Measurement of English farming technological change, 1523–1900

I have argued that for the period from 1661 to 1850, patent data in England were consistent in that no official changes in methods and standards of issuance occurred. Book data on titles published on farming production methods were similarly consistent from 1523 to the mid-19th century because the market for books developed gradually and the technology of printing was not substantially changed until the mid-19th century.My main point is that data on output of titles of books on farming productive techniques in England are useful measures of technological change. Books did have information on good production methods and could express productive ideas where a patent may not be issued. Further, the literacy rate of farmers was high so that books were likely an important source of ideas on farming production methods. Finally, the fluctuations in the book data were highly related to the fluctuations in the patent data, suggesting that a common set of factors caused those fluctuations. The high correlations between the detrended book and patent data indicate that if we accept patenting as a useful measure of technology we may also accept book title output of a technical nature as a good measure of technical change.I used the data for a simple analysis of the trend growth rate of agricultural technology in England from 1551 to 1850. While there is limited evidence to show that the subperiod 1651–1750 saw a slowing in the trend of development of farming technology, I argue that a division of the entire period into subperiods is too simplistic. A more fruitful approach would be an analysis of the underlying forces that determined the trend of development of the technology of English agriculture.The next step is an analysis of the forces that influenced technological development of English farming. From an economic point of view, market forces play an important role in influencing technology. Because such an analysis deserves careful consideration, I leave that to another paper (see Sullivan and Simon, 1983).     

The economics of dying: A misapplication of tools

Conclusions Unlike McKenzie and Tullock, we do not know how personsshould treat their bodily organs or what is an ideal exit. That depends upon their utility goals, which are defined in output terms specific to the decision maker. We contend that the body is an input into the utility production process, and therefore, as with any input, it must be maintained and repaired at a level consistent with the output goals for maximization of utility. Thus, from this framework, it is quite consistent for a person to die with healthy organs without any thought of belief in reincarnation or the desire to bequeath one's bodily organs to others, or religious values. Self interest is all that must prevail.Also, the fact that there are interrelationships between the organs in the system, and at points these relationships take on fixed factor characteristics such that reduced levels of operation in one organ can create disorientation or coma or damage to other organs, means that the body cannot die as M-T suggest. Zero capacity for all organs at death is a technical impossibility as well as being inconsistent with the output goals of utility maximizers.     

Valuation of SGARAs IN THE Wine Industry: Time for Sober Reflection

The application of AASB 1037 Self Generating and Regenerating Assets provides little guidance to the commercial performance of winemakers. The valuation of grapevines essentially requires the valuation of a segment of a business (vineyards), from which is deducted the value of associated infrastructure. Grapevines are reported at a fictional "net market value" even though they cannot be bought or sold. The combination of recognising revaluation increments as distributable profits through the valuation of grapevines at "net market value", and the subsequent "amortisation" of those revaluation increments over the useful lives of the grapevines, creates a reporting maze which is more likely to confuse than inform.