BloggeRhythms

With each passing year, it’s become more obvious that the fabled New York Times has become nothing but another arm of the Democrat party, as far as politics are concerned. The publication’s support for the left has become outright electioneering.  

And now the Times is far behind the times on another subject: technology 

Steve Lohr’s article @nytimes.com today headlined his column: “Why the Economic Payoff From Technology Is So Elusive” 

Lohr writes: “More powerful computing systems can predict the weather better than any meteorologist or beat human champions in complex board games like chess. 

“But for several years, economists have asked why all that technical wizardry seems to be having so little impact on the economy. The issue surfaced again recently, when the government reported disappointingly slow growth and continuing stagnation in productivity. The rate of productivity growth from 2011 to 2015 was the slowest since the five-year period ending in 1982.” 

Lohr then uses a family physician, Dr. Peter Sutherland,  from Tennessee as an example. The doctor made the shift to computerized patient records from paper in the last few years. While saying there are benefits to using electronic health records, “grappling with software and new reporting requirements has slowed him down. He sees fewer patients, and his income has slipped.” 

Farther along, however, Lohr actually stumbles onto the correct answer, glosses it over and continues to doubt technology’s significant advancement. 

Lohr writes: “Some economists insist the problem is largely a measurement gap, because many digital goods and services are not accurately captured in official statistics. But a recent study by two economists from the Federal Reserve and one from the International Monetary Fund casts doubt on that theory. 

“Technology spending has been robust, rising 54 percent over a decade to $727 billion last year, according to the research firm IDC. Despite all the smartphone sales to consumers, most of the spending is by companies investing in technology to increase growth and productivity.” 

Lohr writes the very last sentence, “most of the spending is by companies investing in technology to increase growth and productivity,” as if the investment’s a negative, however, the reverse is the actual case. 

Two quick proofs appeared in the press just today.

Greg Nichols for Robotics @zdnet.com, writes: “As opposed to Amazon's drones, which are likely to be autonomous, Walmart's idea is to use remote controlled flyers that can capture 30 frames per second of products on warehouse shelves. The information can be used to determine which items are incorrectly stocked and which are running low. According to Reuters, checking warehouses manually currently takes Walmart employees about a month. With drones the process will take a day.

“Interestingly, the drones may provide Walmart with a cheap way to gain some ground on Amazon's warehouse logistics. The internet retailer bought Kiva Systems, the leader in automated warehouse logistics, in 2012, and that acquisition has largely enabled Amazon to process and deliver same-day and next-day orders, an offering that's become a cornerstone of its business model.”

And then, Silke Koltrowitz and Marina Depetris @ca.news.yahoo.com, wrote about technology's dramatic effect on an entire nation, as follows

“Swiss voters rejected by a wide margin on Sunday a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for everyone living in the wealthy country after an uneasy debate about the future of work at a time of increasing automation. 

“Supporters had said introducing a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,563) per adult and 625 francs per child under 18 no matter how much they work would promote human dignity and public service.” 

So, even though the vote to guarantee income was lost, the Swiss clearly understand the wave of the future, and that quite soon technology is going to replace significant amounts, if not most, of people in the work force. 

Leaving room for one more thought about the shortsightedness of Lohr’s Times commentary. Yesterday, it was mentioned on The Journal Editorial Report that $1.9 billion was spent by business last year on required government reports and compliance, which is severely curbing business spending and investment. And, therefore, it’s unlikely that any major expansion will be seen until a more favorable climate exists in D.C. Or, in other words, a Republican, pro-business administration in office. 

And then, a friend sent this today:

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

According to Yamiche Alcindor @nytimes.com, “Senator Bernie Sanders defiantly vowed again on Sunday to take his campaign to the Democratic National Convention this summer, even as Hillary Clinton edged closer to clinching the party’s presidential nomination and the final primary contests drew near.” 

Repeating his pledge not to concede even if Bill’s wife reaches the threshold for securing the nomination, Sanders said: “It is extremely unlikely that Secretary Clinton will have the requisite number of pledged delegates to claim victory on Tuesday night. Now, I have heard reports that Secretary Clinton has said it’s all going to be over on Tuesday night. I have reports that the media, after the New Jersey results come in, are going to declare that it is all over. That simply is not accurate.” 

And then, “in a sign of his campaign’s urgency to win in California, Mr. Sanders criticized the Clinton Foundation during an interview on Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” 

“If you ask me about the Clinton Foundation, do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorships?”  

“You don’t have a lot of civil liberties or democratic rights in Saudi Arabia,” he told the interviewer, Jake Tapper. “You don’t have a lot of respect there for opposition points of view for gay rights, for women’s rights. Yes, do I have a problem with that? Yes, I do.” 

So, it appears that after waiting perhaps too long, Sanders is finally playing like a candidate should against one as vulnerable as Bill’s wife with her far more than questionable behavior in office and out. Which means that he might even delve into the FBI’s email investigation, Benghazi and all of the other Foundation illegalities. And, if that’s the case, the race may truly be far from over. 

Bringing up the ongoing question again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?     

That’s it for today folks.  

Adios