27chaos comments on Unemployment explanations - LessWrong

28 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 07 November 2014 05:12PM

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

Comments (96)

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

Comment author: 27chaos 28 November 2014 07:03:13AM 1 point [-]

Superior competitors don't tend to cause widespread unemployment, though. People just go work for the company that's on the rise.

I don't think it's this simple. Suppose skills are nontransferable. Suppose the other company is in a different country. Suppose there's only a limited demand for the goods produced and the other company uses technology that lets it fewer workers than the first one did. None of these seem to have anything to do with supply shortages.

As for uncertainty about a coming war... he's saying that it all comes back to natural resources, access to land, and sure enough that tends to be what wars are about.

Not exactly. Wars are about a lot of things, like fear one will be attacked by a neighbor or the desire to stop Communist ideology. The claim that every war is at root an issue of natural resources is only defensible if you make it extremely complex and thus impossible to falsify. Additionally, like I said before, that kind of situation is less about insufficient supply and more about living under conditions of scarcity which no economy can avoid.

Comment author: Strange7 28 November 2014 04:23:56PM 1 point [-]

The neighbor is possibly going to attack... why? Maybe because they want something you have, that they could seize by killing you? Such as your land? The term "lebensraum" comes to mind.

Communist ideology, likewise, exists to promote communist political policies, which have a number of major differences from capitalist (or, say, monarchist) policies when it comes to how natural resources should be exploited on industrial scales and how the products of that industry should be directed. Workers controlling the means of production, and so on.

As for falsifiability, it would be easy enough to imagine people going to war over a set of political issues (let's say, calendar reform or the right to be openly homosexual) which have no clear implications one way or another for industry. It's just, that doesn't happen. Gulf War 2? Oil. American civil war? Cotton, by way of slavery. WWII? Germany and Japan trying to bootstrap. Sub-saharan bloodbaths? Closely correlated to droughts, with a time lag as food scarcity propagates through the system. Without an underlying resource conflict, no war occurs.

There's always more to it than that, of course, because people are complicated. The first world war, for example, was a horrific morass of misplaced optimism and lost purposes, but when you look at the promises the leaders were making, it was always "no, really, we'll be able to push ahead and capture valuable territory at low cost THIS time!" and the reparations afterward were transparently a transfer of resources from the losers to the winners.

Comment author: Strange7 29 November 2014 08:40:05PM 0 points [-]

Suppose there's only a limited demand for the goods produced and the other company uses technology that lets it fewer workers than the first one did.

"Labor-saving" innovations are simply increases in efficiency. If the new process allows more of the same (or equivalent) goods to be produced with less inputs, the price will drop and demand will increase. Significantly lower cost might even open up completely new applications for the goods.

Comment author: 27chaos 30 November 2014 01:22:51AM 0 points [-]

I think I need to start over. Give me a while to think.