Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
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