EUCOM Economic Analysis - Part I

[Surferbeetle]

You seem to have misunderstood something.

Ok

Let's look

The technological progress I mentioned is vastly more general, not more narrowly defined than 'better machines'.

I suggest that we have a continuum of definition here ranging from industrial revolutions/exogenous inputs to better machines/technological progress. I think that we might be at different places along that continuum with our respective definitions.

The introduction of timestamps to reduce absentee rates would contribute to it, for example.

I see this example as a 'better machine', i.e. management controls

Also legislative changes affecting productivity.

'Better machine', i.e. policy controls.

Nice weather in a given year.

Unpredictable exogenous input - 'act of god'

Even higher world market prices for crops contribute to it (minus their effect on domestic inflation).

Mixture....'act of god' plus 'better machine' - farming techniques

It's so general that so many factors are placed in this leftover aggregate that it's useless in the short term.

Going to my point that exogenous inputs are unpredictable and thus difficult to model.

Nevertheless, it's great for long-term analysis.
It makes sense to calculate the rate of this technological progress of the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's. This is the terrain of Kondratieff's long waves and seems to be exactly the same terrain as the stuff I replied to.

I would classify this as being able to be modeled, and, thus defined as 'better machine'

To use the technological progress variable I referred to may appear to be an excessive aggregation, but the topic is about technological progress caused over decades and in more than even only the entire Western world. You need a huge aggregation to match this. You cannot investigate the productivity effects of individual tools or technologies in many years and in many countries in parallel. There aren't enough man-years available for such an approach.

Look at the technological progress variable (relatively easy to get) for the G7 countries instead.

Although I am not currently aware of any papers, I wonder how long until 'big data'/cheap computing power/huge databases will sufficiently expand modeling frontiers in order to help tighten the definitions used when discussing this topic...components of economic growth...exogenous inputs vs technological progress.

I would offer Thomas Savery's work (invention of the steam engine) as an exogenous input/industrial revolution and James Watt's work as an example of a technological progress/better machine. Similarly for electricity Ben Franklin (arguable considering the recent rediscovery of the Baghdad Battery) for the exogenous input and Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison for technological progress. Finally Alan Turing's work for the exogenous input and Steve Jobs for the technological progress description with respect to computing.

When thinking about this topic I contrast the often qualitative answers provided by economics with the quantitative answers provided by science & engineering. Although exogenous inputs are an example of a nonlinear stochastic process, IMO economics still has a ways to travel yet before it can provide satisfactory answers to the questions we pose.