Re:Happy nations don't focus on growth
by dredmorbius on Monday May 15, 2017 @03:03AM
(#14339719)
Sure, but:
1. Those new ways of using energy themselves are highly dependent on energy-intensive factors as inputs. Steel, aluminium, copper, electronics, reliable power inputs, control systems, etc., are all the products of high-energy outputs.
When you realise that the Watt steam engine revolutionised manufacturing based providing a net total of 500 prime movers of about 10 HP each net power output, you start to recognise just how energy-contrained economic activity was.
2. The Solow Residual is, quite literally, just that. It's a statistical residual. Solow himself describes it as "the measure of our ignorance". Again: there is no basis to attribute it to "technology". Other than it forms an economically convenient theory.
3. The research I've mentioned is far more specific -- rather than just run a regression of capital vs. labour and handwave a declaration that All That Is Unexplained Shall Be Termed "Technology", it specifically considers the role of other factors, including energy. And, again: shows that that accounts for up to 98% of the residual -- an insanely high fit.
So long as we're talking factors of production, I've just learned, reading of and from Alexander Hamilton Church, who more-or-less invented cost accounting, that through about 1900, only labour was considered as a factor of production.
Somewhat amusingly, his discussion of factors other than labour focuses, almost exclusively, on the ability to supply mechanical power through engines. Go figure. 1910.
1. Those new ways of using energy themselves are highly dependent on energy-intensive factors as inputs. Steel, aluminium, copper, electronics, reliable power inputs, control systems, etc., are all the products of high-energy outputs.
When you realise that the Watt steam engine revolutionised manufacturing based providing a net total of 500 prime movers of about 10 HP each net power output, you start to recognise just how energy-contrained economic activity was.
2. The Solow Residual is, quite literally, just that. It's a statistical residual. Solow himself describes it as "the measure of our ignorance". Again: there is no basis to attribute it to "technology". Other than it forms an economically convenient theory.
3. The research I've mentioned is far more specific -- rather than just run a regression of capital vs. labour and handwave a declaration that All That Is Unexplained Shall Be Termed "Technology", it specifically considers the role of other factors, including energy. And, again: shows that that accounts for up to 98% of the residual -- an insanely high fit.
So long as we're talking factors of production, I've just learned, reading of and from Alexander Hamilton Church, who more-or-less invented cost accounting, that through about 1900, only labour was considered as a factor of production.
Somewhat amusingly, his discussion of factors other than labour focuses, almost exclusively, on the ability to supply mechanical power through engines. Go figure. 1910.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton_Church
https://archive.org/stream/productionfacto00churgoog#page/n1...