apptech wrote:
>> "Despite economic success and unprecedented production rates, financial
>> backing for ECME was lost as investors viewed such a high level of
>> automation a threat to people's livelihoods."
>
>> The statement reveals the author's utter lack of understanding of how
>> capitalism works.
>
> Mayhaps
>
>> The statement reveals the author's utter lack of understanding of how
>> capitalism
>
> is alleged and meant to
>
>> work[s].
>
> :-)
>
> Flame sh...

Russell, you are a smart guy, so your decision to defend the silly statement 
is surprising. However, EE is not the best place to discuss this, so if you 
want to continue the conversation, please reply in OT.

Key points:

- Investors want a return on their investment (duh?)
- Economists agree that the #1 factor in improving workers' standard of 
living since the industrial era, has been the increase in worker 
productivity.
- Increased worker productivity does not lead to higher rates of 
unemployment.
- If it really was such a great business idea, why didn't other investors 
step in?
- Why other companies haven't done it since?
- Why did ECME need investors at all, when it could automagically churn out 
vast quantities of a high-quality product?

And finally, why aren't there any other sources that cite concern for the 
workers as the reason ECME went bankrupt?

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist