D Shniad wrote: > > Michael, isn't your example a definitive refutation of the notion that > tech change is incremental? (Seems that way to me.) This is consistent > with my experience. Generally, you are correct. As Doug's old buddy, Larry Summers, noted, at this point in time, technical change was fast and furious, more dramatic than what we are seeing today. The US was being wrenched from an agrarian economy to an industrialized one. For Standard Oil, the costs of producing a gallon of kerosene fell from 1.5 cents before reorganization to 0.54 cents in 1884 and 0.45 cents in 1885. The Bessemer process reduced the price of steel rails by 88 percent from the early 1870s to the late 1880s. During the same period, electrolytic refining reduced aluminum prices by 96 percent and synthetic blue dye production costs fell by 95 percent I am not aware of any debates over a productivity paradox at the time. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
