September 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
Blog powered by Typepad

« Four on Four Full Court in NYC -- Team Keynes versus Team Hayek | Main | Understanding Labor Market Woes »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Terrence Kealey is good on the British Industrial revolution (following the equally remarkable but less remarked Acricultural Revolution which released labour to move from the land to the factories) and the contrast with French policy. This is an absract of the relevant chapter in his book on the economics of scientific research.

Chapter 6. The Industrial Revolution.

Between 1780 and 1860 the population of Britain tripled from 7.5M to 23M and the real per capita income doubled in real terms across all classes.

The drivers were increased productivity of machines and the movement of labour from the land (and Ireland) to the factories. The driver of machine technology was NOT science as predicted by the Bacon but the improvement of existing technology by ingenious artisans such as Newcomen, Watt, Trevithic and Stephenson. Amazingly, the scientists were struggling to keep up with the tradesmen! Hooke (the scientist) told Newcomen that his idea would not work while he was developing it (fortunately he persisted) and Carnot’s work on thermodynamics was prompted by Watt’s steam engine which could not work according to the laws of science as they were understood by leading scientists at the time.

France followed the Bacon model and set up glittering science laboratories and institutions of learning, while the state ran on the basis of taxes extorted by an army of Farmers-General (tax farmers) working on a commission basis with draconian powers of search, detention and confiscation. Hence the Revolution, while the science laboratories produced scientific advances without any impact on technology or the wealth of the French people.

This an extended summary of the whole book.

The central argument in the book is that progress in technology and human welfare have not come from so much from pure research, and especially not state-funded research, but from innovations by tradesmen and technologists (tweakers!)

I would like to propose not to hold back until you get enough amount of money to order all you need! You can take the mortgage loans or just commercial loan and feel yourself fine

And then there are the tweakers of the mind. Where Jobs often thought in terms of design, todays' student gets sidetracked by the conversation as to the paper's subject. Or, is that really so bad? At some point the procrastination stops, and the engagement in dialogue "tweaking" adds to the paper or essay in considerable terms.

As an engineer I certainly agree that a great deal of engineering is tweaking.

'Tweaker' is also a slang term for one who uses amphetamines such as Ritalin or crystal meth.

BOYAN JOVANOVIC puts the ratio of invention costs to adoption costs at 20 to 30 to 1.

"'Tweaker' is also a slang term for one who uses amphetamines such as Ritalin or crystal meth."

In the city where I live there is a small festival called "Tweak". It involves making music and "art" using electronic means, often electro music made using home-made circuits. I've been told both types of tweaking are involved.

Central planning is not conducive to tweaking....

when I think about creativity and how we get to big ideas I think of song. Lately, that song has been Donna Summer’s hit 1978 recording, ‘MacArthur Park’, specifically the the extended ‘Suite’ track which clocks in at a magnificent and heart rending 17 minutes and 47 seconds. 1978 was a watershed year for music. Studio 54 was in full swing and disco music embodied all the excess and glamor that presaged some of the headiest years of consumerism to come.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books