<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stross on development economics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/</link>
	<description>Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:49:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: soru</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264635</link>
		<dc:creator>soru</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:08:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264635</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The Crown would typically borrow from bankers&lt;/i&gt;

Yes, but would it typically pay them back?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>The Crown would typically borrow from bankers</i></p>

	<p>Yes, but would it typically pay them back?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tracy W</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264582</link>
		<dc:creator>Tracy W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264582</guid>
		<description>And while I think of it, I note the downside of no Industrial Revolution is that if any other group on your planet does go down the Industrial Revolution route, they will gain power as a country, and thus could decide to invade and overthrow you. What is the power of the Indian or Japanese nobility nowadays?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>And while I think of it, I note the downside of no Industrial Revolution is that if any other group on your planet does go down the Industrial Revolution route, they will gain power as a country, and thus could decide to invade and overthrow you. What is the power of the Indian or Japanese nobility nowadays?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tracy W</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264581</link>
		<dc:creator>Tracy W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:21:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264581</guid>
		<description>Alex-  Decline and Fall argues that the fall in the power of the British Aristocracy was because they were too reliant on agriculture, not because of the Industrial Revolution per se. It strikes me as entirely likely that a member of the nobility considering whether or not to support a local Industrial Revolution could decide that the advantages should be pursued (massive increase in wealth, infrastucture like railways and steamships) while seeking to avoid the mistakes of the English nobility (too much investment in land). 
Of course a member of the nobility could believe that their heirs will inevitably make the mistake of putting too much money into land. But if  you believe that your heirs in two or three generations are going to make bad decisions, what does that tell you about what policy you should support now? If anything, a policy that you think will increase general wealth overall becomes even more attractive if you assume your heirs will be foolish, as this will provide the greatest cushion against foolishness (Please read wealth in the broadest sense of the term, not in terms of just GDP here).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Alex-  Decline and Fall argues that the fall in the power of the British Aristocracy was because they were too reliant on agriculture, not because of the Industrial Revolution per se. It strikes me as entirely likely that a member of the nobility considering whether or not to support a local Industrial Revolution could decide that the advantages should be pursued (massive increase in wealth, infrastucture like railways and steamships) while seeking to avoid the mistakes of the English nobility (too much investment in land).<br />
Of course a member of the nobility could believe that their heirs will inevitably make the mistake of putting too much money into land. But if  you believe that your heirs in two or three generations are going to make bad decisions, what does that tell you about what policy you should support now? If anything, a policy that you think will increase general wealth overall becomes even more attractive if you assume your heirs will be foolish, as this will provide the greatest cushion against foolishness (Please read wealth in the broadest sense of the term, not in terms of just <span class="caps">GDP</span> here).</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264576</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:43:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264576</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://investorsconsigliere.typepad.com/the_investors_consigliere/2009/01/book-review-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-british-aristocracy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; disagrees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><a href="http://investorsconsigliere.typepad.com/the_investors_consigliere/2009/01/book-review-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-british-aristocracy.html" rel="nofollow"><em>The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy</em></a> disagrees.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Erwin</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264570</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Erwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:20:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264570</guid>
		<description>Re: the Tokugawa Shogunate and guns:

The Tokugawa banned muskets after they took over[*] largely, I think, because they perceived muskets as an enabler for rebellions. This was because the introduction of muskets during the 16th Century transformed Japanese warfare from an affair of small armies dominated by mounted samurai (expensive, years of training required) to one of large armies dominated by peasant musketeers (cheap, significantly less training required). Widespread availability of muskets made it easy for an ambitious feudal lord to quickly build a large, formidable army (as, I believe, the Tokugawa themselves had done).

There may also have been an element of cultural conservatism at work, in that mass armies of lower-class musketeers seemed to render the samurai less significant and even allowed for peasant upstarts like Hideyoshi... but I think the primary worry was what rebellious daimyo could do with musket-armed armies.


