Doug said that mainstream economists would explain the failure of IBM,
etc. by saying that in the new international economy, they didn't make it
because they'd gotten "fat and lazy." I guess what I'm trying to ask is,
how do smart neoclassicals explain how + when large corps get "fat +
lazy"
At 4:40 PM 1/13/95 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>I agree with the posts about rising tides concerning minority
>status increasing when the economy turns up but I should say that
>I am working on a paper and the prelimiary evidence for U.S. Industries
>indicates that women are not inc
At 8:32 AM 1/13/95 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Evan Jones writes:
>> ... The character, fate of GM, IBM
>> or any other real-life business entity, big or small, is of
>> absolutely no consequence to neoclassical economics. This herculean
>> detachment is what gives NC economics its eleganc
At 10:34 AM 1/14/95 -0800, R. Anders Schneiderman wrote:
>Doug said that mainstream economists would explain the failure of IBM,
>etc. by saying that in the new international economy, they didn't make it
>because they'd gotten "fat and lazy." I guess what I'm trying to ask is,
>how do smart neocl
