Max quotes
Coase, in The Nature of the Firm. (1937, Economica):
Those who object to economic planning on the grounds
that the problem is solved by price movements can be
answered by pointing out that there is planning within
our economic system which is quite different from the
individual
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave S. asks why transactions costs are so
important.
transactions costs are only important if you're
raised as the kind of NC economist with an extremely
naive view of markets (i.e., a Walrasian).
Jim
??!!! Huh? Wha? Where did that come from?
I wrote:
transactions costs are only important if you're
raised as the kind of NC economist with an extremely
naive view of markets (i.e., a Walrasian).
JKS writes:
??!!! Huh? Wha? Where did that come from? So, are you
saying that if we are Marxists or Institutionalists or
Austrians
Michael Perelman writes:
Do lawyers really limit transactions costs. I thought that they maximized
billable hours.
If we didn't add value, why would we be hired?
David Shemano
David Shemano wrote:
If we didn't add value, why would we be hired?
I think I answered that already.
Mafia.
Ken.
--
... the fear of facing the world, including its works of
literature, without an intellectual narcotic at hand.
-- Frederick Crews
Maybe it's like hiring marketing experts. It's profitable for an individual to hire a
marketing expert to try to gain a larger market share even though their work seems
totally unproductive (producing no value) from the perspective of society as a whole.
That said, I don't think lawyers are
--- David S. Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Perelman writes:
Do lawyers really limit transactions costs. I
thought that they maximized
billable hours.
If we didn't add value, why would we be hired?
David Shemano
Well, cynically, lots of folks say we write the rules
to ensure
--- trashing lawyers is a major indoor
sport in the US but ignores those who are the heroes
of John Grisham books (while often forgetting the
truly evil corporate lawyers).
Like me? ;-
As long as there are
laws and conflicts, people will need lawyers. On the
other hand, lawyers often seem
Jim wrote:
That said, I don't think lawyers are totally unproductive;
I agree. The collision of individual interests has to be resolved in
some manner. No matter the system.
There will be costs.
The current system, commercially, is based on getting a commercial
lawyer to check-off your deal.
Ken writes:
However, lawyers are just more sensitive to the criticism since they are
on TV more. Perry Mason never did have a kindred soul from economics on
TV. Your honor, I contend the witness inflated the GDP numbers to cover
up the failure of the auto industry and the increase in transaction
Justin asks:
This isn't to say that the incentive Michael talks
about doesn't exist. Btw, David, are you a litigator
or a transactional lawyer?
I am a corporate bankruptcy lawyer, which is primarily transactional, but involves
litigation in the sense that Bankruptcy Court approval is
Justin writes:
This isn't to say that the incentive Michael talks
about doesn't exist. Btw, David, are you a litigator
or a transactional lawyer?
I am corporate bankruptcy attorney, which is primarily transactional but involves
litigation in that Bankruptcy Court approval is required for
David Shemano wrote:
I am corporate bankruptcy attorney, which is primarily
transactional ...
We need those a fair bit today, no? ...
But, more respectfully, what is the value you provide outside the
parametres for business collection upon failure (and how is that
different than Repo Men)?
yeah, but all those economists became interesting by doing more than mere economics.
(Of course, economics is interesting to economists. But since accounting is
interesting to accountants, that hardly proves anything.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE
Jim's:
I'm going to have nightmares about a TV show John Pareto, Economist.
I think the life (and economic theories) of Veblen would make a wonderful TV
series. Perhaps David Duchovny could star in the series.
Eric
Scott Nearing would make an excellent television show as well. He was an
activist, kicked out of academia and the communist party. Lived a very
interesting life. Did heavy physical labor until he was 99.
Alexander Gershenkron lived a very interesting life, in the midst of the
Soviet and Nazi
Eric Nilsson wrote:
RE
Jim's:
I'm going to have nightmares about a TV show John Pareto, Economist.
I think the life (and economic theories) of Veblen would make a wonderful TV
series. Perhaps David Duchovny could star in the series.
One would want also to include his theories on
Kenneth Campbell writes:
But, more respectfully, what is the value you provide outside the
parametres for business collection upon failure (and how is that
different than Repo Men)?