[*] Or, more precisely, they gradually restricted gun manufacture by first requiring licenses and then reducing the number of licenses over time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Re: the Tokugawa Shogunate and guns:</p>

	<p>The Tokugawa banned muskets after they took over[*] largely, I think, because they perceived muskets as an enabler for rebellions. This was because the introduction of muskets during the 16th Century transformed Japanese warfare from an affair of small armies dominated by mounted samurai (expensive, years of training required) to one of large armies dominated by peasant musketeers (cheap, significantly less training required). Widespread availability of muskets made it easy for an ambitious feudal lord to quickly build a large, formidable army (as, I believe, the Tokugawa themselves had done).</p>

	<p>There may also have been an element of cultural conservatism at work, in that mass armies of lower-class musketeers seemed to render the samurai less significant and even allowed for peasant upstarts like Hideyoshi&#8230; but I think the primary worry was what rebellious daimyo could do with musket-armed armies.</p>


	<p>[*] Or, more precisely, they gradually restricted gun manufacture by first requiring licenses and then reducing the number of licenses over time.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tracy W</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264564</link>
		<dc:creator>Tracy W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:50:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264564</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;In the final analysis, wealth is good for one thing, power. The power to control one’s life and, where necessary or desired, the lives of others.&lt;/i&gt;

But this power to control your own life also includes things like being able to be warm, to have lots of water for washing, being able to banish the dark of night, to surround yourself by beautiful things, to have ample space for your hobbies, etc. 

Nowadays I get heat, light and hot water at the flick of a switch, in the past you could achieve similar effects by being able to hire lots of servants. Both solutions cost money. Adding on an extension to your house so you could pursue your hobby of growing exotic flowers costs money. 

Also, wealth is good for being able to impress other people, even if that doesn&#039;t directly translate into pwower. 

&lt;i&gt;In feudal societies land was the “coin of the realm”. One’s wealth and standing were a function of the amount of property one owned. Titles were useless if not accompanied by land.&lt;/i&gt;

Titles may have been worthless if not accompanied by land, but that doesn&#039;t mean that money was useless if not accompanied by land. If you live in an economy where labour can be hired for money, coins are important and they bring you wealth and standing, after all you can always hire soldiers. Consider the Italian bankers, or the City of London merchants in medieval times, or Jews in medieval Europe. The Crown would typically borrow from bankers, despite that the king owned heaps of land in his own right. 

&lt;i&gt; Anyone who knows any history would see what happened to the nobility of England with the industrial revolution.&lt;/i&gt;

The English nobility got really rich from mines on their land.  Oh yes, they also got railways so they could move around the country faster, steamships so they could move around the world faster, telegrams, gas heating, electricity, etc (just to label the infrastructure goods that can&#039;t be imported piecemeal). The experience of the nobility of England strikes me as a strong argument for other nobles to start their own industrial revolution.  Also, rich countries appear far less likely to have Communist revolutions or violent peasant revolts than poor rural countries, while correlation is not causation, I find it entirely plausible that a nobility would decide that an industrial revolution was a good way of protecting itself and increasing its power.  Having to ennoble a few successful merchants strikes me as a small price to pay.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>In the final analysis, wealth is good for one thing, power. The power to control one&#8217;s life and, where necessary or desired, the lives of others.</i></p>

	<p>But this power to control your own life also includes things like being able to be warm, to have lots of water for washing, being able to banish the dark of night, to surround yourself by beautiful things, to have ample space for your hobbies, etc.</p>

	<p>Nowadays I get heat, light and hot water at the flick of a switch, in the past you could achieve similar effects by being able to hire lots of servants. Both solutions cost money. Adding on an extension to your house so you could pursue your hobby of growing exotic flowers costs money.</p>

	<p>Also, wealth is good for being able to impress other people, even if that doesn&#8217;t directly translate into pwower.</p>

	<p><i>In feudal societies land was the &#8220;coin of the realm&#8221;. One&#8217;s wealth and standing were a function of the amount of property one owned. Titles were useless if not accompanied by land.</i></p>

	<p>Titles may have been worthless if not accompanied by land, but that doesn&#8217;t mean that money was useless if not accompanied by land. If you live in an economy where labour can be hired for money, coins are important and they bring you wealth and standing, after all you can always hire soldiers. Consider the Italian bankers, or the City of London merchants in medieval times, or Jews in medieval Europe. The Crown would typically borrow from bankers, despite that the king owned heaps of land in his own right.</p>

	<p><i> Anyone who knows any history would see what happened to the nobility of England with the industrial revolution.</i></p>

