Podcasts about Ronald Coase

Surely perfection is better than imperfection. But applying technology to improve decision-making can backfire. Listen as ed-tech innovator Daisy Christodoulou and EconTalk's Russ Roberts talk about the costs of seeking perfection when technology is used to improve refereeing in sports. They also talk about ways to embrace imperfection and how the economist Ronald Coase can help us understand the power of the rules of the game, both in sports and in life.

She's an economist, an institution-builder, an ecosystem-nurturer and one of our finest thinkers. Shruti Rajagopalan joins Amit Varma in episode 410 of The Seen and the Unseen to talk about her life & times -- and her remarkable work. (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.) Also check out: 1. Shruti Rajagopalan on Twitter, Substack, Instagram, her podcast, Ideas of India and her own website. 2. Emergent Ventures India. 3. The 1991 Project. 4. Life Lessons That Are Priceless -- Episodes 400 of The Seen and the Unseen. 5. Other episodes of The Seen and the Unseen w Shruti Rajagopalan, in reverse chronological order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. 6. The Day Ryan Started Masturbating -- Amit Varma's newsletter post explaining Shruti Rajagopalan's swimming pool analogy for social science research. 7. A Deep Dive Into Education -- Episode 54 of Everything is Everything. 8. Fixing Indian Education — Episode 185 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Karthik Muralidharan). 9. Population Is Not a Problem, but Our Greatest Strength -- Amit Varma. 10. Our Population Is Our Greatest Asset -- Episode 20 of Everything is Everything. 11. Where Has All the Education Gone? -- Lant Pritchett. 12. Lant Pritchett Is on Team Prosperity — Episode 379 of The Seen and the Unseen. 13. The Theory of Moral Sentiments — Adam Smith. 14. The Wealth of Nations — Adam Smith. 15. Commanding Heights -- Daniel Yergin. 16. Capitalism and Freedom -- Milton Friedman. 17. Free to Choose -- Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman. 18. Economics in One Lesson -- Henry Hazlitt. 19. The Road to Serfdom -- Friedrich Hayek. 20. Four Papers That Changed the World -- Episode 41 of Everything is Everything. 21. The Use of Knowledge in Society -- Friedrich Hayek. 22. Individualism and Economic Order -- Friedrich Hayek. 23. Understanding the State -- Episode 25 of Everything is Everything.  24. Richard E Wagner at Mercatus and Amazon. 25. Larry White and the First Principles of Money -- Episode 397 of The Seen and the Unseen. 26. Fixing the Knowledge Society -- Episode 24 of Everything is Everything. 27. Marginal Revolution. 28. Paul Graham's essays. 29. Commands and controls: Planning for indian industrial development, 1951–1990 -- Rakesh Mohan and Vandana Aggarwal. 30. The Reformers -- Episode 28 of Everything is Everything. 31. India: Planning for Industrialization -- Jagdish Bhagwati and Padma Desai. 32. Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration -- Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith. 33. Cows on India Uncut. 34. Abdul Karim Khan on Spotify and YouTube. 35. The Surface Area of Serendipity -- Episode 39 of Everything is Everything. 36. Objects From Our Past -- Episode 77 of Everything is Everything. 37. Sriya Iyer on the Economics of Religion -- The Ideas of India Podcast. 38. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Ramachandra Guha: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 39. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Pratap Bhanu Mehta: 1, 2. 40. Rohit Lamba Reimagines India's Economic Policy Emphasis -- The Ideas of India Podcast. 41. Rohit Lamba Will Never Be Bezubaan — Episode 378 of The Seen and the Unseen. 42. The Constitutional Law and Philosophy blog. 43. Cost and Choice -- James Buchanan. 44. Philip Wicksteed. 45. Pratap Bhanu Mehta on The Theory of Moral Sentiments -- The Ideas of India Podcast. 46. Conversation and Society — Episode 182 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Russ Roberts). 47. The Common Sense of Political Economy -- Philip Wicksteed. 48. Narendra Shenoy and Mr Narendra Shenoy — Episode 250 of The Seen and the Unseen. 49. Sudhir Sarnobat Works to Understand the World — Episode 350 of The Seen and the Unseen. 50. Manmohan Singh: India's Finest Talent Scout -- Shruti Rajagopalan. 51. The Importance of the 1991 Reforms — Episode 237 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Ajay Shah). 52. The Life and Times of Montek Singh Ahluwalia — Episode 285 of The Seen and the Unseen. 