From: Dave Long (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2000 - 09:58:33 PST
> turn out to me more mobile in the long run, labor or capital? So if labor is
> needed, surely capital will begin to flow to where talent is?
Fine in theory, but look at what happens in practice. Perhaps in
what we call the "dark ages", economic activity was spread pretty
evenly across a manorial/feudal europe. However, both before and
after we see concentration of capital in urban areas, or owned by
urban concerns, and talent (like water going uphill) following the
Now that I think of it, though, it may just be that capital and
labor both flow to where they perceive advantage, and it's a natural
result of random interactions that we wind up with a "lumpy", 90/10,
spread of economic activity, rather than an even smear with gaussian
departures. Anyone care to help me test the null hypothesis?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 28 2000 - 09:48:00 PST