tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post1718629705401829155..comments2024-03-16T07:16:24.301+00:00Comments on Global Economics And Structures: The Global Ducks of the Oxford CanalTamashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11641190007103495073noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-89293764560820348372009-03-02T10:43:00.000+00:002009-03-02T10:43:00.000+00:00@Anonymous:1. The argument is that technology inno...@Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>1. The argument is that technology innovation (and adaptation) is driven by economic incentives rather than cultural norms. The incentive structure will then include the (relative) price of labour. The dawn of industrial revolution in Britain would be a good example; possibly also serving as an evidence. <BR/><BR/>2. The post was too brief (empty apart from a side note on Tamashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11641190007103495073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-48352879865486305002009-02-26T11:14:00.000+00:002009-02-26T11:14:00.000+00:00There are number of logical problems with this pos...There are number of logical problems with this post (even within the modest proportion I think I got from it):<BR/><BR/>1. If I get the core thought right (do I?), you say that technology innovation is driven by labour cost. The higher the wages, the bigger the incentive for innovation (and thus the case for increased minimum wage).<BR/><BR/>2. But it is mysterious to me how any lessons Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-90441935008363062042009-02-18T16:12:00.000+00:002009-02-18T16:12:00.000+00:00same here as for peter...and if i may add, the pre...same here as for peter...<BR/><BR/>and if i may add, the previous point (the one with the future relative prices and future innovation) is far into speculative territory. it is way way beyond provocation, in my view...<BR/><BR/>nevertheless, if you could show that this worked in the past, that would be fun (my bet is that it didn't)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-64488622005590417152009-02-18T16:08:00.000+00:002009-02-18T16:08:00.000+00:00Tamas,This was a very interesting blog, but, I'm a...Tamas,<BR/><BR/>This was a very interesting blog, but, I'm afraid I don't understand some parts of it. On No. 4, I am totally lost, for instance. How does the minimum wage enter the scene?<BR/><BR/>PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-79679112736161032512009-02-18T15:04:00.000+00:002009-02-18T15:04:00.000+00:00wow!wow!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-58832564693619614042009-02-18T08:54:00.000+00:002009-02-18T08:54:00.000+00:00dragon_tamer, your comment implies a different con...dragon_tamer, <BR/><BR/>your comment implies a different concept of 'geographical cause' to the one behind the argument here. In the latter, described in the post, the origin of the entire change of even was indeed a geographical discovery, but dynamics comes from a change in the resource allocation (that is, from the 'discovery') rather than from a particular geographical feature. <BR/><BR/>ThusTamashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11641190007103495073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-22151042429225457912009-02-18T08:20:00.000+00:002009-02-18T08:20:00.000+00:00Tamas, your very starting point kills the entire a...Tamas, your very starting point kills the entire argument: you say it is not geography, and then you go on showing how it all originates from the 'discoveries', that is, from geography. That pretty much invalidates everything that comes after, no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com