Economic Growth Engine

What Hacker News says

1. sassenachNov 2017
   One factor often overlooked is energy availability (the link touches it somewhat). EDIT: Wikipedia on coal, for instance, states "The development of the Industrial Revolution led to the large-scale use of coal" - rather than coal being the enabler what, with forests probably being exhausted at the time...

   Important in automation is work done by a machine, enhancing or replacing labor. Machines require energy, both for running, and for construction and processing of the material in their constituent parts. Energy was present in the English Midlands in the form of coal. By burning this coal in a glorius steam engine, of which models were improved on from the 1600s and onwards, wonders arose.

   Perhaps this book on economic growth would be of interest on the importance of energy for economic growth: The Economic Growth Engine, by Ayres and Warr. Excerpt at https://books.google.no/books/about/The_Economic_Growth_Engi...

   Show morethread
2. ishtanbulMar 2017
   The Economic Growth Engine: How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity by Ayers and Warr

   Describes the economy in thermodynamic terms, as a materials processing machine, in contrast with neoclassical models of abstract "factors of production". Does a deep dive on examining what technological progress is and how it happens. I don't agree with everything in it but the perspective is unique and highly thought provoking.

   https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Growth-Engine-Prosperity-Int...

   Show morethread
3. dredmorbiusJul 2016
   The trick isn't necessarily singular. Tainter's argument is actually that what happens is complexity (roughly: technology, though it's a bit more involved than that -- enumerable parts with distinct structures is a good first approximation) increases because it solves problems. The second order problem is that that complexity itself has a cost, and perhaps an accruing technical debt. When you reach the point of not being able to pay those, not only do you lose the complexity incurred but its capabilities -- you're in a worse hole than you started from.

   On the question of whether there's a singular trick that's exploited, I'm not aware of anything in Tainter's writing that suggests this at all. There is the concept of Leibig's Law of the Minimum -- the idea that for any system (Leibig is speaking of ecosystems or populations) there's some one factor which imposes a constraint on the system. In that regard, you could could likely look at a single technology which is the operative constraint. But if you're looking at a complex system with multiple modes of failure, you'd be arguing precisely the opposite: that there are multiple technological tricks which aren't presently binding constraints but which, if any one of them failed, would rapidly become one.

   There's no basis that the trick need be unique. I'd argue that they're anything but. Basic modalities include agriculture, construction, fire, transport, arms or weapons, and control over hygiene factors.

   The United States' trick was in large part massive overwhelming self-sufficiency in resources, most especially energy.

   See Vaclav Smil, Energy in World History, Manfred Weissenbacher, Sources of Power: How energy forges human history, or Robert Ayres, The Economic Growth Engine: How energy and work drive material prosperity.

   http://www.worldcat.org/title/energy-in-world-history/oclc/3...

   http://www.worldcat.org/title/sources-of-power-how-energy-fo...

   http://www.worldcat.org/title/economic-growth-engine-how-ene...

   Show morethread