Re: Back to slavery
Max quotes Coase, in The Nature of the Firm. (1937, Economica): Those who object to economic planning on the grounds that the problem is solved by price movements can be answered by pointing out that there is planning within our economic system which is quite different from the individual planning mentioned above [individuals who exercise foresight and choice among alternatives -- mbs] and which is akin to what is normally called economic planning. this agrees with Marx, who saw planning as occurring inside the firm and unplanned markets outside the firm, though his discussion emphasizes economies of scale rather than transactions costs. Intelligent conservatives (e.g., Schumpeter) sometimes find themselves agreeing with Marx. (Of course, transactions costs can be a source of economies of scale.) Jim
Transaction Costs (Re: Back to slavery)
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave S. asks why transactions costs are so important. transactions costs are only important if you're raised as the kind of NC economist with an extremely naive view of markets (i.e., a Walrasian). Jim ??!!! Huh? Wha? Where did that come from? So, are you saying that if we are Marxists or Institutionalists or Austrians or Post-Kenysians we can ignore the fact that transactions are costly, that relevant knowledge requires effort to acquire which imposes opportunity costs, etc? I have no idea what you are saying here, Jim, it can't be anything that dumb. Maybe you mean that these things are only surprising if you are an NCE. OK, I'll buy that. But transaction costs are incredinly important on all the other theories I mentioned, it's just that they don't pose a serious objection to those theories, right? jks __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Transaction Costs (Re: Back to slavery)
I wrote: transactions costs are only important if you're raised as the kind of NC economist with an extremely naive view of markets (i.e., a Walrasian). JKS writes: ??!!! Huh? Wha? Where did that come from? So, are you saying that if we are Marxists or Institutionalists or Austrians or Post-Kenysians we can ignore the fact that transactions are costly, that relevant knowledge requires effort to acquire which imposes opportunity costs, etc? I have no idea what you are saying here, Jim, it can't be anything that dumb. Maybe you mean that these things are only surprising if you are an NCE. that's what I was saying. OK, I'll buy that. But transaction costs are incredinly important on all the other theories I mentioned, it's just that they don't pose a serious objection to those theories, right? I wasn't saying that transactions costs were unimportant in practice and thus should be ignored. No way. After all, old Karlos didn't ignore them; nor did Joan Robinson do so. There are a lot of ideas that evoke all sorts of brouhaha nowadays (uncertainty, information costs, dynamics, time, non-neutral money, etc.) even though classical economists such as Adam Smith took them for granted. The reason why they attract attention is because the dominant school of economics starts with a vision of the world that ignored such realistic things since they start with an idealized model and try to figure out the world with it (rather than starting empirically). Transactions costs are an example of this kind of idea. Jim
Re: Back to slavery
Michael Perelman writes: Do lawyers really limit transactions costs. I thought that they maximized billable hours. If we didn't add value, why would we be hired? David Shemano
Re: Back to slavery
David Shemano wrote: If we didn't add value, why would we be hired? I think I answered that already. Mafia. Ken. -- ... the fear of facing the world, including its works of literature, without an intellectual narcotic at hand. -- Frederick Crews
Re: Back to slavery
Maybe it's like hiring marketing experts. It's profitable for an individual to hire a marketing expert to try to gain a larger market share even though their work seems totally unproductive (producing no value) from the perspective of society as a whole. That said, I don't think lawyers are totally unproductive; trashing lawyers is a major indoor sport in the US but ignores those who are the heroes of John Grisham books (while often forgetting the truly evil corporate lawyers). As long as there are laws and conflicts, people will need lawyers. On the other hand, lawyers often seem to create demand for each other: I need a lawyer because the other guy has one, so their efforts cancel out. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: David S. Shemano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery Michael Perelman writes: Do lawyers really limit transactions costs. I thought that they maximized billable hours. If we didn't add value, why would we be hired? David Shemano
Re: Back to slavery
--- David S. Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Perelman writes: Do lawyers really limit transactions costs. I thought that they maximized billable hours. If we didn't add value, why would we be hired? David Shemano Well, cynically, lots of folks say we write the rules to ensure that we will be hired, that it's a huge device for extracting rent. I mean, for example, why should you need a lawyer for an uncontested divorce, hmm? Just f'instance. Now, at my firm, there's a reasonable amount of pressure to minimize billables on any matter. Of course you're supposed to meet your 2000 p.a., but we are very conscious about not overbilling the client. So much that there is a firm policy to actually bill the hrs you actually work, because lawyers here have a tendency to say, well, that should have only taken me 2 hrs, I worked inefficiently, I'll bill 'em for only 2. They have to tell you not to do that. If you bill 200 on a matter that the billing partner thinks should have taken fifty, there will be a discussion. This isn't to say that the incentive Michael talks about doesn't exist. Btw, David, are you a litigator or a transactional lawyer? jks __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
--- trashing lawyers is a major indoor sport in the US but ignores those who are the heroes of John Grisham books (while often forgetting the truly evil corporate lawyers). Like me? ;- As long as there are laws and conflicts, people will need lawyers. On the other hand, lawyers often seem to create demand for each other: I need a lawyer because the other guy has one, so their efforts cancel out. You know the lawyer's prayer: Lord, Stir up dissension amongst thy people! jks __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
Jim wrote: That said, I don't think lawyers are totally unproductive; I agree. The collision of individual interests has to be resolved in some manner. No matter the system. There will be costs. The current system, commercially, is based on getting a commercial lawyer to check-off your deal. Otherwise, they, or their kin, will sue you latter to decrease the transaction cost of their own client. Why not? System allows it... but is it factored in anywhere? Any accountants out their? trashing lawyers is a major indoor sport in the US I disagree. Lawyers are just like economists... eggheads who some how control the political life of citizens. And don't talk in full language (Jim is obviously accepted). However, lawyers are just more sensitive to the criticism since they are on TV more. Perry Mason never did have a kindred soul from economics on TV. Your honor, I contend the witness inflated the GDP numbers to cover up the failure of the auto industry and the increase in transaction costs off shore! Gasp from court room On the other hand, lawyers often seem to create demand for each other: I need a lawyer because the other guy has one, so their efforts cancel out. They do not always cancel out. I would like to see some numbers on the actual costs after ruling. But those sorts of things, like data on security breaches, are not available... Ken. -- The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. -- Samuel Johnson
Re: Back to slavery
Ken writes: However, lawyers are just more sensitive to the criticism since they are on TV more. Perry Mason never did have a kindred soul from economics on TV. Your honor, I contend the witness inflated the GDP numbers to cover up the failure of the auto industry and the increase in transaction costs off shore! Gasp from court room I'm going to have nightmares about a TV show John Pareto, Economist. Of course, people would start complaining that there aren't enough ads to break up the tedium... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Back to slavery
Justin asks: This isn't to say that the incentive Michael talks about doesn't exist. Btw, David, are you a litigator or a transactional lawyer? I am a corporate bankruptcy lawyer, which is primarily transactional, but involves litigation in the sense that Bankruptcy Court approval is required for various transactions. David Shemano
Re: Back to slavery
Justin writes: This isn't to say that the incentive Michael talks about doesn't exist. Btw, David, are you a litigator or a transactional lawyer? I am corporate bankruptcy attorney, which is primarily transactional but involves litigation in that Bankruptcy Court approval is required for various transactions, and various constituencies attempt to protect rights. David Shemano
Re: Back to slavery
David Shemano wrote: I am corporate bankruptcy attorney, which is primarily transactional ... We need those a fair bit today, no? ... But, more respectfully, what is the value you provide outside the parametres for business collection upon failure (and how is that different than Repo Men)? Aren't bankruptcy lawyers merely administrators in a system? That is, no productive value? Merely moving money around, like a bank teller? Just asking for some personal reasons... Ken. -- Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. -- Henry Kissinger
Re: Back to slavery
yeah, but all those economists became interesting by doing more than mere economics. (Of course, economics is interesting to economists. But since accounting is interesting to accountants, that hardly proves anything.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery Jim, you might be wrong. We have a Nobelist in the dock right now? What about the Harvard-Russian scandal? One of our Chico students, Khoshigian (sp?) has been at the center of international intrigue. Ken Lay, for God's sake. I think that we need a cable channel for economics. On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 10:03:59AM -0700, Devine, James wrote: I'm going to have nightmares about a TV show John Pareto, Economist. Of course, people would start complaining that there aren't enough ads to break up the tedium... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Back to slavery
RE Jim's: I'm going to have nightmares about a TV show John Pareto, Economist. I think the life (and economic theories) of Veblen would make a wonderful TV series. Perhaps David Duchovny could star in the series. Eric
Re: Back to slavery
Scott Nearing would make an excellent television show as well. He was an activist, kicked out of academia and the communist party. Lived a very interesting life. Did heavy physical labor until he was 99. Alexander Gershenkron lived a very interesting life, in the midst of the Soviet and Nazi uprisings. He was conservative, though. His grandson wrote his bio, Flyswater, as well as a bio of Moe Berg, major league catcher and CIA spy. On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 11:31:23AM -0700, Eric Nilsson wrote: RE Jim's: I'm going to have nightmares about a TV show John Pareto, Economist. I think the life (and economic theories) of Veblen would make a wonderful TV series. Perhaps David Duchovny could star in the series. Eric -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Back to slavery
Eric Nilsson wrote: RE Jim's: I'm going to have nightmares about a TV show John Pareto, Economist. I think the life (and economic theories) of Veblen would make a wonderful TV series. Perhaps David Duchovny could star in the series. One would want also to include his theories on education. After all, he wanted to give his book, _The Higher Learning in America_, the subtitle of A study in human depravity. His publisher wouldn't accept that subtitle, so he substituted A Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Businessmen. Carrol Eric
Re: Back to slavery
