McCloskey om betydelsen av kapital (relativt liten)

Jag gillar McCloskeys konsekventa strävan efter att se den stora bilden. Size matters. Ur the spectator:

She [McCloskey] doesn’t even like the word capitalism, on the grounds that capital is not what got us where we are today. ‘If Scotland is trying to become Holland, then capital accumulation is how to do it. That will double your income, maybe triple it.’ But for her, that sort of accumulation is a scratch-card-sized prize — and the lottery jackpot beckons. She enthuses about the Great Enrichment of the 19th century.

‘What happened, understand, is not 100 per cent growth, but anywhere from 2,900 per cent growth to 9,900 per cent growth. A factor of either 30 or 100.’

That jump in incomes came about not through thrift, she says, but through a shift to liberal bourgeois values that put an emphasis on the business of innovation.

Comments

[Eva]

Denna formulering missar så otroligt mycket.

Se dessa böcker:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0195188047?pc_redir=1400744150&robot_redir=1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0857282522?pc_redir=1400642999&robot_redir=1

[bergh]

Tack, intressanta tips!