Aren't bankruptcy lawyers merely administrators in a system? That is, no
productive value? Merely moving
Those who object to economic planning on the grounds
that the problem is solved by price movements can be
answered by pointing out that there is planning within
our economic system which is quite different from the
individual planning mentioned above [individuals who
exercise foresight and choice
Max, who said the quote in the first paragraph?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Those who object to economic planning on the grounds
that the problem is solved by price movements can be
answered by pointing out that there is
Coase, in The Nature of the Firm. (1937, Economica)
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Devine,
James
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Back to slavery
Max, who said the quote in the first paragraph
Contrary to the JKS's headline, the authors aren't pro-slavery, seeing instead
Athenian slavery and the treatment of women foreigners as an Achilles heel of the
system.
The book seems to be an effort to make money out of the humanities by entering the
field the pop-management literature. It
My writing is totally incoherent. Here's what I meant to say:
Contrary to JKS's headline, the authors aren't
pro-slavery, seeing instead Athenian slavery and the
treatment of women foreigners as an Achilles heel of the system.
The book seems to be an effort to make money out of the
It's a joke, Jim. A joke. . . .
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Contrary to the JKS's headline, the authors aren't
pro-slavery, seeing instead Athenian slavery and the
treatment of women foreigners as an Achilles
heel of the system.
The book seems to be an effort to make money
Hope you are OK ? Anything I can do, just ask.
J.
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery
My writing is totally incoherent. Here's what I meant to say:
Contrary to
Sophists, Socrates would say. He wouldn't take money
for doing philosophy . . . .
jks
--- Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Holland it is sometimes trendy in management
circles to hire professional
philosophers as consultants - philosophy provides
freedom for critical
thought,
- Original Message -
From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In Holland it is sometimes trendy in management circles to hire
professional
philosophers as consultants - philosophy provides freedom for critical
thought, hence a philosopher might identify or reframe problems in a way
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
Sophists, Socrates would say. He wouldn't take money
for doing philosophy . . . .
A pampered lapdog of the filthy rich doesn't need to charge for
anything.
Carrol
Hey, I recently saw a mgt book called something like,
Management Secrets of Karl Marx! (Or, Who Moved My
Surplus Value?) It did NOT include advice to the boss
to fire himself, vest ownership and control in the
workers, and become a free producer engaged in
productive but non-value-producing
If you recall, the Thirty had him condemned in a show
trial, and executed for subverting the youth and
impiety . . . . jks
--- Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
Sophists, Socrates would say. He wouldn't take
money
for doing philosophy . . . .
A pampered
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you recall, the Thirty had him condemned in a show
trial, and executed for subverting the youth and
impiety . . . . jks
==
He was driving down their fees...
I don't know if this is a joke, but Marx's CAPITAL would give more guidance to
managers than neoclassical economics does. The latter wants all relationships between
people to be one of exchange...
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
No, I am quite serious, I recently saw such a book. I
agree that Marxian economics would be a better guide
to labor relations and general management than NCE.
NCE might be better on pricing questions. You really
do want to price close to marginal cost if the market
is competitive, above if not . .
You mean the fees of the sophists? The Thirty were a
bunch of rich pigs. They had slaves and land, not
fees. jks
--- Eubulides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you recall, the Thirty had him condemned in a
show
trial,
as Marx said, businesspeople don't care about values.
Whether the commodities are sold at their values or not, and hence the determination
of value itself, is quite immaterial for the individual capitalist. (international
publ. ed., volume III, p. 873)
Jim Devine
Coincidently I'm reading Oliver Williamson at the moment,
whose existence and inspired lit debunks your assertion.
Transactions costs can make hierarchy (the firm) more economical
than market exchange.
mbs
I don't know if this is a joke, but Marx's CAPITAL would give more guidance
to managers
Oliver Williamson is not quite mainstream; his stuff doesn't appear in standard
textbooks, which to my mind represent the codification of NC ideology. But more
importantly, my assertion was that the NC _wants_ everything to be an exchange. The
fact that hierarchy is needed is seen as a failure
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery
You mean the fees of the sophists?
=
Of course.
