Aesop Econ: The Two Dogs

A MAN had two dogs: a Hound, trained to assist him in his sports, and a Housedog, taught to watch the house. When he returned home after a good day’s sport, he always gave the Housedog a large share of his spoil. The Hound, feeling much aggrieved at this, reproached his companion, saying, “It is very hard to have all this labor, while you, who do not assist in the chase, luxuriate on the fruits of my exertions.” The Housedog replied, “Do not blame me, my friend, but find fault with the master, who has not taught me to labor, but to depend for subsistence on the labor of others.”

Children are not to be blamed for the faults of their parents.

Aesop takes this for a story about parental duty, but I see a story about specialization according to comparative advantage.

Both hunting and house-watching are valuable activities. Now, it may well be that the Hound could guard the house as well as the Housedog. But that doesn’t mean the Housedog is useless. On the contrary, his presence allows the Hound more time to go hunting, thereby increasing the household’s overall productivity.

Imagine what would happen if the Hound and Housedog split their time between the two activities, perhaps by swapping places at lunch. Suppose the Hound can catch ten game birds per day versus the Housedog’s four, and they are equally good at guarding the house. By splitting their time, they would catch a total of seven birds per day, i.e., five from the Hound’s half-day plus two from the Housedog’s half-day. But by specializing according to their respective comparative advantages (the Hound in hunting, the Housedog in guarding), they get ten birds, for a gain of three. The Housedog enables that gain by guarding the house; does he not also deserve a share of the spoils?

Read More...

Summary only...

You Might Do Not Have to Use Files

The grandly-named Public Domain Archive, evidently a production of Osaka-based Digirock, Inc., offers a few MP3s of classical music and historical speeches. Thanks to a suggestion from Tyler Cowen, I'm enjoying a 1942 recording of Beethoven's 9th even as I type. Am I breaking the law in so doing? The copyright notice posted on the Public Domain Archive, while quite charming, hardly reassures:

To the People
In japan, All files open to the public on this site are certainly lawful.
But, if you do not live in Japan, You might do not have to use files.
You should check the law of your country.

As proves too often true for works, like this 1942 recording, that fall under the aegis of the 1909 Copyright Act, it is not easy to figure out if the underylying work enjoys any claim to protection under U.S. law. Perhaps, after all, it was not published with the proper formalities, here, and thus fell into the public domain.

In this case, though, it looks like we can dodge those complications. U.S. copyright law affords exclusive rights only to copying, creation of derivative works, public distribution, public performance, and public display. See 17 USC § 106. So long as I listen to a MP3 solely via streaming, without saving a copy, it is hard to see how I've violated any of those rights. Perhaps Digirock, Inc. has violated U.S. law by offering me the MP3, but that is no concern of mine (and probably not much of a concern to Digirock, Inc.).

That legal scenario suggests an interesting conclusion: an offshore copyright-free zone—one set up by intellectual pirates or in a stubbornly independent country—might give U.S. residents ample, free, and legal access to all sorts of copyrighted works—even ones protected under U.S. law.

[Crossposted at Agoraphilia and The Technology Liberation Front.]

Read More...

Summary only...

Transtemporal Economics

Tyler Cowen considers the economics of time travel. Actually, he starts with the economics of interstellar travel, but if you take relativity seriously, it’s the same thing. Tyler is most interested in how time travel in the presence of time dilation would affect interest rates (e.g., what happens if someone saves a penny and then travels into the future?; what happens if everyone tries to do that?).

I’m more interested in the effect of time travel on migration and trade. If wages are expected to be higher in the future, then once the cost of time travel falls low enough, we can expect people to start migrating in large numbers into the future – just as they migrated from Europe to the North America from the 1500s onward, and just as they migrate from Mexico to the U.S. today. A simple model of transtemporal migration would therefore predict equalization of wages over time, as wages rise in the present (from reduced labor supply) and fall in the future (from increased labor supply). But wage equalization does not even clearly result from international migration today. New arrivals, aside from increasing the supply of labor, both (a) increase the demand for goods and services, and (b) to the extent they are willing to work for less, lower the price of goods and thus increase purchasing power. The future might be able to absorb the time-traveling arrivals with little impact.

Moreover, there could actually be increasing returns from larger populations, because more people interacting with each other generate more ideas and innovations that can benefit larger numbers of people. Maybe the future would leave the present behind, not just temporally but economically, as its population grows while ours shrinks.

And that’s assuming time travel is only possible in a forward direction. (I think time dilation only makes forward time travel possible, but I confess that I’ve never fully wrapped my head around relativity.) If backward time travel is also somehow possible, maybe firms in the future will choose to outsource some of their operations to the past, locating their manufacturing and other services in lower-wage time periods. This opens the possibility of transtemporal gains from trade... assuming, of course, that governments don’t implement effective trade barriers. Would America-3000 place tariffs on goods from America-2000? Would temporal nativists call for the construction of a time-wall to keep out the trans-temporal immigrants -- even if those immigrants were, in fact, their own ancestors?

* I use ‘transtemporal’ to refer to economic phenomena related to time travel, since ‘intertemporal’ already has an economic meaning without time travel.

Read More...

Summary only...

Job Losses, Job Gains, and Job Churn

Russell Roberts has a great column on why we shouldn't worry about the trade deficit. He makes a simple point, but one that ought to be repeated until it penetrates. Here's my favorite bit:

In a recent Republican presidential debate, one of the moderators said that since 1989, the United States has lost 5 million jobs to foreign trade. He wanted to know what the candidates were going to do about it.

I have no idea how you measure that number, but the implication was that 5 million lost jobs over 18 years is a big number. Five million is a large number if we’re talking about the number of pennies I have to carry in my pockets. It’s a big number if we’re talking about the number of people coming to my kid’s birthday party. But it’s a very small number when you’re talking about job destruction and the job creation that follows in a dynamic economy.

On the first Friday of every month, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics produces an estimate of how many new jobs are added to the U.S. economy. That’s the net change, the gains minus the losses. The bureau also estimates quarterly gross job changes, the absolute number of jobs created and destroyed. In the fourth quarter of 2006, there were 7.7 million jobs created and 7.2 million jobs lost. That happens every quarter when there isn’t a recession — that’s how you add 50 million jobs over three decades.

Five million jobs lost over 18 years? Every three months, the U.S. job market more than makes up for those losses.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Inside Track for NASCAR Patriots

Addison, the new resident at An Inclination to Criticize, explains why even jingoistic “buy American” types should be rooting for Toyota vehicles on the NASCAR circuit.

Read More...

Summary only...

What He Said

Sheldon Richman on free trade:

[T]he case for free trade is conceded the moment someone eschews self-sufficiency. After that, we're just haggling over the size of the trade area.

Read the whole thing.

Read More...

Summary only...