Because automated weaving makes clothes a lot cheaper.

Put another way, when workers become more efficient -- one factory worker able to control many weaving machines, or a relatively small group of programmers able to control many cars -- people's standard of living increases.

Maybe you're willing to pay more for clothes, or transportation, or any one thing. But paying more for all of the things that have gotten cheaper due to increases in efficiency since time X is tantamount to going back to the standard of living of time X.

Because it's busywork, and it's wasting all those peoples' time. It's strictly inferior to letting a few workers use machinery to do the job, while paying the rest of the workers to sit around idle, because when using machinery you can rapidly increase output if required and the idle workers have the option to find something more useful to do.

Seriously limits technological progress. Pretty much insures Indian tech companies cannot develop this IP in their homelands. Who knows what kind of tech driverless car might beget, like space navigation, etc? What kind of economy of scale it would enable? The quality and lifestyle and savings from freeing people of having to be fully present during this dull activity. People could use that time in the car to do so many things.

Cars could be available always, not just when people are up. This could lead to a stronger economy, the car delivers the customer to the product, instead of he customer having to think about it. Less friction in decision making, more freedom.

For people of developed nations that get used to that lifestyle, it would be a world of night and day when they arrive in a place that is actively against the conveniences of life afforded by technology. Life, for these people banned from this awesome experience, would appear more bleak and torturous. Even viewed by some as primitive.

Locally developed military technology suffers, with the lack of local talent they would have to accept inferior technology.

There are probably endless implications for banning things. They could have been smart and just taxed this tech very high in place of taking jobs.

It is a silent catastrophe as a governing decision.

Its like thinking breaking windows adds to the economy because someone gets paid to fix it. In the end the window gets restored to its original condition and money is simply transferred from one person to another but no value has been created. Stifling innovation in a way is like handing everyone a hammer and telling them to break things to stimulate the economy.

Because you create wealth by producing goods and services. Jobs are a cost, not the end goal. Sacrificing production for jobs gets it exactly backwards and makes us, in the aggregate, poorer, even though it makes a few people richer.

Historically, society ends up poorer when doing things sub-optimally, and if society does it long enough, it also becomes obsolete and non-competitive, ensuring that society stays behind for longer than simply allowing the tech changes to evolve as they can.

So if your goal is temporary employment gains for long term poverty, this is a good way to start.

Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas [1]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

What's the purpose?

Companies are obviously not going to do that if they have autonomy since it's inefficient production. Instead, the government will have to do so, and at that point they only do so to pump money into the economy. Why not instead spend that on NASA like space programs instead?

I've long advocated for a "techno-Keynesian" approach to economics.

If you do this, you'd also logically have to ban imports or tax them at an extremely high rate.

By banning any sort of technology, you're indirectly increasing the costs of domestically placed goods, by increasing the costs of production.