it's a pleasure. On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Perelman, Michael<[email protected]> wrote: > Jim's very useful comments make me very grateful for participating in the > list. > > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA > 95929 > > 530 898 5321 > fax 530 898 5901 > > http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine > Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 8:51 AM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Harberger Triangles, Okun Gaps, and X Efficiency > > p. 6: in Harberger, the corporate income tax had a relatively trivial > impact _on what_? prices, allocation of resources, investment > spending? > > also, I think the stuff about Schumpeter on page 10 stands out as not > fitting in. > > page 12: the employment loss from monopoly is non-existent is a world > assuming full employment (i.e., Harberger's imaginary world). > > page 15: did you misspell your own name ("Perlman")? in any event, the > reference does not show up in the bibliography. > > page 19: "shock therapy" does not seem an apt term here. > > page 20: "neoclassical theory" should be "as then practiced" or "as > practiced at the University of Chicago." I think Leibenstein's X > efficiency is currently accepted by most economists outside of the U > of C. > > (in passing, I should mention that from a survey of Leibenstein's > work, it seems that he saw X efficiency as explained by unresolved > conflicts within firms.) > > p. 23: which Marx is it? Groucho? Chico? > > p. 25: Durocher's comment is simply about externalities. It should be > obvious to any U of C economist -- as long as he or she drops the > assumption (as Leibenstein did) that the firm is an unbreakable whole > (or that the only division is between the "entrepreneur" and the firm, > his or her tool). > > by the way, Alchian and Demsetz (I believe) have an article which is > akin to Leibenstein's but they see profits as the reward for (in > effect) minimizing X-inefficiency. If you want, I can find it. > > an informative and interesting article! > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:44 PM, michael > perelman<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I have written a paper that uses two episodes to illustrate the nature of >> Chicago economics. It is being rewritten for a mainstream journal, so I >> have to pull my punches. I would appreciate any comments. >> >> >> Read more at: >> >> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/harberger-triangles-okun-gaps-and-x-efficiency/ >> -- >> Michael Perelman >> Economics Department >> California State University >> Chico, CA >> 95929 >> >> 530 898 5321 >> fax 530 898 5901 >> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> > > > > -- > Jim Devine / "All science would be superfluous if the form of > appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
-- Jim Devine / "All science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
