The Links:
Here's today's lesson in why we study colonialism. Tyler Cowen, economics professor, public intellectual, blogger, and author writes about lessons from old India. He makes the case that India didn't industrialize with the rest of the world in the 19th century and that's put it behind for the last 200 years.
In 1750, India accounted for one-quarter of the world’s manufacturing output, but by 1900 that was down to 2 percent. The West became more productive as a result of the Industrial Revolution, and India lost much of its leading export sector, textiles. While the data is fragmentary, the best estimates show that India’s living standards declined through the middle of the 19th century and that its economy retrogressed, even as it borrowed some technological improvements from the West. India just didn’t do enough to move toward production on a larger scale or with better machines.He's correct, I suppose, that India could have seen more economic growth had they participated in the industrial revolution. However, he omits one hugely important factor in India's 19th century history. British Colonialism. India was far from being an independent nation. It was far from having the ability to support free enterprise or socialist industrialism of the late 19th century and early 20th. Why? British colonialism. The British operated with complete control over India's economy. If India didn't modernize, it's not through some flaw of India's but through a decision made by the British. The legacy of colonialism in India left a broken and dysfunctional state with few stable institutions which are prerequisite for industrialization. What Mr. Cowen presents as a cautionary tale for Americans worried about perpetual stagnation is in reality a purposeful result of policy.
The Economist's Free Exchange blog highlights some Harvard research that argues globalization decreases inequality in the 3rd world. The key to making the successful transition, however, seems to be strong education commitments.
The BBC Radio 4 is using literature to find economic solutions to Britain's economic woes. The first book: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Pew presents the results of its Future of the Internet survey. It's a mixed bag.
The Verge thinks that our future government will look more like Amazon. Do we really want that? I get wanting an efficient and manageable state. I get that we want services to actually work as intended but Amazon's not exactly perfect.Key themes: reasons to be concerned
- Impacts from automation have thus far impacted mostly blue-collar employment; the coming wave of innovation threatens to upend white-collar work as well.
- Certain highly-skilled workers will succeed wildly in this new environment—but far more may be displaced into lower paying service industry jobs at best, or permanent unemployment at worst.
- Our educational system is not adequately preparing us for work of the future, and our political and economic institutions are poorly equipped to handle these hard choices.
Most smartphone users download zero apps per month. So why are these mobile and app based companies making so much money? What is their market? File this under tech bubble.
The Dish looks at the economics of creative writing. Basically, writers ought to have a day job.
I liked Vision Video. When I lived in Athens, I still went there on occasion. I have no idea how they were still in business with 2 storefronts but they just kept on trucking. Now, I find that innovative companies are turning their video stores into nonprofit organizations. Ars Technica profiles Scarecrow Video in Seattle. I hope Vision can live on forever.
Did unleaded gas, Plan B, and the internet play a part in decreasing teen birth rates? I definitely think the internet helped. For example: How is babby fromed?
Someone made a top 10 list of improvised movie scenes. While it doesn't include my personal favorite Harrison Ford line from Empire, it's still a jolly little watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment