3 ms·
These things are so fundamental that you don't see economists writing articles about them. Macroeconomics generally lumps those things under "productivity". Co
by marshray 7y ago
These things are so fundamental that you don't see economists writing articles about them. Macroeconomics generally lumps those things under "productivity".
Container ships were almost the poster child of globalization.
Faxes (and telex, etc) had been around for decades. We have the alphabet we use today because international Phonecian traders (phonetics, see?) used it for exactly the type of documents you're talking about.
- Animats 7y agoMacroeconomics generally lumps those things under "productivity". Which is the problem. Those things were bigger than Government economic policy, as we can see them having affected trade across a large number of countries with varied policies. It's not "productivity", anyway. It's "relative cost advantage" and "reduction of trade friction". The giant mistake of macroeconomics is claiming that free markets are a self-perpetuating condition. In the absence of trade friction and the presence of network effects, consolidation tends to occur. It continues to the point of monopoly or oligopoly. The end state, for now, seems to be having three or less providers who don't compete very hard on price. There's an EU study that indicates prices drop from competition only with four or more players. "Free markets" seem to have a minimum size in practice. The US has three big banks, three big drugstore chains, and will soon have three big cellular providers. Two big agriculture companies. Five big film studios, though.
- Chinjut 7y ago"Phoenician" and "phonetics" aren't etymologically related; the latter is etymologically related to "phone", as in sound.