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
Economic growth is primarily tied to increased energy availability, which is not necessarily urban.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @imaginary_nums
harnessing and developing new energy sources is an exclusively urban activity which only gets ruralized later to scale up
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
maybe. another way to look at it: increased energy availability allows for urban development. urban economy 2ndry to energy
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @imaginary_nums @380kmh
but you don't need North Dakota and W Texas to be urbanized to increase their energy production
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
of course not, but you do need distant customer cities to develop their energy prod capacity in the first place
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.