is a little bit more, but there is a peak demand for certain goods, and lack of growth could just mean that plateau has been reached. (i mean there must be a physical limit to the demand for new buildings/shelter, ok we're not at a point where everyone has the shelter they need, but you would expect demand to drop off as you approach any such plateau...)

So no, in short, not every aspect of human life is equally affected. But we are still living in a game-changer.