I just became a paid subscriber, and maybe someone has asked this question recently, but when will Economic History of the 20th C (Slouching towards Utopia) be released (Basic Books, I believe)?
Ask me if I'm surprised that Facebook's LIKE button "leads to misinformation 2 jumps down". That said, I'm very glad that this has been documented, along with all the other bad things they are doing.
I don't think Intel was ever out of the game. They are just more and more focused on a niche market in the processor world. This new chip is great for desktop PCs, but it uses too much power for portable devices, and Intel makes much more powerful processors for servers. Having followed the Intel-AMD game over at Ars Technica, I know that Intel and AMD each have had their time boasting the fastest desktop PC. I consider it like a horse race. People still race horses, but it has been over a century since horse racing had much to do with transportation.
China definitely has a problem, but it's a problem no one has solved. At any given time, there is only so much high productivity work to go around, and by its very nature, high productivity work can only employ a small fraction of a nation's work force. If you increase productivity, you decrease the number of workers. China grabbed a big chunk of the world's supply of high productivity work, but there is only so much of it in the world. My main gripe with the article is that it fetishizes dynamicism but only a particular flavor of it. It is possible to have a great deal of dynamicism with low and middle productivity work, but no private entity will place its bets there as the returns are too low. It's similar to the bias against solar and wind power and in favor of large power plants.
Thanks for reminding me of Logarithmic History. How did they slip off my reading list?
The problem with economic charts is that people take them seriously when they often show only local attractors. It's like Hooke's Law: displacement is proportional force, except when it's not. Economists, unlike physicists, tend to leave out the "except when it's not" part.
I just became a paid subscriber, and maybe someone has asked this question recently, but when will Economic History of the 20th C (Slouching towards Utopia) be released (Basic Books, I believe)?
I am keen to buy a copy !
Ask me if I'm surprised that Facebook's LIKE button "leads to misinformation 2 jumps down". That said, I'm very glad that this has been documented, along with all the other bad things they are doing.
What has happened at Yale Law School that prompted the video from West Side Story?
I don't think Intel was ever out of the game. They are just more and more focused on a niche market in the processor world. This new chip is great for desktop PCs, but it uses too much power for portable devices, and Intel makes much more powerful processors for servers. Having followed the Intel-AMD game over at Ars Technica, I know that Intel and AMD each have had their time boasting the fastest desktop PC. I consider it like a horse race. People still race horses, but it has been over a century since horse racing had much to do with transportation.
China definitely has a problem, but it's a problem no one has solved. At any given time, there is only so much high productivity work to go around, and by its very nature, high productivity work can only employ a small fraction of a nation's work force. If you increase productivity, you decrease the number of workers. China grabbed a big chunk of the world's supply of high productivity work, but there is only so much of it in the world. My main gripe with the article is that it fetishizes dynamicism but only a particular flavor of it. It is possible to have a great deal of dynamicism with low and middle productivity work, but no private entity will place its bets there as the returns are too low. It's similar to the bias against solar and wind power and in favor of large power plants.
Thanks for reminding me of Logarithmic History. How did they slip off my reading list?
The problem with economic charts is that people take them seriously when they often show only local attractors. It's like Hooke's Law: displacement is proportional force, except when it's not. Economists, unlike physicists, tend to leave out the "except when it's not" part.