On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 06:20 PM, Jim Farmelant wrote: > > Nevertheless, it would seem to be taking a step too far to suggest that > this conceptual instability undermines Coase’s argument.
I am delighted that I am still mentally agile enough to learn something new about Coase -- even contrary to my initial prejudices. The problem I see is not so much with Coase's argument as with its reception. According to a survey of textbooks, 80% reproduce that Stigler Theorem caricature of Coase that has been so influential in neoclassical policy arguments. I have similar reservations about the reception of Marx. Probably more than 80% -- for and against -- see Marx through a "technological-triumphalist" late 19th century/early 20th century interpretation. I see his thinking as steeped in late 18th century/early 19th century post enlightenment thinking that is surprisingly more relevant to the present than the second and third international stuff. Somehow, I suspect a non-standard Coasean hyphen non-standard Marxism wouldn't be an easy sell, either academically or popularly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39902): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39902 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116961607/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