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
If you recall, the Thirty had him condemned in a show
trial, and executed for subverting the youth and
impiety . . . . jks
Wow! You're asleep today. He was tried _after_ the restoration of the
Democracy, and his friendship with the 30 (particularly with Critias)
Devine, James wrote:
Oliver Williamson is not quite mainstream; his stuff doesn't appear
in standard textbooks, which to my mind represent the codification
of NC ideology. But more importantly, my assertion was that the NC
_wants_ everything to be an exchange. The fact that hierarchy is
needed is
I wrote:
Oliver Williamson is not quite mainstream; his stuff doesn't appear
in standard textbooks, which to my mind represent the codification
of NC ideology. But more importantly, my assertion was that the NC
_wants_ everything to be an exchange. The fact that hierarchy is
needed is seen as
Right, thanks, serves me right for not looking things
up, and for multitasking while doing a due diligence
(boring), but they were rich bastards too. jks
--- Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
If you recall, the Thirty had him condemned in a
show
trial,
Yes Ian, that book on General Motors exists. See
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805052534/qid=1058303758/sr=2-3/ref=
sr_2_3/002-9116098-3703241
There is a literature on this, for instance
Langholm , Odd Inge, Price and value in the Aristotelian tradition 1979 and
Wealth and money in the
I agree that transactions costs is much in
the spirit of 'exchange,' since it is based
on the latter's infeasibility, but who is
this NC and what does she want?
Williams says Marshall posited organization as
a fourth factor of production. Perelman was
around then so maybe he can elaborate.
Re:
Max Sawicky writes:
Coincidently I'm reading Oliver Williamson at the moment,
whose existence and inspired lit debunks your assertion.
Transactions costs can make hierarchy (the firm) more economical
than market exchange.
I am not sure I understand the significance of this. If I want to
Max Sawicky writes:
Coincidently I'm reading Oliver Williamson at the moment,
whose existence and inspired lit debunks your assertion.
Transactions costs can make hierarchy (the firm) more economical
than market exchange.
David Shemano writes:
I am not sure I understand the
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think it suggests a critique of NC economics (except maybe for the
fact that it took so long for NC economics to accept the idea of
transactions costs).
The significance for NC economics is that it means that there are
Isn't what John Commons did a form of TCE?
Ian
---
yeah, but his transactions cost economics was more sophisticated than that of the
Chicago school (at least according to Bill Tabb, whose book I'm relying on here).
Jim
Jim Devine writes:
I don't think it suggests a critique of NC economics (except maybe for the fact
that it
took so long for NC economics to accept the idea of transactions costs).
The significance for NC economics is that it means that there are many places where
the pure market exchange
Alfred was a couple of years older than me. He wrote:
Marshall, 1920, pp. 138-9. Capital consists in great part of knowledge
and organisation. Knowledge is our most powerful engine of production; it
allows us to subdue Nature and force her to satisfy our wants.
Organization aids knowledge; it
Do lawyers really limit transactions costs. I thought that they maximized
billable hours.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 07:19:50PM -0700, David S. Shemano wrote:
I guess I am asking a much more naive question. Why is this an issue at all to
anybody? I mean, is there anybody who disputes that
Williamson et al call themeselves the new institutionalists to
distinguish themselves from Commons et al. Commons did say that the
transaction was the proper unit of analysis.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 07:06:46PM -0700, Devine, James wrote:
Isn't what John Commons did a form of TCE?
Ian
Michael wrote:
Do lawyers really limit transactions costs. I thought that
they maximized billable hours.
They _do_ limit transaction costs... if you count resultant contractual
law suits as part of transaction costs.
It's a kind of mafia protection racket... Let me vet your contract, so
that I
- Original Message -
From: Kenneth Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael wrote:
Do lawyers really limit transactions costs. I thought that
they maximized billable hours.
They _do_ limit transaction costs... if you count resultant contractual
law suits as part of transaction costs.
Dave S. asks why transactions costs are so important.
transactions costs are only important if you're raised as the kind of NC economist
with an extremely naive view of markets (i.e., a Walrasian).
Jim
Date sent: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:19:50 -0700
Send reply to: PEN-L list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: David S. Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [PEN-L] Back to slavery
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
This stuff isn't radical.
- Original Message -
From: Paul Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But a more fundamental issue relates to the Coase theorum itself -
- that if there are NO Transaction Costs, the distribution of
property rights does not matter for the efficiency (pareto optimality)
of the market solution.
57 matches
Mail list logo