Kenneth Campbell writes: But, more respectfully, what is the value you provide outside the parametres for business collection upon failure (and how is that different than Repo Men)? Aren't bankruptcy lawyers merely administrators in a system? That is, no productive value? Merely moving money around, like a bank teller? Generally, commercial lawyers add value in the following way: 1. I have an expertise in the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, if you are engaged in a transaction affected by the Bankruptcy Code, hiring me is like hiring an accountant to do your taxes -- you can try and do it yourself, but the system is so complex that it is worth paying me X to ensure that you do not lose more than X. 2. Lawyers do stuff people do not want to do for various reasons. For instance, carefully drafting and reviewing documents. Therefore, hiring me is like hiring a gardener. You like your garden and nothing prevents you from doing your own gardening, but maybe you would rather spend your time doing something else. This is especially true for corporations, where the time of the decision makers, the people who negotiate the deal points, are too valuable to be involved in the mere documentation of agreements. 3. I have skills in negotiation and conflict resolution. A corporate reorganization has lots of moving parts and competing constituencies in situtations were time really is money. Bankruptcy lawyers are experienced in knowing when to settle and when to fight, and generally how to move things along. Therefore, hiring me is like putting oil in your car -- the oil does not mechanically contribute to the movement of the car, but it makes the process go smoother. In summary, we are productive in that we facilitate various ends: agreements, reorganization and liquidation of business entities, reallocation of resources, etc. To the extent those ends are good things to have, I guess we are productive, and to the extent they are not good things, I suppose we are not productive. David Shemano
Re: Back to slavery
Those who object to economic planning on the grounds that the problem is solved by price movements can be answered by pointing out that there is planning within our economic system which is quite different from the individual planning mentioned above [individuals who exercise foresight and choice among alternatives -- mbs] and which is akin to what is normally called economic planning. I don't know. If you don't have exchange, there is some kind of very different world (inside the firm) where transactions are conducted, in contrast to markets. It's even more screwy if the manager is not the owner. I'd say the implications were potentially radical, but they didn't spin out that way as far as the profession is concerned. For obvious reasons. It's been a while since I read Lange/Taylor, but I'm reminded of their pricing scheme while reading about Federal gov contracting. The Feds have this body of regulations known as A-76 which are guidelines for organizing a market as a way of making decisions about contracts. It's basically unwieldy and not much used, but in a sense it's socialism in action. :-) mbs . . . This stuff isn't radical. It was developed by Coase, who's very much part of the Chicago school of laissez-faire economics. Jim
Re: Back to slavery
Max, who said the quote in the first paragraph? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Those who object to economic planning on the grounds that the problem is solved by price movements can be answered by pointing out that there is planning within our economic system which is quite different from the individual planning mentioned above [individuals who exercise foresight and choice among alternatives -- mbs] and which is akin to what is normally called economic planning. I don't know. If you don't have exchange, there is some kind of very different world (inside the firm) where transactions are conducted, in contrast to markets. It's even more screwy if the manager is not the owner. I'd say the implications were potentially radical, but they didn't spin out that way as far as the profession is concerned. For obvious reasons. It's been a while since I read Lange/Taylor, but I'm reminded of their pricing scheme while reading about Federal gov contracting. The Feds have this body of regulations known as A-76 which are guidelines for organizing a market as a way of making decisions about contracts. It's basically unwieldy and not much used, but in a sense it's socialism in action. :-) mbs . . . This stuff isn't radical. It was developed by Coase, who's very much part of the Chicago school of laissez-faire economics. Jim
Re: Back to slavery
Coase, in The Nature of the Firm. (1937, Economica) -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Back to slavery Max, who said the quote in the first paragraph? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Those who object to economic planning on the grounds that the problem is solved by price movements can be answered by pointing out that there is planning within our economic system which is quite different from the individual planning mentioned above [individuals who exercise foresight and choice among alternatives -- mbs] and which is akin to what is normally called economic planning. I don't know. If you don't have exchange, there is some kind of very different world (inside the firm) where transactions are conducted, in contrast to markets. It's even more screwy if the manager is not the owner. I'd say the implications were potentially radical, but they didn't spin out that way as far as the profession is concerned. For obvious reasons. It's been a while since I read Lange/Taylor, but I'm reminded of their pricing scheme while reading about Federal gov contracting. The Feds have this body of regulations known as A-76 which are guidelines for organizing a market as a way of making decisions about contracts. It's basically unwieldy and not much used, but in a sense it's socialism in action. :-) mbs . . . This stuff isn't radical. It was developed by Coase, who's very much part of the Chicago school of laissez-faire economics. Jim
Re: Back to slavery
Contrary to the JKS's headline, the authors aren't pro-slavery, seeing instead Athenian slavery and the treatment of women foreigners as an Achilles heel of the system. The book seems to be an effort to make money out of the humanities by entering the field the pop-management literature. It won't go far, since I doubt that corporations will like the idea of choosing the CEO by lot... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Back to slavery From the Tigertown e-news Ancient Athens provides model for contemporary workplace Classical history scholars may not seem the most likely candidates to write a book on the modern workplace, yet Princeton Professor Josiah Ober and co-author Brook Manville have done just that -- demonstrating that ancient Athens can serve as a model for potentially powerful organizational practices. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/03/0519/3a.shtml __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
