4 ms·
The very notion of a center of X makes a lot of sense when such a simplification is useful. For mass, the center of mass is a lossless (or nearly so) simplifica
by dj-wonk 12y ago
The very notion of a center of X makes a lot of sense when such a simplification is useful. For mass, the center of mass is a lossless (or nearly so) simplification. In physics, the movement of complex object can be understood with only its center of mass.
Not so with economics; I'm very skeptical of a "center of economic activity" constructed as shown in figure 2. What questions does it answer well that a proper geographic distribution does not? (It certainly doesn't imply that all economic transactions go through that "center".) I think it misleads more than it helps. (And I'm not even going into the 3D -> 2D problems.)
- yoha 12y agoThe center itself is not important. The point is to show an evolution through time. Geographic distribution are clearer and more precise but only handy for a given instant.
- lifeisstillgood 12y agoPerhaps centre of a graph is more useful - economic activity is almost always an edge between two nodes, so the usefulness of graph theory seems apt (and afaik common) with economics - so a map showing the volume / value of transactions between actors would perhaps be useful - I have not seen all the maps here but it would presumably see NYC glowing with shipping and financial nodes ...