All well and good for a company whose records make
clear their inherent soundness. But if your financials
are in disarray, would there not still exist the same
comparative advantage to APPEAR open and honest while
surreptitiously cooking the books?
Sure. But don't laws requiring opene
>--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>All well and good for a company whose records make
>clear their inherent soundness. But if your financials
>are in disarray, would there not still exist the same
>comparative advantage to APPEAR open and honest while
>surreptitiously cooking the books?
>
True, b
My response is that without some oversight it is EASIER to cheat... That is
not to say that the energy marketplace needs more government, but that
government rules on corporate transparency are not bad. So, we need LESS
regulation of energy, or cars, or the (insert favourite market place here)
ma
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Corporations could gain a
comparative advantage by being very transparent with
their financials,
where now, the only room for a comparative advantage
(with regard to
honesty and gaining investment) is through being extra
sly in their
dealings."
All well and good
Most media sources, and NPR in particular, are quick to blame the Enron
problems on too free a market. The thought is the capitalism produces
only greed and dishonesty. But, is this the case?
I have reason to think that this scandal is a result of the gov't doing
too much, and the market not
> be informative for decisions. Anyone want to give odds that I'll be
> able to keep the term meaning what I want it to mean? :-)
According to Stigler (the statistician, not the economist) almost
every "named" scientific term is in error. So I'd say the odds
are huge that your name will be inco
Dr. Alexander Tabarrok wrote:
> Another armchair economist made the news! Robin (Hanson) was
>mentioned in yesterday's (Sunday Feb. 10, 2002) New York Times in an
>interesting article about using experimental markets to generate
>marketing information. ...
>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/10/
I think Paul Fussel at the Univ of Pennsylvania had the firmest grip on
this. Essentially he said it was a social phenomena, where lower socio
economic groups saw fat as a sign that they could afford to eat out. In my
trips to the states I never cease to be shocked by the size of the portions
in
I can give you a completely opposite reference :-)
Philip Mirowski, in the Cambridge Journal of Economics, nr. 8, 1984, pp.
361-379 has an article "Physics and the marginalist revolution," where he
argues that the similarities between the physics of the 1800s and the
economics of the 20th cent