My writing is totally incoherent. Here's what I meant to say: Contrary to JKS's headline, the authors aren't pro-slavery, seeing instead Athenian slavery and the treatment of women foreigners as an Achilles heel of the system. The book seems to be an effort to make money out of the humanities by entering the field of pop-management literature. It won't go far, since I doubt that corporations will like the idea of choosing the CEO by lot... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Devine, James Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Back to slavery From the Tigertown e-news Ancient Athens provides model for contemporary workplace Classical history scholars may not seem the most likely candidates to write a book on the modern workplace, yet Princeton Professor Josiah Ober and co-author Brook Manville have done just that -- demonstrating that ancient Athens can serve as a model for potentially powerful organizational practices. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/03/0519/3a.shtml __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
It's a joke, Jim. A joke. . . . --- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Contrary to the JKS's headline, the authors aren't pro-slavery, seeing instead Athenian slavery and the treatment of women foreigners as an Achilles heel of the system. The book seems to be an effort to make money out of the humanities by entering the field the pop-management literature. It won't go far, since I doubt that corporations will like the idea of choosing the CEO by lot... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Back to slavery From the Tigertown e-news Ancient Athens provides model for contemporary workplace Classical history scholars may not seem the most likely candidates to write a book on the modern workplace, yet Princeton Professor Josiah Ober and co-author Brook Manville have done just that -- demonstrating that ancient Athens can serve as a model for potentially powerful organizational practices. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/03/0519/3a.shtml __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
Hope you are OK ? Anything I can do, just ask. J. - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery My writing is totally incoherent. Here's what I meant to say: Contrary to JKS's headline, the authors aren't pro-slavery, seeing instead Athenian slavery and the treatment of women foreigners as an Achilles heel of the system. The book seems to be an effort to make money out of the humanities by entering the field of pop-management literature. It won't go far, since I doubt that corporations will like the idea of choosing the CEO by lot... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Devine, James Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Back to slavery From the Tigertown e-news Ancient Athens provides model for contemporary workplace Classical history scholars may not seem the most likely candidates to write a book on the modern workplace, yet Princeton Professor Josiah Ober and co-author Brook Manville have done just that -- demonstrating that ancient Athens can serve as a model for potentially powerful organizational practices. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/03/0519/3a.shtml __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
Sophists, Socrates would say. He wouldn't take money for doing philosophy . . . . jks --- Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In Holland it is sometimes trendy in management circles to hire professional philosophers as consultants - philosophy provides freedom for critical thought, hence a philosopher might identify or reframe problems in a way which a more narrow-minded business approach might fail to do, through a course or advice. J. __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
- Original Message - From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] In Holland it is sometimes trendy in management circles to hire professional philosophers as consultants - philosophy provides freedom for critical thought, hence a philosopher might identify or reframe problems in a way which a more narrow-minded business approach might fail to do, through a course or advice. J. = Didn't somebody write a book a few years ago If Aristotle Ran General Motors or some such? Ian
Re: Back to slavery
andie nachgeborenen wrote: Sophists, Socrates would say. He wouldn't take money for doing philosophy . . . . A pampered lapdog of the filthy rich doesn't need to charge for anything. Carrol
Re: Back to slavery
Hey, I recently saw a mgt book called something like, Management Secrets of Karl Marx! (Or, Who Moved My Surplus Value?) It did NOT include advice to the boss to fire himself, vest ownership and control in the workers, and become a free producer engaged in productive but non-value-producing activity! jks --- Eubulides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] In Holland it is sometimes trendy in management circles to hire professional philosophers as consultants - philosophy provides freedom for critical thought, hence a philosopher might identify or reframe problems in a way which a more narrow-minded business approach might fail to do, through a course or advice. J. = Didn't somebody write a book a few years ago If Aristotle Ran General Motors or some such? Ian __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
If you recall, the Thirty had him condemned in a show trial, and executed for subverting the youth and impiety . . . . jks --- Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: andie nachgeborenen wrote: Sophists, Socrates would say. He wouldn't take money for doing philosophy . . . . A pampered lapdog of the filthy rich doesn't need to charge for anything. Carrol __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
- Original Message - From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you recall, the Thirty had him condemned in a show trial, and executed for subverting the youth and impiety . . . . jks == He was driving down their fees...