53. The Forgotten Greatness of PV Narasimha Rao — Episode 283 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vinay Sitapati). 54. India's Massive Pensions Crisis — Episode 347 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ajay Shah & Renuka Sane). 55. The Life and Times of KP Krishnan — Episode 355 of The Seen and the Unseen. 56. Breaking Through — Isher Judge Ahluwalia. 57. Breaking Out — Padma Desai. 58. Perestroika in Perspective -- Padma Desai. 59. Shephali Bhatt Is Searching for the Incredible — Episode 391 of The Seen and the Unseen. 60. Pics from the Seen-Unseen party. 61. Pramod Varma on India's Digital Empowerment -- Episode 50 of Brave New World. 59. Niranjan Rajadhyaksha Is the Impartial Spectator — Episode 388 of The Seen and the Unseen. 60. Our Parliament and Our Democracy — Episode 253 of The Seen and the Unseen (w MR Madhavan). 61. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Pranay Kotasthane: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 62. The Overton Window. 63. When Ideas Have Sex -- Matt Ridley. 64. The Three Languages of Politics — Arnold Kling. 65. Arnold Kling and the Four Languages of Politics -- Episode 394 of The Seen and the Unseen. 66. The Double ‘Thank You' Moment — John Stossel. 67. Economic growth is enough and only economic growth is enough — Lant Pritchett with Addison Lewis. 68. What is Libertarianism? — Episode 117 of The Seen and the Unseen (w David Boaz). 69. What Does It Mean to Be Libertarian? — Episode 64 of The Seen and the Unseen. 70. The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom -- David Boaz. 71. Publish and Perish — Agnes Callard. 72. Classical Liberal Institute. 73. Shruti Rajagopalan's YouTube talk on constitutional amendments. 74. What I, as a development economist, have been actively “for” -- Lant Pritchett. 75. Can Economics Become More Reflexive? — Vijayendra Rao. 76. Premature Imitation and India's Flailing State — Shruti Rajagopalan & Alexander Tabarrok. 77. Elite Imitation in Public Policy — Episode 180 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Alex Tabarrok). 78. Invisible Infrastructure -- Episode 82 of Everything is Everything. 79. The Sundara Kanda. 80. Devdutt Pattanaik and the Stories That Shape Us -- Episode 404 of The Seen and the Unseen. 81. Y Combinator. 82. Space Fields. 83. Apoorwa Masuk, Onkar Singh Batra, Naman Pushp, Angad Daryani, Deepak VS and Srijon Sarkar. 84. Deepak VS and the Man Behind His Face — Episode 373 of The Seen and the Unseen. 85. You've Got To Hide Your Love Away -- The Beatles. 86. Caste, Capitalism and Chandra Bhan Prasad — Episode 296 of The Seen and the Unseen. 87. Data For India -- Rukmini S's startup. 88. Whole Numbers And Half Truths — Rukmini S. 89. The Moving Curve — Rukmini S's Covid podcast, also on all podcast apps. 90. The Importance of Data Journalism — Episode 196 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Rukmini S). 91. Rukmini Sees India's Multitudes — Episode 261 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Rukmini S). 92. Prosperiti. 93. This Be The Verse — Philip Larkin. 94. The Dilemma of an Indian Liberal -- Gurcharan Das. 95. Zakir: 1951-2024 -- Shruti Rajagopalan. 96. Dazzling Blue -- Paul Simon, featuring Karaikudi R Mani. 97. John Coltrane, Shakti, Zakir Hussain, Ali Akbar Khan, Pannalal Ghosh, Nikhil Banerjee, Vilayat Khan, Bismillah Khan, Ravi Shankar, Bhimsen Joshi, Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Esperanza Spalding, MS Subbulakshmi, Lalgudi Jayaraman, TN Krishnan, Sanjay Subrahmanyan, Ranjani-Gayatri and TM Krishna on Spotify. 98. James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, Israel Kirzner, Mario Rizzo, Vernon Smith, Thomas Schelling and Ronald Coase. 99. The Calculus of Consent -- James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock. 100. Tim Harford and Martin Wolf. 101. The Shawshank Redemption -- Frank Darabont. 102. The Marriage of Figaro in The Shawshank Redemption. 103. An Equal Music -- Vikram Seth. 104. Beethoven: Symphony No. 7 - Zubin Mehta and the Belgrade Philharmonic. 105. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's violin concertos. 106. Animal Farm -- George Orwell. 107. Down and Out in Paris and London -- George Orwell. 108. Gulliver's Travels -- Jonathan Swift. 109. Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass -- Lewis Carroll. 110. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich -- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. 111. The Gulag Archipelago -- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. 112. Khosla Ka Ghosla -- Dibakar Banerjee. 113. Mr India -- Shekhar Kapur. 114. Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi -- Satyen Bose. 114. Finding Nemo -- Andrew Stanton. 115. Tom and Jerry and Bugs Bunny. 116. Michael Madana Kama Rajan -- Singeetam Srinivasa Rao. 117. The Music Box, with Laurel and Hardy. 118. The Disciple -- Chaitanya Tamhane. 119. Court -- Chaitanya Tamhane. 120. Dwarkesh Patel on YouTube. Amit Varma and Ajay Shah have launched a new course called Life Lessons, which aims to be a launchpad towards learning essential life skills all of you need. For more details, and to sign up, click here. Amit and Ajay also bring out a weekly YouTube show, Everything is Everything. Have you watched it yet? You must! And have you read Amit's newsletter? Subscribe right away to The India Uncut Newsletter! It's free! Also check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. Episode art: ‘Learn' by Simahina.

Ever wondered why firms exist in a market-driven economy? This month's episode promises to unravel this question by diving deep into Ronald Coase's seminal 1937 paper, "The Nature of the Firm." Join me, Mike Munger, as I reflect on our first 16 months of podcasting and share the insights and wisdom that have shaped our journey. You'll gain a thorough understanding of how transaction costs influence economic behaviors and organizational structures, with fascinating examples from Richard Langlois' analysis of the American Midwest's agricultural sector before the railroad era.Ronald Harry Coase, The Nature of the Firm (1937)Michael Munger, Why Bosses Don't Wear Bunny SlippersIf you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

A reminder for new readers. That Was The Week includes a collection of my selected readings on critical issues in tech, startups, and venture capital. I selected the articles because they are of interest to me. The selections often include things I entirely disagree with. But they express common opinions, or they provoke me to think. The articles are snippets sized to convey why they are of interest. Click on the headline, contents link, or the ‘More' link at the bottom of each piece to go to the original. I express my point of view in the editorial and the weekly video below.Hat Tip to this week's creators: @reidhoffman, @dougleone, , @credistick, @rex_woodbury, @NathanLands, @ItsUrBoyEvan, @berber_jin1, @cityofthetown, @keachhagey, @pmarca, @bhorowitz, , @signalrank, @steph_palazzolo, @julipuli, @MTemkin, @geneteare, @lorakolodny, @jasminewsun, @JBFlint, @asharma, @thesimonetti, @lessinContents* Editorial: * Essays of the Week* Crossing The Series A Chasm* The Consumer Renaissance* The Creator Economy on AI Steroids* AI Is Transforming the Nature of the Firm* The Opaque Investment Empire Making OpenAI's Sam Altman Rich* Video of the Week* The American Dream - Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz* AI of the Week* SignalRank Version 3 Improves Performance Again* How Long Can OpenAI's First-Mover Advantage Last?* OpenAI Employees Warn of Advanced AI Dangers* A Right to Warn about Advanced Artificial Intelligence* Nvidia hits $3tn and surpasses Apple as world's second-most valuable company* VCs are selling shares of hot AI companies like Anthropic and xAI to small investors in a wild SPV market* News Of the Week* Crunchbase Monthly Recap May 2024: AI Leads Alongside An Uptick In Billion-Dollar Rounds* Elon Musk ordered Nvidia to ship thousands of AI chips reserved for Tesla to X and xAI* Introducing video to Substack Chat* Instagram's Testing Video Ads That Stop You From Scrolling Further* Startup of the Week* NBA Nears $76 Billion TV Deal, a Defining Moment for Media and Sports* X of the Week* Doug Leone - I am supporting Trump. * Reid Hoffman - I am supporting BidenEditorialI woke on Tuesday to Doug Leone of Sequoia Capital on X saying:I have become increasingly concerned about the general direction of our country, the state of our broken immigration system, the ballooning deficit, and the foreign policy missteps, among other issues. Therefore, I am supporting former President Trump in this coming election.Doug has the right to support Trump. It is also clear that the immigration system is broken, the deficit is ballooning, many things are wrong with foreign policy, and there are “other issues.” Trump as the solution is less obvious. But there it is—hot on the tails of Chamath Palihipitaya and David Sacks announcing a fund-raiser for Trump on the All-In podcast (they said they would do the same for Biden).Reid Hoffman followed up a day later with:On one level, this is a straightforward choice, but any literate attempt to analyze Leone's issues might arrive at the following conclusions:* Like many Western nations, the USA is aging rapidly and has a shrinking working-age population across all skill sets. Immigrants are needed, and pro-immigration leadership is needed, creating a path to entry for large numbers of skilled and unskilled workers to fill empty jobs as we get close to full employment.