Comments on: England since, like, ever

By: pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:09:15 +0000

The man’s on a mission…

By: swong

swong — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:42:23 +0000

Huh. I was going to post something about England and coal and Industrial Revolutions but apparently some Clark guy up at Davis co-authored a paper debunking that assumption.

By: pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:27:10 +0000

Of course, Hayak wrote about that years ago…

By: sraffa

sraffa — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:42:00 +0000

What an Austrian theory of the IR would look like:

the Bank of England is one of the oldest central bank, dating back to 1694. The Industrial Revolution started in the mid-18th century as a direct result.

The Industrial Revolution is a just a temporary boom caused by the Bank of England’s manipulation of interest rates. Eventually we will have to pay the piper and return to the pre-Malthusian living standards, as central bank manipulation can only result in a temporary credit boom and always ends in a crash.

Right?

By: pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:05:03 +0000

Is there Austrian take on the industrial revolution?

By: PCLE

PCLE — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 02:36:36 +0000

Capitalism IS an evolutionary mechanism ! Read your Austrians.

By: pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:06:32 +0000

Well, its about the words you use, I guess. Can a revolution said to occur over 100 years (3 or 4 generations)? A set of theories that these data make hard to swallow are ones where particular innovations (e.g. steam power or some singular institution) leading to the transition to the modern economy.

BTW, another point is that the mid-19th century efficiency level is the same as the 15th century high. So the “revolution” — that’s usually placed around 1800 — doesn’t even get efficiency to levels above those seen in the middle ages until 65 years later.

By: swong

swong — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:45:54 +0000

In absolute terms the gain from 1760 to 1860 is ~50 on the Y axis. Not that much compared to the rate of gain from 1900 onward. But in relative terms it’s a doubling. Which seems pretty substantial in the context of the mostly flat 200 year period before it.

I don’t really mean to critique Clark’s paper or his findings; it just seems that the last statement is more philosophical than useful. Are economic historians really looking to say something like “January 28th, 1829, 10:14 AM GST was the moment everything changed?”

By: pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:37:18 +0000

I don’t get it.

By: swong

swong — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:00:15 +0000

This stupid bank account doubles my money every week. I put a penny in over a month ago and I’m only up to 64 cents. This shit isn’t going anywhere, I should take my money out and put it in T bills or something.