Re: Back to slavery
I don't know if this is a joke, but Marx's CAPITAL would give more guidance to managers than neoclassical economics does. The latter wants all relationships between people to be one of exchange... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery Hey, I recently saw a mgt book called something like, Management Secrets of Karl Marx! (Or, Who Moved My Surplus Value?) It did NOT include advice to the boss to fire himself, vest ownership and control in the workers, and become a free producer engaged in productive but non-value-producing activity! jks --- Eubulides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] In Holland it is sometimes trendy in management circles to hire professional philosophers as consultants - philosophy provides freedom for critical thought, hence a philosopher might identify or reframe problems in a way which a more narrow-minded business approach might fail to do, through a course or advice. J. = Didn't somebody write a book a few years ago If Aristotle Ran General Motors or some such? Ian __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
No, I am quite serious, I recently saw such a book. I agree that Marxian economics would be a better guide to labor relations and general management than NCE. NCE might be better on pricing questions. You really do want to price close to marginal cost if the market is competitive, above if not . . . . Why bother trying to compute labor values (for this aor any other purpose, he said provocatively, please don't follow that up!) jks --- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know if this is a joke, but Marx's CAPITAL would give more guidance to managers than neoclassical economics does. The latter wants all relationships between people to be one of exchange... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery Hey, I recently saw a mgt book called something like, Management Secrets of Karl Marx! (Or, Who Moved My Surplus Value?) It did NOT include advice to the boss to fire himself, vest ownership and control in the workers, and become a free producer engaged in productive but non-value-producing activity! jks --- Eubulides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] In Holland it is sometimes trendy in management circles to hire professional philosophers as consultants - philosophy provides freedom for critical thought, hence a philosopher might identify or reframe problems in a way which a more narrow-minded business approach might fail to do, through a course or advice. J. = Didn't somebody write a book a few years ago If Aristotle Ran General Motors or some such? Ian __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
You mean the fees of the sophists? The Thirty were a bunch of rich pigs. They had slaves and land, not fees. jks --- Eubulides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you recall, the Thirty had him condemned in a show trial, and executed for subverting the youth and impiety . . . . jks == He was driving down their fees... __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
as Marx said, businesspeople don't care about values. Whether the commodities are sold at their values or not, and hence the determination of value itself, is quite immaterial for the individual capitalist. (international publ. ed., volume III, p. 873) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery No, I am quite serious, I recently saw such a book. I agree that Marxian economics would be a better guide to labor relations and general management than NCE. NCE might be better on pricing questions. You really do want to price close to marginal cost if the market is competitive, above if not . . . . Why bother trying to compute labor values (for this aor any other purpose, he said provocatively, please don't follow that up!) jks --- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know if this is a joke, but Marx's CAPITAL would give more guidance to managers than neoclassical economics does. The latter wants all relationships between people to be one of exchange... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery Hey, I recently saw a mgt book called something like, Management Secrets of Karl Marx! (Or, Who Moved My Surplus Value?) It did NOT include advice to the boss to fire himself, vest ownership and control in the workers, and become a free producer engaged in productive but non-value-producing activity! jks --- Eubulides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] In Holland it is sometimes trendy in management circles to hire professional philosophers as consultants - philosophy provides freedom for critical thought, hence a philosopher might identify or reframe problems in a way which a more narrow-minded business approach might fail to do, through a course or advice. J. = Didn't somebody write a book a few years ago If Aristotle Ran General Motors or some such? Ian __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
Coincidently I'm reading Oliver Williamson at the moment, whose existence and inspired lit debunks your assertion. Transactions costs can make hierarchy (the firm) more economical than market exchange. mbs I don't know if this is a joke, but Marx's CAPITAL would give more guidance to managers than neoclassical economics does. The latter wants all relationships between people to be one of exchange... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Back to slavery
Oliver Williamson is not quite mainstream; his stuff doesn't appear in standard textbooks, which to my mind represent the codification of NC ideology. But more importantly, my assertion was that the NC _wants_ everything to be an exchange. The fact that hierarchy is needed is seen as a failure of the market. Back when I did a survey of the NC management literature (including OW), it seemed that the main theory was that production was a collective good for the owners and the workers alike. Workers who shirked and didn't produce enough were see as free-riders who undermined the production of the collective good. OW calls it opportunism. I don't see this as very useful to capitalist management except as a source of rhetoric. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery Coincidently I'm reading Oliver Williamson at the moment, whose existence and inspired lit debunks your assertion. Transactions costs can make hierarchy (the firm) more economical than market exchange. mbs I don't know if this is a joke, but Marx's CAPITAL would give more guidance to managers than neoclassical economics does. The latter wants all relationships between people to be one of exchange... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Back to slavery
- Original Message - From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery You mean the fees of the sophists? = Of course.
