Keith wrote:
KH> Well, I'll tell you. Almost all major conurbations lie at what
KH> were previously major ports (even if they're not so busy today),
KH> The remainder are on rivers. In times past they all had many
KH> manufacturing areas and developed major warehousing (for stuff
KH> made in the interior of the country) and financial sectors.
and Ed replied (in part):
Ed> All I'm saying is that while we like to think of cities in terms
Ed> of ports and trade routes, their foundation and growth occurred
Ed> because of a variety of factors.
Many cites originated as convenient landing -- latter shipping --
points. But their long-term development surely depended, as Ed
opines, on "a variety of factors".
Brian Arthur (Stanford, Santa Fe Institute, PARC) has numerous papers
on positive feedback related to how cities come to dominate over other
potential sites of conurbation. [1] Wiener showed us how negative
feedback was the essential element of control -- steering or
"cybernetic" -- mechanisms. But in 2nd c. Britain or 19th c. America,
nobody was trying to *steer* the development of cities. Positive
feedback leads to runaway and disaster in, say, steering a ship or
stabilizing a very tall building. It seems also to lead to runaway
and, in retrospect, possibly to disaster in the growth of cities.
Only cities typically grow over centuries so the disaster arrives very
gradually. From the perspective of the Roman legions or the East India
Company or the railroad barons or a modern mega-corporation, nearly
everything and everyone in a city is an "externality" during those
centuries of growth and change.
I kinda like Krugman, at least intermittently, because he tends to see
what he's looking at -- what's on the "end of his fork" -- rather than
what existing doctrine says he should be seeing. But in seeking
underlying principles, I'm more impressed by acceptance at the Santa
Fe Institute than I am by the late-comer economic Nobel recognition.
And WB Arthur hews more to the kind of thinking that Ray urges on us
-- systems, complexity, (so-called) operations research, chaos -- than
to thinking that depends on the existing architecture of economic
doctrine.
Ed> Prior to Krugman, the theory of international trade was based on
Ed> the Ricardian notion of comparative advantage.... From what
Ed> little I know, Krugman brought in the idea that, given a certain
Ed> level of technological development, resource advantage didn't
Ed> really matter very much.
No wonder so many people dismiss him. He offended, continues to
offend, established dogma.
Well, as I said before, I never took Econ 101 and ran aground in
Chapter 1 trying to beat up a Econ 101 textbook. Before
enlightenment, chop wood,draw water. After enlightenment, chop
wood,draw water. So
FWIW,
- Mike
[1] Some collected in W. Brian Arthur, _Increasing Returns and Path
Dependence in the Economy_, Univ. Michigan Press, 1994
--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~.
/V\
[email protected] /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
