There seems to be a pervasive belief that technological advances are the key to economic growth. Moreover, many people even believe that the creation of some new wondrous technology might be all that is needed to "save" the economy from the current downturn, and set the world back on a path of perpetual growth.
On the face of it, I find it hard to think this blind faith in the ability of technology to drive economic growth is well placed. There have been massive technological leaps in the past (e.g. railroads, telegraph, telephone, automobiles), yet they didn't stop the business cycle or prevent depressions, so why should some new-fangled internet, or computer, technologies prove to be a wonder cure for all that ails the economy?
Does anyone know of any thinking that has been done on this subject?
Spideynw: GilesStratton:To summarize: capital is scarce in relation to technology. Really? So we know how to make hyper-space drives, or to create food out of energy, or how to build a transporter, or any other number of technologies? Seems to me all that technology is pretty scarce.
GilesStratton:To summarize: capital is scarce in relation to technology.
Really? So we know how to make hyper-space drives, or to create food out of energy, or how to build a transporter, or any other number of technologies? Seems to me all that technology is pretty scarce.
Go pick up a copy of Human Action or Man, Economy and State practise your reading skills and go over my post again, you'll see why you're wrong.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
What is technology being defined as here? Strictly speaking, if it's defined as ideas, it follows trivially that it is infinite relative to the capital suited to bringing it to fruition.
To darkness I condemn you...
Even in regards to technology that we are aware of, capital is scarce in relation to it. There exist numerous techological ideas that we are aware of but are not economically viable due to insufficient capital.
social democracy has been taking credit for the increase in living standards that capitalism and technology have given us. It is capitalism and technology that go hand in hand.
dsimo04: Brainpolice: Again, you're playing semantics. I'm not talking about your idea to use a stick to push berries out of a tree. I'm talking about the stick itself - which is a capital good precisely because of its function of pushing berries out of the tree, according to Rothbard himself from the stick example you are drawing from him. Part of Rothbard's entire point in the example you are drawing from is that the stick is a capital good. And the stick is also being used as "technology". For you, and for Spidey, please review some of the selections in the "Literature" section of this site. It is you who are playing semantic games by stating what your opinions are. "Well from my perspective..." "What I am talking about..." This is the ECONOMIC QUESTIONS forum. If you can find an author who, without equivocating, states that technology itself is a form of capital or that any capital good is "technology" (because they all, to some extent, incorporate technology), then post it and we can discuss. As to the question of whether one or the other are required for advancement, both are required, but the supply of capital (GOODS/MONEY, NOT RECIPES) has been the limiting factor through out all of history, i.e. our recipes have always outpaced our supply of capital. We can examine what would happen if we have fully exploited all known recipes, but then we would not be examining reality in relation to the present, or any human past.
Brainpolice: Again, you're playing semantics. I'm not talking about your idea to use a stick to push berries out of a tree. I'm talking about the stick itself - which is a capital good precisely because of its function of pushing berries out of the tree, according to Rothbard himself from the stick example you are drawing from him. Part of Rothbard's entire point in the example you are drawing from is that the stick is a capital good. And the stick is also being used as "technology".
Again, you're playing semantics. I'm not talking about your idea to use a stick to push berries out of a tree. I'm talking about the stick itself - which is a capital good precisely because of its function of pushing berries out of the tree, according to Rothbard himself from the stick example you are drawing from him. Part of Rothbard's entire point in the example you are drawing from is that the stick is a capital good. And the stick is also being used as "technology".
For you, and for Spidey, please review some of the selections in the "Literature" section of this site. It is you who are playing semantic games by stating what your opinions are. "Well from my perspective..." "What I am talking about..."
This is the ECONOMIC QUESTIONS forum. If you can find an author who, without equivocating, states that technology itself is a form of capital or that any capital good is "technology" (because they all, to some extent, incorporate technology), then post it and we can discuss.
As to the question of whether one or the other are required for advancement, both are required, but the supply of capital (GOODS/MONEY, NOT RECIPES) has been the limiting factor through out all of history, i.e. our recipes have always outpaced our supply of capital. We can examine what would happen if we have fully exploited all known recipes, but then we would not be examining reality in relation to the present, or any human past.
Sorry, it was Giles who initially started playing semantics. Nothing about what I'm saying is inconsistant with the economics literature at this site, and your condescention is uncalled for. I am not equivocating, you are misrepresenting the argument. I never stated that technology is always capital. My point was that technology can be capital and capital can be technology. To say that the two are absolutely exclusive is fallacious. You guys are nitpicking over nothing. This is pure semantics over the definition of the word "technology". I'm using the word "technology" to refer to tools or machinery used in the process of production - which IS capital. All of the arguments against this so far reduces to semantics over the word "technology", combined with condescention and naked appeals to economic authority which don't even refute the premise.
Furthermore, your statements are nonsensical. Stating one's viewpoint in and of itself is not playing semantics, and you seem to imply that citing 3rd party sources is the only way to argue about "economic questions". That's ridiculous.
It's a classic cum hoc fallacy. Technology doesn't drive growth, though it contributes to it due to increased productivity (think about clothing production before and after the loom). Savings, investment, property rights, competition, and free markets drive economic growth AND technological innovation.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Economic growth helps foster technology, and technology helps foster economic growth. Technology provides more efficiency in the process of production, and efficiency in the process of production helps devolope more technology. The resistance to this point is patently absurd. These things are not absolutely exclusive, they can be synergetic. Without technology, we cannot easily have economic growth, and without economic growth, we cannot easily develope future technology. Technology must be produced, but then prior technology is necessary to produce the new technology.
