I am having a hard time understanding the paper. Would one of you be able to summarize the implications of the paper?
I found this part interesting:
"I advance the hypothesis here that technical change in general can be ascribed to experience, that it is the very activity of production which gives rise to problems for which favorable responses are selected over time."
There is actually a little blurb in the linked NYT article on this topic:
Take “learning by doing,” a notion that Professor Arrow examined in the early 1960s. The basic idea is straightforward: The more that a company produces, the smarter it gets. Decades later, economists incorporated this idea into sophisticated theories of “endogenous growth,” which have a country’s rate of economic growth depending on internal policies that promote innovation and education — the very forces that Professor Arrow’s writings anticipated."
edit: I always forget which markdown pieces HN uses/doesn't use. Italicized rather than failed attempt at blockquote