	<p>The English nobility got really rich from mines on their land.  Oh yes, they also got railways so they could move around the country faster, steamships so they could move around the world faster, telegrams, gas heating, electricity, etc (just to label the infrastructure goods that can&#8217;t be imported piecemeal). The experience of the nobility of England strikes me as a strong argument for other nobles to start their own industrial revolution.  Also, rich countries appear far less likely to have Communist revolutions or violent peasant revolts than poor rural countries, while correlation is not causation, I find it entirely plausible that a nobility would decide that an industrial revolution was a good way of protecting itself and increasing its power.  Having to ennoble a few successful merchants strikes me as a small price to pay.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LizardBreath</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264539</link>
		<dc:creator>LizardBreath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264539</guid>
		<description>Drat, ignore the hanging half-sentence in my 23.  Editing error; I was going to drone on at additional length, and then thought better of it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Drat, ignore the hanging half-sentence in my 23.  Editing error; I was going to drone on at additional length, and then thought better of it.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LizardBreath</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264538</link>
		<dc:creator>LizardBreath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:21:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264538</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;I would guess that the ability becomes really useful sometime in the C19th, whereas all the stuff about twining and breeding and outer families and the numbers involved suggests something much older – when did the ability become something worth breeding for? How long before that did it appear?&lt;/i&gt;

I thought I remembered a fairly short history for the worldwalkers -- didn&#039;t they start up in the late 19thC sometime?  I&#039;d have to flip through the books to remember.  Which supports your point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>I would guess that the ability becomes really useful sometime in the C19th, whereas all the stuff about twining and breeding and outer families and the numbers involved suggests something much older &#8211; when did the ability become something worth breeding for? How long before that did it appear?</i></p>

	<p>I thought I remembered a fairly short history for the worldwalkers&#8212;didn&#8217;t they start up in the late 19thC sometime?  I&#8217;d have to flip through the books to remember.  Which supports your point.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LizardBreath</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264537</link>
		<dc:creator>LizardBreath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:19:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264537</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;To carry on playing devil’s advocate, I would presume that they could trade high-value imported goods for as much local material, food, etc, from nearby ‘backward’ lords – imagine the mark-up on very light-weight items like disposable pens, lighters, razors, etc.&lt;/i&gt;

Could be, but that puts them in an awfully vulnerable position in case of holdups; it&#039;s a lot easier cutting back on your usage of ballpoints and lighters than of food. While they could always import food and fuel, etc., from our side in an emergency, their local suppliers could mess with them very easily.

But I suppose it could be made to work.   That would put them in an awfully</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>To carry on playing devil&#8217;s advocate, I would presume that they could trade high-value imported goods for as much local material, food, etc, from nearby &#8216;backward&#8217; lords &#8211; imagine the mark-up on very light-weight items like disposable pens, lighters, razors, etc.</i></p>

	<p>Could be, but that puts them in an awfully vulnerable position in case of holdups; it&#8217;s a lot easier cutting back on your usage of ballpoints and lighters than of food. While they could always import food and fuel, etc., from our side in an emergency, their local suppliers could mess with them very easily.</p>

	<p>But I suppose it could be made to work.   That would put them in an awfully</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JulesLt</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264536</link>
		<dc:creator>JulesLt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:55:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264536</guid>
		<description>To carry on playing devil&#039;s advocate, I would presume that they could trade high-value imported goods for as much local material, food, etc, from nearby &#039;backward&#039; lords - imagine the mark-up on very light-weight items like disposable pens, lighters, razors, etc.

There&#039;s also evidence that the world-walkers deliberately hide a lot of the levels of technological advancement (for instance, they only dress in &#039;modern&#039; clothing in their own privacy, the microlight couldn&#039;t be used, and they don&#039;t seem to have offered electrical systems to even the King). It&#039;s the proverbial &#039;advanced alien technology&#039;.

Actually, that gives me another train of thought - surely someone would have thought of moving out of the courier business into producing drugs? Even if you had to move it along the coast from Southern growing latitudes, it should be worthwhile.
 
Well, if you want the thing that nags at me, it&#039;s the timeline . . . at what date did the ability to walk between the two worlds actually become something they could turn into power??? The contraband trade has to have been relatively recent - opium not having been that popular in America, I&#039;d say the Prohibition was probably the first point that side of the business would have become lucrative.

The ability to move post faster across America could only have dated back to the railways / telegraph, and if we step back much further, well C18th New England was barely more settled than Niewejn (sp??) itself, and potentially more dangerous –  the technological gap far closer (if we presume the culture in Gruinmarkt to be &#039;stuck&#039; at a certain point, rather than being 600 years behind).

