Comments for The Ambrosini Critique

Comment on England since, like, ever by pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:09:15 +0000

The man’s on a mission…

Comment on England since, like, ever by swong

swong — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:42:23 +0000

Huh. I was going to post something about England and coal and Industrial Revolutions but apparently some Clark guy up at Davis co-authored a paper debunking that assumption.

Comment on The unemployed aren’t the only ones seeking jobs by sraffa

sraffa — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:11:52 +0000

Comment on The unemployed aren’t the only ones seeking jobs by pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:40:46 +0000

The interesting economics is explaining the cyclicality of on the job search and retirements. I guess this can be explained by cyclical changes in the cost of search (the second fact being an implication of life-cycle effects). However, its the question of why costs change that’s interesting to me: does the market get more crowded during recessions OR do real wages drop enough to make the value of search low OR something on the demand side OR something else. The first theory would have problems explaining large seasonalities in job search (i.e. new college hires and summer temp work).

If someone hasn’t done the first paper with exogenous cost changes, we should do it.

Comment on England since, like, ever by pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:27:10 +0000

Of course, Hayak wrote about that years ago…

Comment on The unemployed aren’t the only ones seeking jobs by sraffa

sraffa — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:50:05 +0000

push- Yeah, the labor market dynamics are really complicated. But I’ve been getting into search theory recently, it’s really good stuff and definitely should be much more important in macro than it is currently.

I think you’re on to something, but I don’t know that OJS is enough to overturn the fact that the labor market is very loose right now. It’s enough to weaken the perceived market looseness a lot though.

Comment on England since, like, ever by sraffa

sraffa — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:42:00 +0000

What an Austrian theory of the IR would look like:

the Bank of England is one of the oldest central bank, dating back to 1694. The Industrial Revolution started in the mid-18th century as a direct result.

The Industrial Revolution is a just a temporary boom caused by the Bank of England’s manipulation of interest rates. Eventually we will have to pay the piper and return to the pre-Malthusian living standards, as central bank manipulation can only result in a temporary credit boom and always ends in a crash.

Right?

Comment on England since, like, ever by pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:05:03 +0000

Is there Austrian take on the industrial revolution?

Comment on England since, like, ever by PCLE

PCLE — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 02:36:36 +0000

Capitalism IS an evolutionary mechanism ! Read your Austrians.

Comment on England since, like, ever by pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:06:32 +0000

Well, its about the words you use, I guess. Can a revolution said to occur over 100 years (3 or 4 generations)? A set of theories that these data make hard to swallow are ones where particular innovations (e.g. steam power or some singular institution) leading to the transition to the modern economy.

BTW, another point is that the mid-19th century efficiency level is the same as the 15th century high. So the “revolution” — that’s usually placed around 1800 — doesn’t even get efficiency to levels above those seen in the middle ages until 65 years later.