Categories:
Economic Growth
Outstanding, even with the occasional stammer. If you like what Nick Schulz and I call Economics 2.0, you will loves this talk.
Outstanding, even with the occasional stammer. If you like what Nick Schulz and I call Economics 2.0, you will loves this talk.
Feb 14 2011
Frank Dikötter's Mao's Great Famine firmly supports a simple but shocking theory of Communism: It was the largest cargo cult the world has ever seen. Communist revolutionaries were great at seizing power, but if power were their sole aim, the horror would have ended once they were firmly in charge. Alas, t...
Feb 13 2011
Free-trade critic Ian Fletcher argues that the United States has too little manufacturing. Even if manufacturing output is at an all-time high, he argues, it's still too low. So clearly he has in mind some amount of manufacturing that is right or, at least, some criterion by which we can judge whether the amount of m...
Feb 13 2011
Outstanding, even with the occasional stammer. If you like what Nick Schulz and I call Economics 2.0, you will loves this talk.
READER COMMENTS
Eric Falkenstein
Feb 13 2011 at 1:40pm
contradicts Cowen’s thesis that big ideas are the essence of growth. I’m on McCloskey’s side.
Patrick R. Sullivan
Feb 13 2011 at 3:31pm
The good stuff presumably coming after the first 20 minutes of excruciating triviality? I couldn’t take any more at that point and gave up on it.
David
Feb 14 2011 at 6:01pm
“even with the occasional stammer”? I’ve seen a few videos of her speaking and this seems to just be how she talks. Nice.
Jeremy H.
Feb 15 2011 at 3:17pm
Mr. Sullivan,
A 100-fold increase in the average standard of living is trivial to you? I’d love to know what you think is a non-trivial topic!
T. O'Connell
Feb 22 2011 at 8:43am
I believe McCloskey has clearly outlined the main issues regarding the economic growth throughout the past centuries of human history. Furthermore I believe that she is correct in saying that “we have science because we are rich”. Indeed it is true that our wealth has not been generated by science, but the contrary: science has been generated because of wealth. I also agree with Mr Falkenstein, and thus with McCloskey, on the fact that economic growth was favored by small technological improvements and by creative destruction on a smaller scale, rather than on a greater scale.
Comments are closed.