Erik Loomis seems to think so, but I can't really figure out why. He says things are different now, and describes the past thusly: "Earlier technological innovations did throw people out of work but with growing industrial capacity, actual overall job loss tended to be mitigated by other factors. Long-term unemployment resulted more from rapacious capitalists throwing the nation into long-term depressions than technological displacement. " But why think things are different? In light of the past few years of banking crisis news, surely it is more reasonable to conclude that the problem is the same as it has always been, rather than to conclude that Ludd is finally right, when he never was before.