I want to come back to this real quick because it's indicative of an extremely common error in economic reasoninghttps://twitter.com/380kmh/status/840232233621442560 …
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
The mistake is one Jacobs identified in 1984: to think that nations, rather than cities, are salient units for economic analysis
3 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Economic growth, technological development, and material progress are all *urban* phenomena. If they succeed, they later spread to country.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
The question is never "is the USA too big for a railway network;" some tiny countries have no rail at all, while Russia has its vast network
2 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
The question is "why don't American cities have modern rail networks and industries?"
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Correcting the question doesn't immediately shed light on an answer--there are MANY reasons for poor rail service in US cities--but it helps
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
If nothing else, it avoids unhelpful analogies and specious reasoning
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.