The second moral should be “I can only make comparative advantage look bad by assuming a magical wizard or by postulating a world in which a farmer has only one potential trading partner.”
(Note: I teach a course titled “The Magic of the Marketplace.”)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Charitably but precisely, the moral is ‘depending on trade exposes you to certain risks if the market changes.’ Notably lacking is any proof or argument that doing so is any riskier than trying to avoid depending on trade.
Charitably but precisely, the moral is ‘depending on trade exposes you to certain risks if the market changes.’
Yes a similar thought occurred to me today. I am a specialized professional worker in a big city. If the demand for my services went away, then I would have to either change jobs; depend on charity; or starve to death.
There is a subculture of people who worry about this kind of risk (among other things); they are known as “survivalists” or “preppers.”
The second moral should be “I can only make comparative advantage look bad by assuming a magical wizard or by postulating a world in which a farmer has only one potential trading partner.”
(Note: I teach a course titled “The Magic of the Marketplace.”)
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.
It’s hard to imagine technological development in the agricultural sector that causes farmers who own their own land and tools to starve.
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.
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.
One-generation seeds?
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?
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.
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.
Perhaps he died of deficiency diseases.
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.
That’s pretty easy, the first thing that comes to mind is monoculture.
Charitably but precisely, the moral is ‘depending on trade exposes you to certain risks if the market changes.’ Notably lacking is any proof or argument that doing so is any riskier than trying to avoid depending on trade.
Yes a similar thought occurred to me today. I am a specialized professional worker in a big city. If the demand for my services went away, then I would have to either change jobs; depend on charity; or starve to death.
There is a subculture of people who worry about this kind of risk (among other things); they are known as “survivalists” or “preppers.”
He did label this as satire