* The deficit is large, and there are many palliatives available. Selling more to China would help, but both party leaders are protectionist. Taxes to reduce the divide between the 1% and the rest would help a bit. However, what would help the most is economic growth, which requires investment in technology and productivity. Neither leader seems too focused on innovation and investment.* Foreign Policy - well, sheesh, it's a big issue. However, saber-rattling about Taiwan and provoking China seems to be a hobby shared by both parties and does not seem smart. Ukraine and the future of Europe are better in Biden's hands, but not by a lot. Europe looks very shaky. The US is increasingly isolationist. The appetite for world leadership is on the decline. Again, the solution would focus on economic growth, which seems absent.Voting for Trump is a big no-no for me. But voting for Biden is, at best, a lesser evil instinct, not a belief system. The election will not be where the future is built, but it is important. Politicians are collectively disappointing.This week's video of the week from Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz is called “The American Dream” and champions their view about American Dynamism. And I must confess that this comes closer to a vision of the future than either political outfit. Their vision requires political support, massive government financial commitment, and private capital investment. I see no evidence of those happening.The real winning effort seems to be happening on the ground. This week, Nvidia hit $3 trillion, eclipsing Apple as the world's second-most valuable company. This is even though Apple has 7 times the revenue of Nvidia.This week's first essays also focus on prospects for boom time. Rex Woodbury's ‘The Consumer Renaissance' examines the impact of consumer spending on our lives. In ‘The Creator Economy on AI Steroids, ' Nathan Lands focuses on how emerging tools will transform creativity. But in ‘AI Is Transforming the Nature of the Firm, ' Evan Armstrong gets closest to a future vision.”AI is the first universally flexible technology. It can interact with our digital environments in similar ways to humans, so it can have all the flexibility that we do. In that way, it may be the last technology we ever need.This seems to be the crux of hope in a world where dreams and nightmares are strangely devoid of detail. What the world needs (not only America) is hope. And hope is born from optimism. Optimism is born from success. The most likely success of the next decades will result from specific uses of AI that improve human life.I know and like Doug Leone. I know and like Reid Hoffman. Doug's bar for success needs to be higher. Voting for Trump is not right, and even if it were, it would not be sufficient.Reid also needs a higher bar. Voting for Biden will not be sufficient even if it is right.Let's focus on where success can be found, grow optimism, and breed hope. There is a need for a broad technical revolution and the social rebirth it enables. Silicon Valley and its friends globally need to invent the next version of human existence to the benefit of all. The social rebirth requires a conscious effort; technology will not magically bring it about. More in this week's video.Essays of the WeekCrossing The Series A ChasmDan GrayDan Gray, a frequent guest author for Crunchbase News, is the head of insights at Equidam, a startup valuation platform, and a venture partner at Social Impact Capital.June 5, 2024As we get deeper into 2024, there is increasing concern about the state of Series A fundraising. The bar for investment appears much higher, and fewer startups are reaching it.This is a problem for founders, and investors like Jenny Fielding, managing partner of Everywhere Ventures, who said, “Every Seed investor's dilemma: All my Series A buddies want to meet my companies early! All my companies are too early for my Series A buddies.”To attach some data to this, we can see that the median step-up in valuation from seed to Series A has gone from $19.5 million in Q1 2022 to $28.7 million in Q1 2024. Series A firms seem to be looking for much stronger revenue performance, with targets of $2 million to $3 million in ARR, compared to $1 million to $2 million just a few years ago.The outcome is that while 31.8% of Q1 2020 seed startups closed their Series A within two years, that fell to just 12% for Q1 2022 — which should worry everyone.Why are Series A investors so much more demanding?Today's Series A investors are looking at startups that raised their seed between 2021 and 2023, which identifies the root of the problem: it spans the Q2 2022 high-tide mark for venture capital.For example, there were 1,695 seed rounds of more than $5 million in 2021, rising to 2,248 in 2022, then falling to 1,521 in 2023. As a comparison, there have been just 137 so far in 2024.The result is two categories of startups that are looking to raise their Series A today:* Pre-crunch startups that raised generous seed rounds and stretched the capital out as far as they could, to grow into inflated valuations.* Post-crunch startups that raised modest seed rounds on more reasonable terms, with shorter runways and less demonstrable growth.Strictly speaking, neither is more appealing than the other; the first group has less risk, the second offers more upside, and both are adapted to current market realities. It shouldn't cause a problem for investors, provided they can distinguish between the two.The cost of market inefficiencyVenture investors have a market-based lens on investment decisions, which means looking fairly broadly at trends in revenue performance and round pricing to determine terms, e.g. a typical Series A is within certain bounds of revenue performance and valuation. While that approach may be serviceable and efficient under ideal conditions, the past few years have been far from ideal.Without distinguishing between the two cohorts, investors are now looking at the performance of Series A candidates that spent more than $5 million on a war chest for two to three years of growth alongside the valuations of candidates that raised around $2 million to prove scalability. It just doesn't work as an average, and thus the unreasonable expectations...MoreThe Consumer RenaissanceFrom Predicting Consumer AI Applications to Analyzing Consumer SpendREX WOODBURY, JUN 05, 2024“Consumer” has become something of a bad word in venture capital circles.We see this reflected in the early-stage markets: recent data from Carta showed that just 7.1% of Seed capital raised last year went to consumer startups. That's less than half the share from 2019 (14.3%).But I think consumer is actually a great place to be building and investing. Whenever something is out of favor, that's a sign it's probably a good place to spend time: this is an industry built on being contrarian, not built on following the herd. We're entering a compelling few years for consumer entrepreneurship.First, I'd argue that consumer is too narrowly defined. When people think consumer, they often think consumer social (a tough category) or consumer brands (a tough fit for venture compared to internet and software businesses, with typically lower return profiles). But consumer is broader. Consumer encompasses businesses that sell to consumers and those that rely on consumer spending. This means the obvious names—apps on our phones like Uber, Instacart, Spotify—and the enablers: Shopify, for instance, powers online retail; Faire powers offline retail; Unity powers game development. Each of the latter three is B2B2C, in its own way, but I would categorize each is also a consumer technology business.The wins in consumer can be massive. The biggest technology businesses in history began as consumer businesses—Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon. The original companies comprising FAANG—with Microsoft conspicuously absent—were allconsumer.And some of the best returns of the last five years have stemmed from consumer tech IPOs. At Daybreak, we invest ~$1M at Pre-Seed and Seed. Here's how much a $1M investment in the Seed round of five recent consumer IPOs would yield:Big consumer wins compare favorably to big enterprise wins—relative to Snowflake's market cap, Uber is ~3x in size, Airbnb is ~2x in size, and DoorDash is roughly equal. (Snowflake is the biggest enterprise IPO of the last decade.) The last few years produced a windfall of consumer outcomes, yet investors today almost write off the category.At Daybreak, we don't focus exclusively on consumer; my view is that you need to balance more binary consumer outcomes with B2B SaaS and B2B marketplaces. But we do approach investing through the lens of the consumer—how people make decisions. The buyers of products like Figma and