I would guess that the ability becomes really useful sometime in the C19th, whereas all the stuff about twining and breeding and outer families and the numbers involved suggests something much older - when did the ability become something worth breeding for? How long before that did it appear? The original &#039;tinkers&#039; would have had some idea about how the ability would be inherited, but how would they have kept the bloodline alive until it started to become useful?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>To carry on playing devil&#8217;s advocate, I would presume that they could trade high-value imported goods for as much local material, food, etc, from nearby &#8216;backward&#8217; lords &#8211; imagine the mark-up on very light-weight items like disposable pens, lighters, razors, etc.</p>

	<p>There&#8217;s also evidence that the world-walkers deliberately hide a lot of the levels of technological advancement (for instance, they only dress in &#8216;modern&#8217; clothing in their own privacy, the microlight couldn&#8217;t be used, and they don&#8217;t seem to have offered electrical systems to even the King). It&#8217;s the proverbial &#8216;advanced alien technology&#8217;.</p>

	<p>Actually, that gives me another train of thought &#8211; surely someone would have thought of moving out of the courier business into producing drugs? Even if you had to move it along the coast from Southern growing latitudes, it should be worthwhile.</p>

	<p>Well, if you want the thing that nags at me, it&#8217;s the timeline . . . at what date did the ability to walk between the two worlds actually become something they could turn into power??? The contraband trade has to have been relatively recent &#8211; opium not having been that popular in America, I&#8217;d say the Prohibition was probably the first point that side of the business would have become lucrative.</p>

	<p>The ability to move post faster across America could only have dated back to the railways / telegraph, and if we step back much further, well C18th New England was barely more settled than Niewejn (sp??) itself, and potentially more dangerous &#8211;  the technological gap far closer (if we presume the culture in Gruinmarkt to be &#8216;stuck&#8217; at a certain point, rather than being 600 years behind).</p>

	<p>I would guess that the ability becomes really useful sometime in the C19th, whereas all the stuff about twining and breeding and outer families and the numbers involved suggests something much older &#8211; when did the ability become something worth breeding for? How long before that did it appear? The original &#8216;tinkers&#8217; would have had some idea about how the ability would be inherited, but how would they have kept the bloodline alive until it started to become useful?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LizardBreath</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264512</link>
		<dc:creator>LizardBreath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:56:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264512</guid>
		<description>I guess part of what I&#039;m complaining about (in two threads at once), is that the worldwalkers seem too insulated from the Gruinmarkt economy, as if they could live entirely off imports.  They&#039;re feudal lords, living in castles.  They have to build castles locally, out of local materials -- timber, stone: it&#039;d be crazy to be building out of materials handcarried from the other side.  They need to burn fuel to keep their castles warm; wood or coal. They need to have armies of peasants farming their land so they have food, and not just food for the nobles, food for the peasants.  And those peasants have to wear clothes, which they have to handweave if there&#039;s no textile industry. And so on.  There are all sorts of absolutely necessary things that the worldwalkers really need to make or buy in their own world -- bulky materials that can&#039;t be substituted for by the supply of manufactured goods handcarried from our world.

So, even if they weren&#039;t trying to develop the Gruinmarkt economy, or to become rich by marketing products to the rest of their world, where&#039;s the water-powered sawmill for lumber for the worldwalkers&#039; own use?  Where&#039;s the coal mines, and the horsecars to bring coal to the castles? Where&#039;s the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bessemer converters&lt;/a&gt;, so they could build with steel, armor stuff, whatever?  Where&#039;s the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vaes.vt.edu/steeles/mccormick/harvest.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;McCormick&#039;s Patent Reaping and Mowing Machine&lt;/a&gt;?  All of these seem to be in the realm of what you could do with medieval craftsmen led by experts with plans, and they&#039;d all make a huge difference in terms of comfort, lifestyle, and military power for the worldwalkers.  And once they were in use, it seems as if they&#039;d spread to the non-worldwalker nobles.

Now, you&#039;re right that introducing higher (18th, 19th C) technology for local use mightn&#039;t be in the worldwalkers&#039; interests long-term, but I don&#039;t recall it being treated as a temptation they had to resist, or that there was a serious ban on.  It was just something that hadn&#039;t come up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I guess part of what I&#8217;m complaining about (in two threads at once), is that the worldwalkers seem too insulated from the Gruinmarkt economy, as if they could live entirely off imports.  They&#8217;re feudal lords, living in castles.  They have to build castles locally, out of local materials&#8212;timber, stone: it&#8217;d be crazy to be building out of materials handcarried from the other side.  They need to burn fuel to keep their castles warm; wood or coal. They need to have armies of peasants farming their land so they have food, and not just food for the nobles, food for the peasants.  And those peasants have to wear clothes, which they have to handweave if there&#8217;s no textile industry. And so on.  There are all sorts of absolutely necessary things that the worldwalkers really need to make or buy in their own world&#8212;bulky materials that can&#8217;t be substituted for by the supply of manufactured goods handcarried from our world.</p>

