Jane Jacobs, "The Nature of Economies"

I googled predicting the dark age

At Bloomberg: "Even Late in Her Career, Jane Jacobs Made Predictions That Are Coming True Today" by Richard Florida:

Released in 2004 when she was 88 years old, Dark Age Ahead is hardly talked about among urbanists and fans of Jacobs’ earlier works. In fact, it was widely panned as the work of an aging crank whose best days and smartest commentary were behind her. The New York Times called it an “extremely sloppy” and “haphazard” book. Such reactions were par for the course with her later works. The MIT economist Robert Solow wrote that her 2000 book The Nature of Economies “[does not tell] us much about the nature of economies, beyond the pun itself.”

I wrote myself a note: ART check the book Robert Solow didn't like: The Nature of Economies.

It is available at archive.org
Jane Jacobs, "The Nature of Economies"
https://archive.org/details/natureofeconomie00jaco

I turned to Chapter One:

"Hortense and Ben have broken up," said Armbruster, waving a fax at Kate as she slid into the booth, balancing her cup of coffee.

"I'm sorry but not surprised." said Kate.

It's written like a novel. I don't read novels. And whodahfuc is Armbruster? And why should I care? I stopped reading and skipped ahead a few pages to see if only the first bit was novelish. My eyes landed on this paragraph, on page 11:

"To repeat, I'm convinced that economic life is ruled by processes and principles we didn't invent and can't transcend, whether we like it or not, and that the more we learn of these processes and the better we respect them, the better our economies will get along."

Oh, yes. That's me. I say stuff like that. Maybe not as well, but stuff like that. I repeated some of it after quoting Harvey Wilmeth, a couple months back.

Chapter One continues:

"That sounds pretty pessimistic," said Armbruster. "Here we are, already loaded up with government regulations. And now you want to compile still more lists of economic rules and regulations decreed by nature?"

"Limits are part of it," replied Hiram. "Awareness of them can prevent futility."

It's still a novel. 

And Armbruster obviously doesn't think about what people say. The dipshit can't even figure out that if we abide by the economy's rules, we will need fewer government "rules and regulations" to get the economy to do what we want. But I don't know how much of this I can read, with Armbruster and Kate and Hiram now, already, and balancing the coffee cup and all that.

Almost to page 12:

"But here's what interests me most: Natural principles of chemistry, mechanics, and biology are not merely limits. They're invitations to work along with them.

Yes!

"I think it's the same with economics. Working along with natural principles of development, and correction, people can create economies that are more reliably prosperous than those we have now and that are also more harmonious with the rest of nature."

Well, "harmonious with nature" sounds good, but I'm no expert on that topic. But Hiram, and Jane Jacobs, are right to say that by doing things the way the economy wants we'll have more reliable prosperity. No question about it.

And from page 12:

"... What does nature say about money?"

"Nature says money is a feedback-carrying medium," Hiram replied.

Yes. I talk about monetary imbalances being a problem, and restoring balance as the solution. The imbalances are the "feedback", which our economists and policymakers seem to ignore.

The economics in The Nature of Economies is wonderful. But I can't read the novel.