Junk science is, by definition, anything that challenges the perspective of large corporations. The Nation recently ran a piece on the great watchdog of junk science, Gina Collata (damn, I can't remember the last name, but she is Judy Bari's sister). By the way, I have been collected some notes on the fees that these guys get -- $1500 per hour -- I don't know whether this is per hour of testimony or per hour of work. Brad should know since some of his colleagues have incorporated to do such work. "Eugene P. Coyle" wrote: > The Wall Street Journal frequently denounces "junk science." By that they > seem to meen expert testimony that supports seeking damages from some > business. > > Richard Schmalensee, an MIT economist is testifying for Microsoft > in the antitrust trial. The NY Times quoted him Thursday re whether or not > Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems. He says they don't. The > Times said that in his written testimony Schmanesee says "A firm with > monopoly power over the operating system would charge at least 16 times > over what Microsoft charges." The Times went on to say that the price of > Windows would then be $800. > > To me, that is junk science. Only somebody who internalized in > first year economics that firms charge marginal costs, and that monopolists > set prices where MC = MR could write such nonsense. I guess Schmalensee > did. But no one who has looked at the real behavior or a firm with market > power, let alone monopoly power, would ever say anything like Schmalensee > did. Firms try to develop markets, to grow over time. Every student knows > that until the professor teaches them that what they know is wrong. Only > the worst students internalize this garbage and go on to be professors at > MIT. > > Junk science. > > Gene Coyle