Re: Back to slavery
andie nachgeborenen wrote: If you recall, the Thirty had him condemned in a show trial, and executed for subverting the youth and impiety . . . . jks Wow! You're asleep today. He was tried _after_ the restoration of the Democracy, and his friendship with the 30 (particularly with Critias) was probably the the real motive both for bringing charges against him _and_ the vote for conviction. The 30 were overthrown in 403; he was tried executed in 399. Carrol
Re: Back to slavery
Devine, James wrote: Oliver Williamson is not quite mainstream; his stuff doesn't appear in standard textbooks, which to my mind represent the codification of NC ideology. But more importantly, my assertion was that the NC _wants_ everything to be an exchange. The fact that hierarchy is needed is seen as a failure of the market. Also, the fashion lately has been to contract out for more services and supplies - to bring activities out of the firm and back into the marketplace. Doug
Re: Back to slavery
I wrote: Oliver Williamson is not quite mainstream; his stuff doesn't appear in standard textbooks, which to my mind represent the codification of NC ideology. But more importantly, my assertion was that the NC _wants_ everything to be an exchange. The fact that hierarchy is needed is seen as a failure of the market. Doug writes: Also, the fashion lately has been to contract out for more services and supplies - to bring activities out of the firm and back into the marketplace. A friend once expressed the essence of this neo-liberalism: if the world doesn't fit with the model, force it to do so. I heard a bit today on US NPR about how this kind of out-sourcing of services is hurting the US national parks: among other things, the volunteers who help with the parks don't want to help pad the bottom line of private corporations and are likely to stop their volunteering. (This fits with the ideas of a NC who's even less orthodox than OW, Bruno Frey. Frey argues that relying on market motivation can easily undermine intrinsic motivation to do so something.) jim
Re: Back to slavery
Right, thanks, serves me right for not looking things up, and for multitasking while doing a due diligence (boring), but they were rich bastards too. jks --- Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: andie nachgeborenen wrote: If you recall, the Thirty had him condemned in a show trial, and executed for subverting the youth and impiety . . . . jks Wow! You're asleep today. He was tried _after_ the restoration of the Democracy, and his friendship with the 30 (particularly with Critias) was probably the the real motive both for bringing charges against him _and_ the vote for conviction. The 30 were overthrown in 403; he was tried executed in 399. Carrol __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Back to slavery
Yes Ian, that book on General Motors exists. See http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805052534/qid=1058303758/sr=2-3/ref= sr_2_3/002-9116098-3703241 There is a literature on this, for instance Langholm , Odd Inge, Price and value in the Aristotelian tradition 1979 and Wealth and money in the Aristotelian tradition: a study in scholastic economies 1983 Meikle, Scott, Aristotle's economic thought 1997 I cannot find the stuff I read on this a long time ago, I haven't read the titles I just cited, but of Scott Meikle I know he is a reputable scholar. A point which conventional make-more-money economists often miss, is that the value theory Marx sought to tidy up intellectually did not just drop out of the air, or eventuated with Ricardo's genius, or necessarily even Petty, but goes back thousands of years in economic history, if you care to do a bit of anthropological digging around. This not only adds clout to Marx's argument, as Ernest Mandel pointed out, but also makes it intellectually easier to develop Marx's idea in a modern context (as against the orthodox idea that if Marx said it, it is true, but if anybody else says it, it must be wrong or some terrible revisionism). As Anwar Shaikh mentioned a few times, even a 93 percent LTV is better, and has more predictive power, than a theory which says that prices are determined by other prices which are determined by other prices and which are determined by other prices and which are determined by other prices. Regards Jurriaan - Original Message - From: Eubulides [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery - Original Message - From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] In Holland it is sometimes trendy in management circles to hire professional philosophers as consultants - philosophy provides freedom for critical thought, hence a philosopher might identify or reframe problems in a way which a more narrow-minded business approach might fail to do, through a course or advice. J. = Didn't somebody write a book a few years ago If Aristotle Ran General Motors or some such? Ian
Re: Back to slavery
I agree that transactions costs is much in the spirit of 'exchange,' since it is based on the latter's infeasibility, but who is this NC and what does she want? Williams says Marshall posited organization as a fourth factor of production. Perelman was around then so maybe he can elaborate. Re: contracting, I'm reading Williamson because he and Coase offer an implied rebuke to the privatizers. The rational for contracting is implicitly a naive rejection of vertical integration (one form of which is a public agency that does its own production, rather than outsource). Obviously, businesslike or efficient need not entail vertical disintegration, one form of which is contracting out. My impression of the whole field of IO (and public finance) (and macro) is assorted departures from the primitive exchange paradigm. But I'll defer to the academics on that question. mbs non-existence Oliver Williamson is not quite mainstream; his stuff doesn't appear in standard textbooks, which to my mind represent the codification of NC ideology. But more importantly, my assertion was that the NC _wants_ everything to be an exchange. The fact that hierarchy is needed is seen as a failure of the market. Back when I did a survey of the NC management literature (including OW), it seemed that the main theory was that production was a collective good for the owners and the workers alike. Workers who shirked and didn't produce enough were see as free-riders who undermined the production of the collective good. OW calls it opportunism. I don't see this as very useful to capitalist management except as a source of rhetoric. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery Coincidently I'm reading Oliver Williamson at the moment, whose existence and inspired lit debunks your assertion. Transactions costs can make hierarchy (the firm) more economical than market exchange. mbs I don't know if this is a joke, but Marx's CAPITAL would give more guidance to managers than neoclassical economics does. The latter wants all relationships between people to be one of exchange... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Back to slavery