Ramp, after all, are people, and software companies are increasingly selling bottom-up into organizations. The line between consumer and enterprise has been blurring for years.This week's Digital Native makes the argument that consumer tech is a compelling place to build and invest. We'll look at the data to back up this argument, then delve into three categories of consumer that I'm particularly interested in right now:* Checking in on Consumer Spend* Consumer Tech: The Data Doesn't Lie* What to Watch: AI Applications* What to Watch: Shopping* What to Watch: Consumer Health* Rule of Thumb: Follow the SpendThis week we'll cover #1-3, and next week in Part II we'll tackle #4-6.Let's dive in

What if understanding the hidden costs in every transaction could revolutionize how we see economics?  Stephen Medema of Duke University opens up about his academic pivot from computational tax policy to the history of economic thought, weaving in tales of detective-like intrigue and the thrill of uncovering the makers and movers behind economic theories.Beginning with John R. Commons' critical insights, and moving through Ronald Coase's focus on transaction costs as the critical difference among institutions, we explore  how these issues shape our understanding of efficiency and the "If markets are so great, why are there firms?"  Don't miss four new economics jokes (one is lawyer joke, in honor of common law!), my book recommendations, and get psyched for a summertime return to shorter, more frequent episodes.Letters:Corner Crossing:  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/26/business/hunting-wyoming-elk-mountain-access.html?searchResultPosition=1 https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2024-05-13/corner-crossing-case-back-in-court Books:•Glenn Loury, Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative.  https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393881349 (Econtalk Podcast on the Loury book:  https://www.econtalk.org/glenn-loury-tells-all/  )•Kevin Munger, The Youtube Apparatus, from Cambridge Essentials.  https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/youtube-apparatus/36600D69788530F805C650B70976A585If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

Richard Epstein remembers the late psychologist Daniel Kahneman and discusses the long-running debate between Kahneman’s research on behavioral economics and the rational-choice models popularized by Gary Becker and Ronald Coase.

Richard Epstein remembers the late psychologist Daniel Kahneman and discusses the long-running debate between Kahneman's research on behavioral economics and the rational-choice models popularized by Gary Becker and Ronald Coase.

Welcome to the Mixtape with Scott! To set up this week's guest, let me just share real quick a personal anecdote. When I graduated college, I got a job as a qualitative research analyst doing focus groups and in-depth interviews. I had majored in literature, so this was my first exposure to anything related to the social sciences. I loved the freedom the job gave me to collect my own data and develop my own theories about why people did the things they did. In the evenings I would read articles and books in sociology and anthropology as I felt more grounding in the social sciences could help me in doing a better job. One night I read Gary Becker's Nobel Prize speech, “The Economic Way of Looking at Life”, at the University of Chicago's John M. Olin working paper series. I was hooked. By the time I finished his speech, I knew I wanted to be an economist. But then I read other things too, like a quantitative paper by John Lott and David Mustard's quantitative study on concealed carry laws and crime, and was equally mesmerized. And in that working paper series, I kept coming across references to someone named Ronald Coase and I then went elsewhere to learn about him and his prolific work. David Mustard was a Gary Becker student, and his paper on concealed carry had left an impression on me. He was an assistant professor at the University of Georgia so I applied there and one other school that used his county level crime data for studies on crime. I got into both and went with my ex-wife to visit the school and the faculty. In preparing for the trip, I read a paper by a professor at the University of Georgia named Peter Klein. The paper was entitled “New Institutional Economics” and it drew extensively on that Nobel Prize winning economist I had been learning about, Ronald Coase, another Nobel Laureate named Doug North at Washington University, and Oliver Williamson, a