[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Clustering Customization Vs Global Standards

• To: Didier PH Martin <martind@n...>
• Subject: Re: Clustering Customization Vs Global Standards
• From: Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:08:45 -0400
• Cc: "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <len.bullard@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <011101c6af8b$35b6b880$6701a8c0@user5nmf4kx6w6>
• References: <011101c6af8b$35b6b880$6701a8c0@user5nmf4kx6w6>
• User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)

Hi Didier --

Didier PH Martin wrote:
> Hello Ian,
> 
> Ian said:
> 
> This 'radical new view' is kinda old hat. But I guess it helps sell to 
> people who haven't cracked open any economics books or articles in a 
> while....
> 
> Didier replies:
> Sorry Ian, Too hard to resist commenting this even if it is out of the XML
> world (or maybe not that much after all).
> 
> It is indeed radical because the actual no-classical and dominant theories
> are about supply and demand and efficient markets. The former based on the
> equilibrium and the latter on rational homo economicus. 
> 
> It is radical in the sense that most of the economics literature of the last
> 100 years is more about wealth sharing than wealth creation. It is radical
> in the sense that it poses the hypothesis that wealth creation is based on
> three elements: differentiation (new stuff, mutation), selection (survival
> of the fittest) and amplification (more of it because it's more adapted to
> the environment). It's not that the supply and demand theory is wrong it is
> only that it doesn't state a theory about "how do we create wealth"?

Point taken. Maybe a bit old hat for me then -- too much reading of (and 
getting talked at about) Rohmer's endogenous growth theories, and the 
importance of positive externalities on economic growth models (i think 
of that as open systems, in the dynamical sense) that drive wealth 
creation.  That's 20 years old or so, which makes it old to me ;-)

> Concrete reality in the XML world.
> 
> Where should you invest your time to create wealth for yourself (wealth
> being better employability, better business success). XAML, AJAX another XML
> based language? Or simply consider that XML is dead and Java will take the
> world? How do you know what will win?
> 
> Another take is to get real options in a couple of these technologies or a
> big bet on a single one. You're in 2010, what is useful for you, what
> survived? 
> 
> It is radical indeed; it is future oriented and states the economics as an
> evolution system. Off course, some will prefer to believe in intelligent
> design mechanism :-)

If not intelligent design, then perhaps merely chaos :-)

-- 
Ian Graham
H: 416.769.2422 / W: 416.513.5656 / E: <ian . graham AT utoronto . ca>
<< Don't send ZIP files, or your mail will be discarded by my spam filter >>

• References:
  • RE: Clustering Customization Vs Global Standards
    • From: Didier PH Martin <martind@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Clustering Customization Vs Global Standards
• Next by Date: RE: [SUMMARY #1] Why is there little usage of XML on the 'visible Web'?
• Previous by thread: RE: Clustering Customization Vs Global Standards
• Next by thread: RE: Clustering Customization Vs Global Standards
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread