Maybe this post should be titled "Erratum" or "corrigendum". I have an example in my paper last year in which wage frontiers are supposed to vary with two parameters. One is the markup in the "iron" industry. And the other is σ t. The example should be as in Table 1. All the theory and the visualizations in the paper work out with this example. Table 1: Technology for Producing Steel and Corn InputIndustryIronCornAlphaBetaLabora0,1 = 1aα,0,2(t) = (5191/5770) e(1/10) - σ taβ,0,2 = 305/494Irona1,1 = 9/20aα,1,2(t) = (1/40) e(1/10) - σ taβ,1,2 = 3/1976Corna2,1 = 2aα,2,2(t) = (1/10) e(1/10) - σ taβ,2,2 = 229/494 Vienneau, Robert L. 2019. Structural economic dynamics, markups, real Wicksell effects, and the reverse substitution of labor. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 50: 216-226.
Topics:
Robert Vienneau considers the following as important: Example in Mathematical Economics, Sraffa Effects
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Vienneau writes A Perverse Switch Point For Neoclassical Economics, Non-Perverse For Austrians
Robert Vienneau writes The Fundamental Sraffian Theorem
Robert Vienneau writes Perverse Switch Point For Austrian Economics
Robert Vienneau writes Traditional And ‘Perverse’ Switch Points For Austrian And Neoclassical Economics
Maybe this post should be titled "Erratum" or "corrigendum". I have an example in my paper last year in which wage frontiers are supposed to vary with two parameters. One is the markup in the "iron" industry. And the other is σ t. The example should be as in Table 1. All the theory and the visualizations in the paper work out with this example.
Input | Industry | ||
Iron | Corn | ||
Alpha | Beta | ||
Labor | a0,1 = 1 | aα,0,2(t) = (5191/5770) e(1/10) - σ t | aβ,0,2 = 305/494 |
Iron | a1,1 = 9/20 | aα,1,2(t) = (1/40) e(1/10) - σ t | aβ,1,2 = 3/1976 |
Corn | a2,1 = 2 | aα,2,2(t) = (1/10) e(1/10) - σ t | aβ,2,2 = 229/494 |
- Vienneau, Robert L. 2019. Structural economic dynamics, markups, real Wicksell effects, and the reverse substitution of labor. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 50: 216-226.