Hi, I write a fair bit on my blog and usually post to hackernews, where some of my works have been well received. I thought this one would also fit well on lesswrong, so posting for the first time here.
Economic theory without any mention of exchange or transfer of property and assignment of labor is unlikely to make predictions that fit the real world. Come back when you can include Coase's theorem (or an alternate formulation of trade and comparative advantage).
Hi, Coase's theorem is relevant but only to a subpart of the theory. To illustrate we can consider someone working at subsistence (like a peasant prior to the industrial revolution) or a dependent during any period. In both cases, one party has no bargaining power and so Coase's doesn't apply. At subsistence, you can't reserve your wage or sacrifice anything and so cannot enter into any agreement like Coase's. If you are a dependent, you may have some bargaining power with the party you are dependent on, but not with the economy as a whole (or perhaps only very weakly).
As you will have noticed the theory is not yet fully formalized, I may well include Coase's or similar in the formalization, but in this, the accessible version, it's already a very long text and I think adding Coase's would be an excessive detail. So far in the formalization I use something similar to Acemoglu and Restrepos framework, which has comparative advantage between people and machines.
Hi, I write a fair bit on my blog and usually post to hackernews, where some of my works have been well received. I thought this one would also fit well on lesswrong, so posting for the first time here.