[andy popp]

Original post: https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2019/article/what-success-rock-climbing-tells-us-about-economic-growth

And riposte: http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=2388&fbclid=IwAR2d23pBRw1M5YhBJ_8A4eUfx6w4NaK1VRvjYGRLL1hObnL-RnJIpm7ztuY

Personally, I think they both get it wrong.

[seankenny]

I read both and thought the second was better, even though the first is a good way to think about growth.

What do you think they both miss? I’m assuming some kind of network effect?

[andy popp]

I think both tend to see it to much as an either/or situation - either knowledge or technology, when in reality they are very hard to separate: knowledge is embedded in technology and technology is embedded in knowledge. They both acknowledge this to some extent but want to privilege one or the other. The second article places far too much emphasis on technology as conventionally understood, in my view. The last really revolutionary technological developments were, I would argue, Friends in the 70s and sticky rubber in the 80s. The same equipment is available to everyone, assuming you have the money, and yet elite standards have progress far more than the average. I don't think the gap between elite and average standards has ever been wider. So the principal explanation cannot lie in "technology". Training (which I would see as an exemplar of a technological-cum-knowledge system) is the difference. That and actual economics: climbing can now be a well paid profession because of growth in the market and canny marketing.

The first one has some good things to say about knowledge generation and dissemination (based in group and network effects) but clearly underplays conventionally defined technology far too much. Finally, the thesis that Honnold's abilities tells us something about desirable IP regimes, which is the point it really wants to make, is very flimsy.

Also, they're kind of talking past each other: the first is using climbing as an analogy for the importance of knowledge in modern economies, the second is talking about actual technological change in the context of climbing.

[Oldmanmatt]

I think your “the last good tech advance” is overlooking the actual advances that allowed elite standards to advance.
Bolts, Gyms and their proliferation.

[andy popp]

I think your “the last good tech advance” is overlooking the actual advances that allowed elite standards to advance.
Bolts, Gyms and their proliferation.

I'd include gyms in the training technological/knowledge system (I should have made clear my comment about last revolutionary advance was about climbing technology conventionally defined; e.g. hardware). Bolts are harder to classify; they've been around years but are deployed differently now. Rather than changing the game they've created a new one.

[Oldmanmatt]

Actually, I viewed it more along the lines of reinforcing your codependency argument.
In fact, as I type, “Major Tom” is blasting out of my daughter’s bed room (with her belting it out, too) and I’m reminded of an interview I watched only yesterday. Bowie was discussing the new “Internet” with a skeptical and dismissive Paxman, twenty two years ago. Bowie’s vision of how it would develop (including the frightening aspects) was spot on, Paxman describing  it as a mere “tool” that would become boring to all but the most obsessive. Bowie stating that it’s the symbiotic relationship (he didn’t use that word) between the technology and the user that was important, not the technology or the users alone.
Current climbing related economies and advancing standards, owe as much to changing and evolving attitudes to using technology, as they do to the development of that technology in the first place. Even as those changing attitudes created the drive to develop the technology!
(I can remember the Friend being as frowned upon as chalk, though not quite as Haram as clipping Euro bolts in lazy French summer trips).

[andy popp]

Current climbing related economies and advancing standards, owe as much to changing and evolving attitudes to using technology, as they do to the development of that technology in the first place. Even as those changing attitudes created the drive to develop the technology!

Very much agreed.

[petejh]

I think what both of you are missing, along with the author of the second piece, is the obvious: 
The second article 'probably' wouldn't have been written without the first! Which speaks nicely to the first article's point that 'growth' is built on knowledge. In this case the knowledge of the first article's ideas.

But.. the first article was published online, and within 6 weeks the second article was published online in response. Each of them on the author's respective websites. Which speaks to the ease and speed of idea transfer enabled by technology - the point made by the author of the second article.

1-1

Point about friends being the last tech advancement - the difference between a large rack of 1980s friends, quickdraws and biners; and a large rack of current BD Ulralights, quickdraws and biners is probably in the kilograms. Power-to-weight pastime..

[andy popp]

Point about friends being the last tech advancement - the difference between a large rack of 1980s friends, quickdraws and biners; and a large rack of current BD Ulralights, quickdraws and biners is probably in the kilograms. Power-to-weight pastime..

Refinements perhaps, though still very important? (caveat: I know next to nothing about modern gear)

[Mr E S Capegoat]

So, serious question...

Considering climbings monetary value

How many Honnolds would you get to the Ondra?

[andy popp]

It is a good question! It would be interesting to know.

Edit: Honnold $1.5, Ondra $1.4 (according to v quick google). Those actually seem low to me.

[Mr E S Capegoat]

It might be worth considering a new ukb list. Pretty much the same as the who’s climbed what list but instead of worth in the hard to quantify currency of grades, something a bit more universally recognised like money.

My guess would be 50 McClure’s or 30 Randall’s per Honnold or slightly more for an Ondra. Or to gain some further perspective 2 semi detached properties in Didsbury or one 5 bedroomed detached in Wilmslow per Honnold.

[tomtom]

Really this should be valued in the fuckall of course... (an oversight on your part I’m sure).

[Mr E S Capegoat]

It provides the same abstraction as the grade climbed lists. Just the commodity is different. That’s why it’s so boring and slightly irritating. Because it’s an empty and disconnected relationship that when taken to the nth degree actually feels quite depressing.

[petejh]

Keep it light capegoat.. you were just beginning to be bearable back there in that RED thread.

[Mr E S Capegoat]

Which bit was bearable? Just for future reference?

[Fiend]

The bit about yellow dong holds - and only that bit.

[Mr E S Capegoat]

Barrows wrote that, not me. So you’re basically kissing his arse there fiend

[petejh]

The bit where you didn't classify something as either boring, irritating, empty, disconnected, meaningless, shallow, herd-like, or depressing. I thought that bit was quite good.

[Mr E S Capegoat]

I thought how many Moon’s do you get for a Moffat was quite a good idea. Some sort of valuation process. TomTom suggested ‘fuckalls’ which prompted me stating the implicit message in monetising climbing. Anyway some sort of valuation list....?

Honnold
Ondra
That German lad with the  der llub wrist band
The blond American lass that had that thick bloke fired from his job as a climber.