tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post3654540321958824132..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Probably a dumb question...Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-45065901093073275922012-02-02T20:31:44.501-05:002012-02-02T20:31:44.501-05:00Sorry, I feel like I criticized Daniel's quest...Sorry, I feel like I criticized Daniel's question instead of answering it in his terms. So here goes: <br /><br />you can raise employment by decreasing consumption or by increasing how resources are employed in trade. That is, your enemy is workers watching sitcoms and cooking their own dinner. <br /><br />In theory, I don't see why tweaking endowments couldn't decrease sitcoms and home cooking. My sense is that, for public choice reasons, these tweaks will tend to decrease trades through aforementioned bans-or-deadweight. That is, by messing with the market mechanism, fewer good jobs will be available, leading workers to spend more time watching sitcoms. Meanwhile, myriad regulations will make take-out more expensive vis-a-vis home cooking. Result is more consumption and less trade. Both should decrease productivity.<br /><br />So, in theory, I agree tweaking can increase employment. In practice, I think it decreases it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-37001471502054914462012-02-02T20:13:25.882-05:002012-02-02T20:13:25.882-05:00@Catalan,
Bingo. Full employment could entail dig...@Catalan,<br /><br />Bingo. Full employment could entail digging holes and filling them at gunpoint, given the right institutional incentives.<br /><br />My point being that employment itself is not a good. The question is how well that employment satisfies wants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-3210745064448739322012-02-02T14:33:43.971-05:002012-02-02T14:33:43.971-05:00yeah, the unemployed could become 'entrepreneu...yeah, the unemployed could become 'entrepreneurs' by getting a gun and pursuing a career in armed robbery...<br /><br />You can attempt to define away a problem but sometimes it comes back to you in high velocity lead format...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-48433243716420281572012-02-02T11:42:51.365-05:002012-02-02T11:42:51.365-05:00I think "Anonymous'" point is danger...I think "Anonymous'" point is dangerous: "People are always "fully employed," employed in pursuing the best options available to them."<br /><br />The question is: who cares, or what are the implications? Does that mean we shouldn't worry about mass unemployment? Does that mean that the market is maximizing employment when its burdened by regulations? Is Mali's economy acting as efficiently as the United States'?Jonathan M.F. Catalánhttp://www.economicthought.net/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-1725247181677488452012-02-02T11:29:45.438-05:002012-02-02T11:29:45.438-05:00My difficulties with Daniel's view here start ...My difficulties with Daniel's view here start with the idea of "full potential". Can someone define exactly what it is?Currenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08645195276844244481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-79722912032748638762012-02-02T11:05:40.120-05:002012-02-02T11:05:40.120-05:00People are always "fully employed," empl...People are always "fully employed," employed in pursuing the best options available to them. <br /><br />The free market, in a 'first best' sense, maximizes the number of opportunities created and pursued (i.e. trades). Here the 'second best' would be regulators foreclosing opportunities either directly or by deadweight losses. <br /><br />Whether or not this collection of 'first best' opportunities would include a higher % in formal labor would be indeterminate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com