Well, yes it is a dependent variable, but the point is to change the consumer --- we talk too much to ourselves, how about if we were forced to talk to a different audience -- say the everyman (as Hazlitt or Dan Klein suggest) or the policy maker (as is the case in transition economies and developing economies).
I don't think that either of you has dealt with McCloskey's kelly green golf shoes criticism of economics. Why be so complacent about the consumer preferences currently expressed in the market? Moreover, why be so confident that consumer preferences are being served? First, what is readership like at the top journals compared to the community of scholars it supposedly serves? Second, what about the coordination issue Bryan raises? (a form of the peacock feathers argument) I have to head off to a conference so I will have to sign off on this, but I would be interested in hearing the reasons why we should presume that preferences are being accurately conveyed in this "market" in the absence of the institutions of property, prices and profit and loss. Pete Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 PHONE: 703-993-1149 FAX: 703-993-1133 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOMEPAGE: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Tabarrok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 5:39 PM Subject: Re: fantastically entertaining paper > Robin probably regrets using the word "cheap" in regard to entry as > this has clearly confused some people. As Robin later pointed out he > meant "cheap" to mean the journal industry approximates the economic > concept of free entry (more than many other industries we all think of > as competitive). > > Now, I hope that none of us would say that the market for > restaurants is not competitive because it costs about $250,000 to start > a new restaurant and therefore entry is expensive. Yet some comments > regarding entry into the journal market make exactly this mistake. > > By the way, the journal market has exploded in recent decades with > many entrants. > > Thus, if one is going to complain about the output of the journal > market one should look at the preferences of its customers. A parallel > I have noted in other context is that sometimes people trained in the > Buchanan style of constitutional economics think that all that is > required to get better policy is that we change the rules of the game > when in truth sometimes there is no choice but to change the preferences > of the players. > > Thus when Pete says "Change the nature of the way resarch is published > and presented and the research game will change within the academy." > Well of course! Who would deny that? :) But the "nature of the way > research is published and presented" is a dependent not an independent > variable! > > Alex > -- > Dr. Alexander Tabarrok > Vice President and Director of Research > The Independent Institute > 100 Swan Way > Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 > Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