professor at Berkeley. The article was fascinating. It was about a field called “New Institutional Economics”, which I'd never heard of, and Klein explained it well. It was about the endogenous evolution of “institutions” to support and facilitate the organization of human interactions at a high level, most often to support commerce and trade though not just that. The ideas were deep and fascinating. I remember reading that article with a pen and highlighter, going over it and over it, hanging on every word. Not only was the topic fascinating, the author writing it was an excellent writer. There was not a wasted word in it. So when I met with the faculty, including Peter, I was sold on Georgia. But unfortunately, Peter was leaving Georgia for Mizzou and so I just barely missed being in the department with him. So that is a long winded bit of background into telling you that today's guest is someone I've known now for over 20 years — Peter Klein, the W. W. Caruth Endowed Chair at Baylor University in the Entrepreneurship department. Peter is now a professor as well as the department chair at Baylor in our Entrepreneurship department. And so it is my pleasure to introduce you to him. Peter did a PhD at Berkeley and studied under Oliver Williamson, who I mentioned earlier. Williamson would go on to win the Nobel Prize for extending Coase's theory of the firm and helping develop a more robust theory based on transaction cost economics. Peter's work on the firm extends a lot of this work on transaction cost economics continues in that line focusing on the organization of the firm. He is the author of countless articles as well as a new book entitled Why Managers Matter: The Perils of the Bossless Company (with Nicolai Foss). It has been a real joy having him here since I missed him the first time around.As long time listeners know, though, I typically am doing a “mini-series” within the podcast, though, and Peter fits into one of those mini-series. Those mini-series are “the econometricians”, “causal inference and natural experiment methodology”, “Becker's students”, “economists going to tech”, and then “public policy”. But another one I'm slowly picking at has to do with the wings of the profession that fall outside of the exclusively neoclassical tradition, one of which is Austrian economics. And Peter comes from that tradition, though he has mixed it with mainstream economics and made it into something of his own. So, with that being said, let me now turn you over to the podcast! Thanks again for tuning in!Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Unlock the secrets of the energy market evolution with economist Professor Lynn Kiesling, who brings her expertise on transaction costs and the digital transformation of the electricity industry to our table. Our energized discussion orbits around the innovative world of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs), where we explore the shift from consumers to proactive producers, thanks to technologies like rooftop solar panels and home energy storage. Professor Kiesling, drawing from her academic journey and reverence for Ronald Coase's work, delves into the institutional structure of production within firms and imparts her wisdom on navigating the complex regulatory frameworks that shape our smart grid technologies.Also, 4 new TWEJ's, and a letter. It's the January TAITC!This month's guest:  Lynne Kiesling:  https://lynnekiesling.com/Our paper:  Theisen, Kiesling, and Munger, "Airbnb to solar: electricity market platforms as local sharing economies."   Public Choice: 2022  Lynne's Substack: "Are We Talking Ourselves Out of Progress?"Lynne's Substack:  "Pareto-relevant Externalities (You don't have to internalize everything, folks!)Links:Buchanan and Stubblebine, "Externality." Economica.  Russ Roberts and the parable of the wind and the sun:   https://www.econtalk.org/david-mcraney-on-how-minds-change/Amory Lovins (cold beer, hot shower, "Nega-Watts"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_LovinsOhtani's contract, from REASON:  https://reason.com/2023/12/15/baseball-star-shohei-ohtanis-new-contract-is-a-massive-tax-avoidance-scheme-nice/If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

