Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Just like running a company then?

And you don't have to best at everything. Find your niche where you are the best, and keep it. That's what companies do anyway, so maybe this won't be that much of a change.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 03:57:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Anyway, I think this is one of the most interesting discussions I have had at the ET. Thanks for that Migeru.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 03:58:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Likewise. Probing questions help me sharpen my ideas.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 05:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll drink to that!

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 06:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm still no closer to a model of division of labour with unemployment. Maybe I need a drink, too.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 06:36:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the key to this lies in the concept of "Intellectual Property" and the growing role of services based upon it.

"Knowledge-based Value" is at the heart of it.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 06:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, you clearly need a drink, but can you explain what you mean by:

I'm still no closer to a model of division of labour with unemployment.

?

(Thankyou for this thread BTW, you managed to express very well what I was too incoherent to be able to explain/persuade anyone of in the modeling thread all those months ago.)

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon May 14th, 2007 at 03:26:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is very easy to make a (mathematically) neat model of division of labour, which generalises to a model of comparative advantage, if you assume full employment. But a model that incorporates unemployment is a harder nut to crack.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 14th, 2007 at 05:51:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't they usually just assume unemployment as a sort of "reserve function" like the setup for gas dynamics in the presence of a liquid?

Molecules (people) are absorbed and released by the reservoir according to the pressure in the chamber and the size of the reservoir (amount of economic activity and number of unemployed) along with an assumed NAIRU?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:33:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see I am not going to be able to avoid lots of variables and equations.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:39:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it is unavoidable, because if you are using division of labour to generalize towards comparative advantage, then you are basically describing interactions between (at least two [wool? wine?] different "employments." In that case at minimum, unemployment is another (third) "employment" kind that needs another variable to represent it.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 05:50:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Going from 2 to 3 employments actually complicates matters a lot, mathematically.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right, but I can't see a way to avoid it and retain any meaningful statements about comparative advantage. If we include only "unemployment" and "employment" as just the 2 kinds, I think we lose the ability to say meaningful things about "advantage."
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:20:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series