Quinn Slobodian; North American watersheds; fueling technology booms; Davies on history; Sethi on trigonometry, Pythagoras, & the highly racist Charles Murray; Lawrence Freedman on the tech counter...
How to Get a Productive Technology Boom: Yes that's how. Moreover, Michael Kremmer's "Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990" in the 1993 QJE changed my research life (as it probably did for many others). Importantly, it steered the new growth theory toward new economic history in a way that was not the case before. I am indebted to him for that paper. Perhaps we should all be, too. His other important contributions, of course, have made the airwaves since. So, I thought I'd flag that lesser-known paper.
What’s great about that watershed map is how simple it is, and yet how much it conveys about the role of geography in North American history and the development of the North American economy. Take the Great Basin: without any other topographical detail, you can see that the region is landlocked and shedding water in all directions, so, yes, it’s probably kind of dry. Pretty neat, really.
Re day trading, it's nice to have empirical confirmation, but what would a theoretical argument that it's possible to make money day trading look like? The obstacles seem insuperable. Commercial high frequency traders make money because they are trading off their own prices; high frequency is good for them not only because it reduces risk but because in expectation they make money on each trade. Sitting at home and trading with your computer, you are a price taker, paying the spread. The more you trade, the more you lose, in expectation. If you have an information edge at all, it certainly isn't a high frequency edge. I just don't get it.
Dalia Marin: Can Germany’s Economy Avoid a China Shock?: This is the second fundamental geopolitical/economic bet Germany has made in the past two decades that may go awry. The first one was Russian gas. Let's hope it turns out well for them.
Karl: Oh dear! Fiscal stuff does not create (or destroy) jobs. That is the Fed's business. If fiscal stuff succeeds in shifting resources from consumption to investment or from low return investment to high return investment, then the jobs created will earn higher incomes.
I understand that hearing Republicans claim that every time a Democrat breathes, a job is destroyed, the urge is to scream back, "No, we create jobs." But, "'Taint funny, McGee."
You have done something to your links so they only open in readwise. I can't seem to penetrate to the actual article even though I've gotten an account and installed another browser extension. Please stop.
The Defense Department Procurement policies should be a must read in every micro economics class under the place in the syllabus titled "Making Markets"
How to Get a Productive Technology Boom: Yes that's how. Moreover, Michael Kremmer's "Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990" in the 1993 QJE changed my research life (as it probably did for many others). Importantly, it steered the new growth theory toward new economic history in a way that was not the case before. I am indebted to him for that paper. Perhaps we should all be, too. His other important contributions, of course, have made the airwaves since. So, I thought I'd flag that lesser-known paper.
What’s great about that watershed map is how simple it is, and yet how much it conveys about the role of geography in North American history and the development of the North American economy. Take the Great Basin: without any other topographical detail, you can see that the region is landlocked and shedding water in all directions, so, yes, it’s probably kind of dry. Pretty neat, really.
Re day trading, it's nice to have empirical confirmation, but what would a theoretical argument that it's possible to make money day trading look like? The obstacles seem insuperable. Commercial high frequency traders make money because they are trading off their own prices; high frequency is good for them not only because it reduces risk but because in expectation they make money on each trade. Sitting at home and trading with your computer, you are a price taker, paying the spread. The more you trade, the more you lose, in expectation. If you have an information edge at all, it certainly isn't a high frequency edge. I just don't get it.
Dalia Marin: Can Germany’s Economy Avoid a China Shock?: This is the second fundamental geopolitical/economic bet Germany has made in the past two decades that may go awry. The first one was Russian gas. Let's hope it turns out well for them.
Is there a link for the Must Read?
Is there any way to read those articles on readwise.io? I've been getting:
Document not found
Either this document hasn't quite loaded yet, or you might have previously deleted it.
Any issues? Hit cmd+k → feedback to let us know and we'll be in touch ASAP!
Surely, they haven't all been deleted. Is this like GPS, one of those almost there technologies?
Karl: Oh dear! Fiscal stuff does not create (or destroy) jobs. That is the Fed's business. If fiscal stuff succeeds in shifting resources from consumption to investment or from low return investment to high return investment, then the jobs created will earn higher incomes.
I understand that hearing Republicans claim that every time a Democrat breathes, a job is destroyed, the urge is to scream back, "No, we create jobs." But, "'Taint funny, McGee."
First Republic: Depositors have their deposits moved to a large national bank without any effort on their part. Canada here we come!
You have done something to your links so they only open in readwise. I can't seem to penetrate to the actual article even though I've gotten an account and installed another browser extension. Please stop.
The Defense Department Procurement policies should be a must read in every micro economics class under the place in the syllabus titled "Making Markets"