Max Sawicky writes: Coincidently I'm reading Oliver Williamson at the moment, whose existence and inspired lit debunks your assertion. Transactions costs can make hierarchy (the firm) more economical than market exchange. I am not sure I understand the significance of this. If I want to acquire a widget, what difference does it make at a theoretical level whether I acquire the widget by contracting pursuant to a purchase agreement (market exchange) or employment agreement (hierarchical firm)? I understand why transaction costs would influence how I acquired the widget, but what is the significance for neoclassical economics (or a critique of neclassical economics)? David Shemano
Re: Back to slavery
Max Sawicky writes: Coincidently I'm reading Oliver Williamson at the moment, whose existence and inspired lit debunks your assertion. Transactions costs can make hierarchy (the firm) more economical than market exchange. David Shemano writes: I am not sure I understand the significance of this. If I want to acquire a widget, what difference does it make at a theoretical level whether I acquire the widget by contracting pursuant to a purchase agreement (market exchange) or employment agreement (hierarchical firm)? I understand why transaction costs would influence how I acquired the widget, but what is the significance for neoclassical economics (or a critique of neclassical economics)? I don't think it suggests a critique of NC economics (except maybe for the fact that it took so long for NC economics to accept the idea of transactions costs). The significance for NC economics is that it means that there are many places where the pure market exchange relation -- the ideal that NC prefers -- doesn't prevail. If the transactions costs involved buying a widget exceed the benefits of (presumed) greater productive efficiency of countracting out vis-a-vis having it produced in-house, then using a hierarchy to organize in-house production will be preferred by profit-maximizers over using exchange and producing out-house. The key distinction is between production costs (actually making a widget) and transactions costs (costs of making deals, transferring property). (BTW, the latter corresponds to one kind of what Marx called unproductive labor.) This stuff isn't radical. It was developed by Coase, who's very much part of the Chicago school of laissez-faire economics. Jim
Re: Back to slavery
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't think it suggests a critique of NC economics (except maybe for the fact that it took so long for NC economics to accept the idea of transactions costs). The significance for NC economics is that it means that there are many places where the pure market exchange relation -- the ideal that NC prefers -- doesn't prevail. If the transactions costs involved buying a widget exceed the benefits of (presumed) greater productive efficiency of countracting out vis-a-vis having it produced in-house, then using a hierarchy to organize in-house production will be preferred by profit-maximizers over using exchange and producing out-house. The key distinction is between production costs (actually making a widget) and transactions costs (costs of making deals, transferring property). (BTW, the latter corresponds to one kind of what Marx called unproductive labor.) This stuff isn't radical. It was developed by Coase, who's very much part of the Chicago school of laissez-faire economics. Jim == Isn't what John Commons did a form of TCE? Ian
Re: Back to slavery
Isn't what John Commons did a form of TCE? Ian --- yeah, but his transactions cost economics was more sophisticated than that of the Chicago school (at least according to Bill Tabb, whose book I'm relying on here). Jim
Re: Back to slavery
Jim Devine writes: I don't think it suggests a critique of NC economics (except maybe for the fact that it took so long for NC economics to accept the idea of transactions costs). The significance for NC economics is that it means that there are many places where the pure market exchange relation -- the ideal that NC prefers -- doesn't prevail. If the transactions costs involved buying a widget exceed the benefits of (presumed) greater productive efficiency of countracting out vis-a-vis having it produced in-house, then using a hierarchy to organize in-house production will be preferred by profit-maximizers over using exchange and producing out-house. The key distinction is between production costs (actually making a widget) and transactions costs (costs of making deals, transferring property). (BTW, the latter corresponds to one kind of what Marx called unproductive labor.) This stuff isn't radical. It was developed by Coase, who's very much part of the Chicago school of laissez-faire economics. I guess I am asking a much more naive question. Why is this an issue at all to anybody? I mean, is there anybody who disputes that transaction costs matter? I am a commercial lawyer, and commercial lawyers only exist because of transaction costs, so the existence of transaction costs is pretty obvious to me. Is there somebody out there who denies this, or used to deny this, other than for some cetis paribus mind game? David Shemano
Re: Back to slavery
Alfred was a couple of years older than me. He wrote: Marshall, 1920, pp. 138-9. Capital consists in great part of knowledge and organisation. Knowledge is our most powerful engine of production; it allows us to subdue Nature and force her to satisfy our wants. Organization aids knowledge; it has many forms, that of various business in the same trade, that of various trades relatively to one another, and that of the State providing security for all and help for many. The distinction between public and private property in knowledge and organization is of great and growing importance: in some respects of more importance than that between public and private property in material things; and partly for this reason it seems best sometimes to reckon Organization apart as a distinct agent of production. On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:58:55PM -0400, Max B. Sawicky wrote: I agree that transactions costs is much in the spirit of 'exchange,' since it is based on the latter's infeasibility, but who is this NC and what does she want? Williams says Marshall posited organization as a fourth factor of production. Perelman was around then so maybe he can elaborate. Re: contracting, I'm reading Williamson because he and Coase offer an implied rebuke to the privatizers. The rational for contracting is implicitly a naive rejection of vertical integration (one form of which is a public agency that does its own production, rather than outsource). Obviously, businesslike or efficient need not entail vertical disintegration, one form of which is contracting out. My impression of the whole field of IO (and public finance) (and macro) is assorted departures from the primitive exchange paradigm. But I'll defer to the academics on that question. mbs non-existence Oliver Williamson is not quite mainstream; his stuff doesn't appear in standard textbooks, which to my mind represent the codification of NC ideology. But more importantly, my assertion was that the NC _wants_ everything to be an exchange. The fact that hierarchy is needed is seen as a failure of the market. Back when I did a survey of the NC management literature (including OW), it seemed that the main theory was that production was a collective good for the owners and the workers alike. Workers who shirked and didn't produce enough were see as free-riders who undermined the production of the collective good. OW calls it opportunism. I don't see this as very useful to capitalist management except as a source of rhetoric. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery Coincidently I'm reading Oliver Williamson at the moment, whose existence and inspired lit debunks your assertion. Transactions costs can make hierarchy (the firm) more economical than market exchange. mbs I don't know if this is a joke, but Marx's CAPITAL would give more guidance to managers than neoclassical economics does. The latter wants all relationships between people to be one of exchange... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Back to slavery
Do lawyers really limit transactions costs. I thought that they maximized billable hours. On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 07:19:50PM -0700, David S. Shemano wrote: I guess I am asking a much more naive question. Why is this an issue at all to anybody? I mean, is there anybody who disputes that transaction costs matter? I am a commercial lawyer, and commercial lawyers only exist because of transaction costs, so the existence of transaction costs is pretty obvious to me. Is there somebody out there who denies this, or used to deny this, other than for some cetis paribus mind game? David Shemano -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Back to slavery
Williamson et al call themeselves the new institutionalists to distinguish themselves from Commons et al. Commons did say that the transaction was the proper unit of analysis. On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 07:06:46PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: Isn't what John Commons did a form of TCE? Ian --- yeah, but his transactions cost economics was more sophisticated than that of the Chicago school (at least according to Bill Tabb, whose book I'm relying on here). Jim -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Back to slavery
Michael wrote: Do lawyers really limit transactions costs. I thought that they maximized billable hours. They _do_ limit transaction costs... if you count resultant contractual law suits as part of transaction costs. It's a kind of mafia protection racket... Let me vet your contract, so that I don't help the other party sue you after the fact. But that's just one way of looking at it... Ken. -- The Bible is probably the most genocidal book in our entire canon. -- Noam Chomsky
Re: Back to slavery
- Original Message - From: Kenneth Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael wrote: Do lawyers really limit transactions costs. I thought that they maximized billable hours. They _do_ limit transaction costs... if you count resultant contractual law suits as part of transaction costs. It's a kind of mafia protection racket... Let me vet your contract, so that I don't help the other party sue you after the fact. But that's just one way of looking at it... Ken. == Uh oh:-) Ian
Re: Back to slavery
Dave S. asks why transactions costs are so important. transactions costs are only important if you're raised as the kind of NC economist with an extremely naive view of markets (i.e., a Walrasian). Jim
Re: Back to slavery
Date sent: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:19:50 -0700 Send reply to: PEN-L list [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: David S. Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip This stuff isn't radical. It was developed by Coase, who's very much part of the Chicago school of laissez-faire economics. I guess I am asking a much more naive question. Why is this an issue at all to anybody? I mean, is there anybody who disputes that transaction costs matter? I am a commercial lawyer, and commercial lawyers only exist because of transaction costs, so the existence of transaction costs is pretty obvious to me. Is there somebody out there who denies this, or used to deny this, other than for some cetis paribus mind game? David Shemano There are two deeper issues involved here. As Coase pointed out in his 1937 article, if transaction costs are significant, markets are not efficient and therefore must (economically) be replaced by non- market allocation mechanisms -- what he was argueing for in the article was for the autocratic, managerial planning form of decision making. But a more fundamental issue relates to the Coase theorum itself - - that if there are NO Transaction Costs, the distribution of property rights does not matter for the efficiency (pareto optimality) of the market solution. However, if there ARE transaction costs, then the distribution of property rights becomes very important to the efficiency of the result. This is quite easy to demonstrate with realistic examples. What this does raise the vital question of the distribution of property rights to the efficiency of the non-regulated market, something that is not dealt with by nc economics and is avoided like the plague by those economists who reject government intervention in markets precisely to make them efficient. Paul Phillips
Re: Back to slavery
- Original Message - From: Paul Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] But a more fundamental issue relates to the Coase theorum itself - - that if there are NO Transaction Costs, the distribution of property rights does not matter for the efficiency (pareto optimality) of the market solution. However, if there ARE transaction costs, then the distribution of property rights becomes very important to the efficiency of the result. This is quite easy to demonstrate with realistic examples. What this does raise the vital question of the distribution of property rights to the efficiency of the non-regulated market, something that is not dealt with by nc economics and is avoided like the plague by those economists who reject government intervention in markets precisely to make them efficient. Paul Phillips = To create-allocate-distribute property rights is to constitute-regulate markets. Non-regulated markets are an oxymoron. Efficiency is polysemous. Ian
