The figure plots total world population and production from the year 1000 up to the present. I [Lucas] used a logarithmic scale rather than natural units, so that a constant rate of growth would imply a straight line. One can see from the figure that the growth rates of both population and production are increasing over time. The difference between the two curves is about constant up until 1800, reflecting the assumption that production per person was roughly constant prior to that date. Then in the 19th century, growth in both series accelerates dramatically, and production growth accelerates more. By 1900 the two curves cross [The crossing point is due to the scale-dependence a little bit arbitrary], at which time world income per capita was $1,000 per year. The growth and indeed the acceleration of both population and production continue to the present.
It was taken from a cool essay by nobel laureate Robert Lucas titeled The Industrial Revolution - Past and Future.
In case you are busy: Nothing new under the sun of Econoland but read at least his final statement:
Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution. In this very minute, a child is being born to an American family and another child, equally valued by God, is being born to a family in India. The resources of all kinds that will be at the disposal of this new American will be on the order of 15 times the resources available to his Indian brother. This seems to us a terrible wrong, justifying direct corrective action, and perhaps some actions of this kind can and should be taken. But of the vast increase in the well-being of hundreds of millions of people that has occurred in the 200-year course of the industrial revolution to date, virtually none of it can be attributed to the direct redistribution of resources from rich to poor. The potential for improving the lives of poor people by finding different ways of distributing current production is nothing compared to the apparently limitless potential of increasing production.via Mit dem Kopf voran
Mahalanobis - am 2004-06-08 16:49 - Rubrik: economics
risiko meinte am 8. Jun, 20:29:
equally valued by God
Mit diesen wenigen eingeschobenen Wörtern verlor ich das Interesse an diesem Text und ein wenig auch die Achtung davor. Warum wird in Gleichheitsdiskussionen ein religiöses Argument vorgebracht?
antimaterie antwortete am 8. Jun, 21:04:
da das indische kind wahrscheinlich ein hindukind ist, hat es dann drei hauptgötter (nämlich shiva, vishnu und brahma). folglich ist es dreimal soviel wert. das sieht man auch daran, daß in indien etwa dreimal soviele leute wohnen wie in den usa. insgesamt ist indien also neunmal soviel wert wie die usa. das kann man auch logarithmisch auftragen, muß man aber nicht.
Mahalanobis antwortete am 8. Jun, 22:07:
Die
Antwort auf die Frage, warum ein religiöses Argument vorgebracht wurde, findest du in in der Nobel-Autobiographie des Autors:I was born in 1937, in Yakima, Washington.
Aber vielleicht wollte er einfach nur klarmachen, dass humankapitaltheoretisch die beiden nicht gleich viel wert sind.
Apropos, da fällt mir das Paper "Testing for Causality*" vom Nobelpreisträger Clive Granger ein. Darin schreibt er: "... further suppose that God, or an acceptable substitute, tells one that ..." Spätestens ab diesem Zeitpunkt weiß man, dass Granger kein Ami ist (sondern Engländer) ;-D.
@antimaterie:
Die Inkarnationen von Vishnu haben ein negatives Vorzeichen. Außerdem macht Shiva alles kaputt.
*Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2, 1980, 329-352.
antimaterie antwortete am 8. Jun, 22:37:
shiva, shiva, shiva, ich kanns bald nicht mehr hören! aus vishnus bauchnabel kam wenigstens eine lotosblüte, ohne die es den schöpfer brahma nie gegeben hätte, und er hat das universum geschaffen und den himmel von der erde getrennt. war das etwa nichts? und was heißt hier alle inkarnationen von vishnu hätten ein negatives vorzeichen!? krishna als achte inkarnation von ihm ist ja wohl immer noch der universelle erlöser ohne beschränkung von zeit und raum.
Mahalanobis antwortete am 8. Jun, 23:06:
Oh Gott,
ist das kompliziert. Ich werd' wohl nie die Aufnahmeprüfungin den Tantra-Club schaffen. ;-(
stxx meinte am 10. Jun, 03:49:
Focus on development
i agree in not redistributing funds, but i see a substantial benefit for society to "help" the poor countries to become rich and industrialized countries would profit as well. imagine the benifit of consuming 5 times more than now at lower prices! and the innovations would take place in a more competitive environment determined by global markets! but this illusion is too far fetched. maybe the EU understands that it is an economic crime to support european cows by $2 per day on average when there is more than the half of the population on earth living with less. it seems that we still consume our wealth based on the behalf of others who are not so well off. but unfortunately i now see not way out of the development dead end.
Mahalanobis antwortete am 10. Jun, 04:33:
I can't
agree more with what you have said in the first part of your comment.Concerning the EU: Recently I pointed out that all direct and hidden agricultural subsidies paid to EU farmers annually add up to approximately 120 billion euros. This is enough money to fly Europe's 45 million cows around the world on first-class air tickets. Only with such comparisons one can see the magnitude of the crime currently going on in the European Union and I think everything should be done to end this "regime" asap. But PLEASE don't say even say that it "seems that we still consume our wealth based on the behalf of others". The idea that the income pie has a fixed size (lump of income fallacy) and that the developed world is living at the cost of the less developed world is so ingrained in the brain of the average voter that one should do everything to prevent such a missconception.