	<p>So, even if they weren&#8217;t trying to develop the Gruinmarkt economy, or to become rich by marketing products to the rest of their world, where&#8217;s the water-powered sawmill for lumber for the worldwalkers&#8217; own use?  Where&#8217;s the coal mines, and the horsecars to bring coal to the castles? Where&#8217;s the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process" rel="nofollow">Bessemer converters</a>, so they could build with steel, armor stuff, whatever?  Where&#8217;s the <a href="http://www.vaes.vt.edu/steeles/mccormick/harvest.html" rel="nofollow">McCormick&#8217;s Patent Reaping and Mowing Machine</a>?  All of these seem to be in the realm of what you could do with medieval craftsmen led by experts with plans, and they&#8217;d all make a huge difference in terms of comfort, lifestyle, and military power for the worldwalkers.  And once they were in use, it seems as if they&#8217;d spread to the non-worldwalker nobles.</p>

	<p>Now, you&#8217;re right that introducing higher (18th, 19th C) technology for local use mightn&#8217;t be in the worldwalkers&#8217; interests long-term, but I don&#8217;t recall it being treated as a temptation they had to resist, or that there was a serious ban on.  It was just something that hadn&#8217;t come up.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad Holden</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264490</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad Holden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:12:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264490</guid>
		<description>It seems straightforward to me that a group of people with a lock on wealth and power would be hesistant to import a new technology that would threaten that.  Their whole system of generating wealth has a self-limiting and monopoly built in.  Anyone who knows any history would see what happened to the nobility of England with the industrial revolution.  Industrialization would be a huge threat to these folks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>It seems straightforward to me that a group of people with a lock on wealth and power would be hesistant to import a new technology that would threaten that.  Their whole system of generating wealth has a self-limiting and monopoly built in.  Anyone who knows any history would see what happened to the nobility of England with the industrial revolution.  Industrialization would be a huge threat to these folks.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shah8</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264484</link>
		<dc:creator>shah8</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264484</guid>
		<description>The Shogunate banned guns, which became prominent in the Korean Invasion before the Shogunate politics took over.  Make of that what you will.

Besides, people like the world travelers trafficed in *things* and not fashion, markets, industry or anything else.  It&#039;s kinda hard to do that other stuff safely and reliably when you&#039;re &quot;witches&quot; who&#039;s got the King&#039;s ear.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The Shogunate banned guns, which became prominent in the Korean Invasion before the Shogunate politics took over.  Make of that what you will.</p>

	<p>Besides, people like the world travelers trafficed in <strong>things</strong> and not fashion, markets, industry or anything else.  It&#8217;s kinda hard to do that other stuff safely and reliably when you&#8217;re &#8220;witches&#8221; who&#8217;s got the King&#8217;s ear.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cosma</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264483</link>
		<dc:creator>Cosma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:54:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264483</guid>
		<description>For whatever it&#039;s worth, I&#039;m with LB.  Gruinmarkt has access to all the water-power which started the New England industrialization --- and water-powered looms would make a big difference!  Would it really have been that hard to have brought over usable plans, or even an expert?  I doubt it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>For whatever it&#8217;s worth, I&#8217;m with LB.  Gruinmarkt has access to all the water-power which started the New England industrialization&#8212;- and water-powered looms would make a big difference!  Would it really have been that hard to have brought over usable plans, or even an expert?  I doubt it.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gerald Fnord</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/27/stross-on-development-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-264480</link>
		<dc:creator>Gerald Fnord</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:51:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9260#comment-264480</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m currently working for a mega-corporation.  I asked my immediate boss, a brilliant guy, why it was so hard to get anything done there; he answered, &#039;They&#039;re doing very well here with things the way they are, any innovation is a threat.&#039;

Similarly, our dominant cat (who runs the universe) hates strangers; the other one considers them all potential food and affection suppliers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I&#8217;m currently working for a mega-corporation.  I asked my immediate boss, a brilliant guy, why it was so hard to get anything done there; he answered, &#8216;They&#8217;re doing very well here with things the way they are, any innovation is a threat.&#8217;</p>

	<p>Similarly, our dominant cat (who runs the universe) hates strangers; the other one considers them all potential food and affection suppliers.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced

Served from: crookedtimber.org @ 2012-02-13 09:51:12 -->