This is a simple logical excersize - it has nothing to do with defying the economic literature at this site.
Brainpolice: Sorry, it was Giles who initially started playing semantics. Nothing about what I'm saying is inconsistant with the economics literature at this site, and your condescention is uncalled for. I am not equivocating, you are misrepresenting the argument. I never stated that technology is always capital. My point was that technology can be capital and capital can be technology. To say that the two are absolutely exclusive is fallacious. You guys are nitpicking over nothing. This is pure semantics over the definition of the word "technology". I'm using the word "technology" to refer to tools or machinery used in the process of production - which IS capital. All of the arguments against this so far reduces to semantics over the word "technology", combined with condescention and naked appeals to economic authority which don't even refute the premise. Furthermore, your statements are nonsensical. Stating one's viewpoint in and of itself is not playing semantics, and you seem to imply that citing 3rd party sources is the only way to argue about "economic questions". That's ridiculous.
Words, as is often said, have meaning. More specifically, words in certain contextual environments are expected, many times only by tradition, to convey a certain meaning. The context here is economic science. The term Capital, and to what it refers has been one of the most contentious areas in economics. But for all of the different ways to which Capital has been referred, to my knowledge it has never been referred to as technology. And the embodiment of technology ("technological goods") has never been confused for capital. So for the purposes of replying to posts, to argue semantically in a way that is contrary to traditional usage is improper, impolite and possibly confusing to the original poster. So please, if you have a source, quote it. If not, stick to the traditional usage. If you have a strong opinion about why the traditional usage of a word is incorrect then please begin another post.
Brainpolice: Economic growth helps foster technology, and technology helps foster economic growth. Technology provides more efficiency in the process of production, and efficiency in the process of production helps devolope more technology. The resistance to this point is patently absurd. These things are not absolutely exclusive, they can be synergetic. Without technology, we cannot easily have economic growth, and without economic growth, we cannot easily develope future technology. Technology must be produced, but then prior technology is necessary to produce the new technology. This is a simple logical excersize - it has nothing to do with defying the economic literature at this site.
And yet, none of this is an argument for why technology is (or can be) capital or vice a versa for the purposes of defining a concept within the sphere of economics. Furthermore your use of technology as "tools or machinery used in...production" belies what is technological about tools and machinery, especially when one takes into account differences between various tools and machineries. The difference is in the technology of the various tools - inferring that the tools are not technology. And what about the collective term technology anyway? Certainly different tools use different technologies and 1 tool requires many different types of technology. And yet, you want to use the all encompassing term, technology, to cover all of these tools and machineries which aid in the process of production. Using technology as a substitute for the term capital would tend to make capital appear to be some homogenous substance.
Tools and machinery are certainly the incorporation of technology. However all goods (certainly all durable goods) are the incorporation of technology. But that doesnt mean that one would say a durable consumption good, such as a television "can be technology" nor the other way around.
Moreover, I could make the same semantic argument by using any other word I choose - even making up a word. I define chikensquak as "tools or machinery used in production." But that is also the definition of capital. Thus chikensquak is obviously capital. Please...
Again, you are being disingenous and playing semantics. Nothing about what I'm saying is contrary to the traditional usage of the word "capital" or "technology", and you're still misrepresenting my point. This is an absurd series of nitpicking and trickery.
Sniglet:There seems to be a pervasive belief that technological advances are the key to economic growth.
This belief simply misses the boat in terms of causality. Technology doesn't advance economic growth, economic growth advances technology.
banned: Sniglet:There seems to be a pervasive belief that technological advances are the key to economic growth. This belief simply misses the boat in terms of causality. Technology doesn't advance economic growth, economic growth advances technology.
What "banned" says makes intuitive sense to me. However, are there any research papers, or analysis, on this subject I can refer to in order to help bolster the case that "technology" is no panacea for economic downturns?
GilesStratton:A book is not technology.
Excuse me while I laugh my *** off, but seriously books are more or less non-volatile data storage. Whether it's the previous version of 'books' like scrolls, cave paintings, notches on wood, and etc. Data storage devices are technology. No doubt, you'll probably call the abacus a non-technology for which if the Ghost of Turing were to rise up, he would point a finger and laugh like Nelson Muntz.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
going back on topic.
the question is whether technology drives economic growth. whether it is key.
obviously technology contributes to growth but can we find something else that is more powerful driver .
something that is key (to growth/progress)
i would say the action axiom. man acts to better his circumstances; this drives economic growth, it is key; it is also distinct from technology. so the answer to the Original Poster is no. and those are my grounds for stating it,.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I would say that technology by itself does not grow any economy as without people who want things or want the particular technology, then the obvious growth of the economy is non-existent. Similarly, the lack of technology in an economy full of people with wants/goals/etc would effectively stall further growth or more or less throughput of the economy. This is why, for example, when industrialization became common that the economies that industrialized grew rapidly not because solely the technology, but that the technology acted as a conduit for all the wants/goals/etc of the people in the economy. Think of the economy itself more as 'water' and technology more as a 'pipe' or 'vessel' for which is bigger, stronger, or overall better in channeling the forces of the economy itself (as water is to pipes and vessels).
Brainpolice:Nothing about what I'm saying is contrary to the traditional usage of the word "capital" or "technology", and you're still misrepresenting my point
It's a shame we're writing on an economics forum then...
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap