Friday, February 4, 2011

I answer a question on Brad's final

What, if anything, remains "revolutionary" about the British Industrial Revolution? Can it still be viewed as a decisive turning point in economic history?
The revolutionary thing is that after 250 years economists still cannot figure out how to model economies of scale. Speaking of which, how is Channel Theory coming?

Well, the Fibonaci assumption holds up in terms of maintaining the entropy norm.  (I think comunications folks figured this out some time ago) I have gotten the Gibbs separation between channel components modeled as a minimim separation between transaction rates (this is risk).  Labor efficiency is the over all bandiwdth.  And I still keep the distortion parameter,x on F_n(x) as a model for capital equipment depreciation.  The result,natuurally, is the smooth generation of economies of scale as the channel components reduce or increase   I think this model will predict Ben's Wyle E Coyote moment.  I still need an algeba of sorts to model interference between economic sectors.

It's becoming a hobby.

No comments: