I know this isn't the place to chime in with a conversation
about economics, but when has that stopped me before?
I read Mokyr's book, A Culture of Growth
[[ https://search.worldcat.org/title/964805224 ]] a couple years
ago and enjoyed it. I had a few nits about the content, but
then again, I'm not a Nobel Prize winning economist, so maybe I
should keep my mouth shut about that. If you're interested in
either history or economics, you should put it on the list of
books to consider reading. If you're interested in both, you
probably should read it.
But... I can also recommend von Hipple's Innovation series:
[[ https://evhippel.mit.edu/books/ ]].
And for the beginnings of a contrasting view to the "yeehaa!
growth!" mindset from the timeframe covered by Mokyr's book, I
would recommend Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful."
[[ https://search.worldcat.org/title/1239792692 ]] To be honest,
except for two chapters, I found the writing a little
uninspired. But it's worth a read as it introduces concepts you
hear from "post industrial" types (thinking of the Slow Food and
Slow Money movements.) I have a to-do item to write a book
about the "Slow Code" movement, but the industry probably
doesn't need help with that.
I haven't read Aghion's Endogenous Growth Theory
[[ https://search.worldcat.org/title/1027693933 ]], but worldcat
tells me it's at my local academic library, so I may have to
give it a go.
Flow of HN discussion every time Economics Nobel is announced:
It's not a "real" Nobel Prize. This is because it's officially the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, created in 1968.
This distinction often leads to people downplaying economics itself. They argue it's not a "real" science like physics or chemistry because it can't predict things perfectly and is based on human behavior, which is unpredictable. This critique sets the stage for a more political debate. Libertarian and socialist contribution is oversized.
FT chimes in with a bit of context and references at https://www.ft.com/content/f392e6bd-f207-40b6-8b9a-59947d567...
Flow of HN discussion every time Economics Nobel is announced:
It's not a "real" Nobel Prize. This is because it's officially the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, created in 1968.
This distinction often leads to people downplaying economics itself. They argue it's not a "real" science like physics or chemistry because it can't predict things perfectly and is based on human behavior, which is unpredictable. This critique sets the stage for a more political debate. Libertarian and socialist contribution is oversized.