I received a comment from economist Daniel Schydlovsky. Well, I have not actually received it, but a third person, who was kind enough to send my video, which DS was pleased to see, and then comment. I take the liberty to publish the comment, then answer it:
Very interesting but not entirely correct.
When we have productivity growth in the bottom two options: to receive this increase in productivity in more goods or as much muzzle. Or, of course, a combination of both.
These options are implemented through two mechanisms: (a) fall in prices of agricultural crops, and (b) reductions in working hours.
Any combination works.
BUT we must also take into account that productivity growth usually does not come free, requires new machines, or a new technology or an innovation. All this requires a payment (amortization, royalty, etc.), Therefore the benefits of innovation can not go only to workers but must also go to the other factors of production.
This means that if the productivity is doubled, we can not simply cut in half the hours worked. Nor can we simply double the wages.
Then we have another complication: the increase in productivity is not the same in all products. What may seem simple when there is only one product in the sample becomes very complicated when there are many. If productivity in one product is doubled and all else remains constant, then there is a demand composition problem, as demand for the product whose productivity grew up, it will not replicate ... therefore inevitably require less hours of work in their production. These may occur with smaller number of workers or less hours per worker - that ends up being an issue of distribution, whose solution is often not easy or fair. As changes of Products are varied and unpredictable, and often even well-measured, adjustments that occur are full of friction, inequities and imperfections and take time.
lose income in the way not only workers but also employers, such as productivity grows at a single factory that moves to its competition.
This requires solving a system of simultaneous equations, well specified only in an ideal world. In practice, we know only imperfectly.
But back to the central point of the video. Society can surely be better organized. Much of unemployment can be reduced or avoided with better institutional arrangements and better economic policies. But none of this is simple and conceptually and in application. Let's see just how difficult it is applicable keyensianas well-known recipes for a hundred years to the current crisis. It is difficult for a variety of reasons ranging from lack of understanding of macro feedbacks, through the coordination problems that requires many things done at once, something difficult to achieve, to the political interests by making the opponent fall, albeit at the expense of common welfare (pay a cost "little" now, to benefit the most when "I" comes to power).
Well, dear Manuel, I have expanded in response to what you sent me ... maybe more of the account.
The issue certainly concerns me, as it should concern all of my profession! I wish we had easy answers .... Meanwhile, we have no go-inch improving the world .... If we persist, in the end we have improved a lot!
By the time a big hug,
Dani
0 comments:
Post a Comment