DONALD MCCLOSKEY BECAME DEIRDRE MCCLOSKY SOME DECADES AGO.
Deirdre McCloskey no longer has her dick.
Deirdre Nansen McCloskey (born September 11, 1942), formerly known as Donald N. McCloskey, is the Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). She is also adjunct professor of Philosophy and Classics there, and for five years was a visiting Professor of philosophy at Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Since October 2007 she has received six honorary doctorates. In 2013, she received the Julian L. Simon Memorial Award from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for her work examining factors in history that led to advancement in human achievement and prosperity. Her main research interests include the origins of the modern world, the misuse of statistical significance in economics and other sciences, and the study of capitalism, among many others.
I’m not going to comment on gender fluidity, women with penises, or even on how highly honored economics professors get things wrong all the time.
Instead, let’s get the flavor of Dr. McCloskey’s argument and then fire back with some common sense. In this excerpt she focuses on the auto industry.
Excerpt from McCloskey writing at Reason
The Myth of Technological Unemployment
Otherwise sensible folk are, for some reason, terrified by robots. Yet the results of automation are good overall. Workers move from wretched assembly-line jobs to better ones standing in white coats monitoring the robots, at the higher wages made possible by the higher tech. Or, even better, they move to jobs outside the auto industry, earning pay that goes further because people can buy the radically cheaper stuff the robots now make.
If their new jobs are not higher paying, it’s probably because the auto union managed to extract monopoly profits from the company, and therefore from consumers. Robert Reich, a reliable source of sweetly leftish errors of facts and ethics, declares that “the decline in unionization [of private companies] directly correlates with the decline of the portion of income going to the middle class.” But paying selected workers on the assembly line more than they can earn elsewhere, at the expense of other, sometimes poorer, workers’ ability to buy cars, is hardly an ethical formula for raising up the working class.
When a Ford plant installed robots, Walter Reuther, a long-ago president of the United Auto Workers union, is said to have asked a manager: “How are you going to get them to buy Fords?” But Reuther’s argument is fallacious. Employees of car companies are a trivial share of the car-buying public. You can’t create prosperity merely by having workers purchase from their own employers.
Reich has accused the following things of driving down American wages: “Automation, followed by computers, software, robotics, computer-controlled machine tools and widespread digitization.” But such innovations have actually raised real wages, correctly measured, because a human supplied with a better tool can produce more outputs. And the point of an economy is production for consumption, not protection of existing jobs.
Consider the historical record: If the nightmare of technological unemployment were true, it would already have happened, repeatedly and massively. In 1800, four out of five Americans worked on farms. Now one in 50 do, but the advent of mechanical harvesting and hybrid corn did not disemploy the other 78 percent.
In 1910, one out of 20 of the American workforce was on the railways. In the late 1940s, 350,000 manual telephone operators worked for AT&T alone. In the 1950s, elevator operators by the hundreds of thousands lost their jobs to passengers pushing buttons. Typists have vanished from offices. But if blacksmiths unemployed by cars or TV repairmen unemployed by printed circuits never got another job, unemployment would not be 5 percent, or 10 percent in a bad year. It would be 50 percent and climbing.
No, Professor, after a great deal of personal anguish, “displaced workers” go to work as assistant managers at Burger King. If. they. are. lucky.
In my experience in academia most (not all) professors who rise up to national prominence are Jew stooges. McCloskey, identified with Milton Friedman’s Chicago School of Economics, is a smart guy … uh … lady. But a lot of his work, if not all of it, is designed to divert attention away from the (((tribe))) pushing the levers behind the curtain.
If you want truth in economics, regular readers know that I go to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, who observes that the American economy only produces low wage jobs. Unemployment may be low by official measures, but in reality because of dropouts in the labor force, it’s much higher than publicized.
When I first discovered Dr. Roberts, I stayed up all night reading every article archived on his site (see blogroll). I won’t be doing the same for McCloskey because he’s not willing to say anything truthful about race, white genocide, immigration, or the gutting of the white middle class. Dr. Roberts (and Pat Buchanan) are two “respectable” thought leaders willing to tell the truth, or at least a large part of it.
I conclude, sadly on my part, that Deirdre is a Jew stooge.