9eB1 comments on Three Parables of Microeconomics - LessWrong

25 Post author: jimrandomh 09 May 2014 06:18PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (38)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: 9eB1 09 May 2014 11:50:13PM 11 points [-]

I believe you are missing the point of that story. I suspect that the magical wizard is actually technological development, and the actual message is to not be on the losing side of technological progression. Comparative advantage is just used to set the scene, as it were.

Of course, I could be missing the point of the story.

Comment author: James_Miller 10 May 2014 12:11:07AM 5 points [-]

It's hard to imagine technological development in the agricultural sector that causes farmers who own their own land and tools to starve.

Comment author: DanArmak 10 May 2014 10:48:05AM 10 points [-]

His yearly income comes in during a short period of selling plants it took him most of the year to grow. If he doesn't have enough savings, he may take a loan during the growing season. Then one failed or unsellable crop can wipe him out.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 10 May 2014 05:28:25AM *  5 points [-]

If the farmer invests in cash crops and than the price of said crops collapses.

Granted this is less of a problem for farmers then other industries where you may have a harder time changing what you produce quickly.

Edit: Also the example in the parable doesn't work since Alex could produce enough food for himself on his farm during the first year. Thus it's not clear why he couldn't do so again.

Comment author: dspeyer 10 May 2014 12:59:50AM 3 points [-]

One-generation seeds?

Comment author: James_Miller 10 May 2014 01:05:29AM 3 points [-]

If you are not forced to used them, and if their existence doesn't raise the price of other seed how would they cause you to starve?

Comment author: dspeyer 10 May 2014 04:40:07AM 5 points [-]

You start using them in a year when they look like a good deal. Then the world market shifts and you wind up with an unmarketable crop -- and no way to go back.

Comment author: trist 10 May 2014 05:57:07AM *  0 points [-]

If the farmer is actually a subsistence farmer, they save their own seed, so they don't care about the price of seed, nor would they buy single generation seed (say of a new crop or variety) knowingly. However, if someone nearby plants single generation seed, they can end up with genetic material in their variety of that crop, which cuts their germination (or seed baring) rates the following season.

Comment author: Nornagest 10 May 2014 06:31:37AM *  2 points [-]

Perhaps he died of deficiency diseases.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 13 May 2014 06:51:55PM 5 points [-]

Right, he ate only carrots. But the point is that he didn't have potatoes because he thought that he could trade the carrots when he planted them.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 May 2014 12:19:12AM 2 points [-]

That's pretty easy, the first thing that comes to mind is monoculture.