El economista austríaco Joseph Schumpeter acuñó el concepto de la destrucción creativa para referirse al proceso en el que las nuevas ideas sustituyen a las antiguas, generando una distorsión en el mercado laboral. La inteligencia artificial lleva ese proceso a la velocidad más alta que jamás hayamos visto. El cambio tecnológico hace ricos a los nuevos innovadores y perjudica a los viejos empresarios que poseen la ya obsoleta ventaja. El invento de los coches dejó sin trabajo a los criadores de caballos. Kapital Social: La comunidad privada de Kapital. Ahora con un 20% de descuento. Kapital es posible gracias a sus colaboradores: Nueva edición de los programas: Cardinal y Cardinal X. Compara los dos cursos para decidir con cuál quedarte. Cardinal es un programa online con el que diseñar la carrera profesional que quieres. Yo mismo, junto con Eloi Alcaide, hemos preparado los contenidos después de años estudiando el problema. El punto de partida es que nosotros no sabemos qué carrera debes escoger pero sí podemos darte, a lo largo de 12 semanas, herramientas de introspección y modelos mentales para que TÚ tomes la mejor decisión. Un curso de interés para quien esté buscando un cambio inmediato, pero también para quien quiera estar mejor preparado, dándose recursos, para competir en este mercado laboral incierto. La edad media en anteriores ediciones se situó entre los 25 y los 35 años. Cardinal empieza el próximo lunes 8 de enero. Inscríbete con un descuento de 60 y 40 euros con los cupones ENE24C9 (Cardinal) y ENE24X3 (Cardinal X). Si no tienes claro si esto es para ti, apúntate a la videollamada Q&A que hemos organizado para el miércoles 3 de enero a las 17.00. Patrocina Kapital. Toda la información en este link. Índice: 1.02. La obsesión del emprendedor. 8.47. El dilema caníbal de Google. 17.31. ¿Es realmente inteligente la IA? 35.14. ¿Está el mundo en peligro? 46.45. ¿Dónde nace la consciencia? 1.00.31. Las posibilidades económicas de nuestros nietos. 1.08.11. Armas demasiado poderosas. 1.13.07. Estrategia de carrera para los más jóvenes. 1.24.26. Enamorados de la voz de Scarlett. 1.33.15. La visión coasiana de la empresa. 1.39.46. ¿Cómo hablarle a la IA? 1.47.44. Ulises y las sirenas. 1.54.10. Solo sobrevive el paranoico. Apuntes: The nature of the firm. Ronald Coase. A novel neural network architecture for language understanding. Jakob Uszkoreit. 2001. Stanley Kubrick. La máquina del tiempo. H.G. Wells. Silicon Valley. Mike Judge & John Altschuler & Dave Krinsky. Her. Spike Jonze. Rubianes solamente. Pepe Rubianes. Las trampas del deseo. Dan Ariely.

Introduction: In a recent episode of the Plain Sight podcast, Francis Pedraza, the co-founder of Invisible Technologies, shared his journey of pushing boundaries in the business world. Through a fascinating narrative, Pedraza shed light on the ethos and evolution of Invisible Technologies, and his insightful perspective on disrupting traditional business paradigms. Cosmos is looking for 10 businesses of about 50-150 people to understand more about the problem we are solving and whether our assumptions are accurate. For more on Cosmos please sign up here.    I. Building A New World: Pedraza emphasizes the essence of testing the boundaries to envision the kind of world we can build. He elaborates on the formation of a Invisible as a Delaware C Corporation with a strong partnership of 100 individuals. The narrative unfolds the growth of a profitable company scaling to a 100 million run rate by year-end, marking the third consecutive year of profitability. II. Financial Dynamics: A prudent use of capital, with only 6 million utilized, and a remarkable return of 15 million to investors, showcasing a model of financial sustainability. Despite the rapid scaling and nearing a strength of 300 people, the company maintains a unique culture with no physical presence, reducing the cost of living and improving the quality of life for its partners. III. Philosophical Underpinnings: Pedraza introduces the concept of arbitrage as a life philosophy, drawing parallels to water, which always finds its level, symbolizing the idea of always moving from high to low to find balance and value. The concept extends to the notion of enhancing one's purchasing power and enjoying a higher quality of living, depicting an ideology of fluidity and adaptability. IV. Disrupting the Disruption Theory: The journey further delves into the aim to challenge established giants like McKinsey by leveraging the agility and innovative spirit of startups and small-medium businesses (SMBs). Pedraza discusses the strategic consultancy model of exchanging equity for services, providing an avenue for businesses to join the alliance and gain valuable insights and support. V. The Genesis and Evolution of Invisible: The narrative chronicles the humble beginnings of Invisible Technologies on October 1st, 2015, and the initial struggle with Everest, which was too conservative an approach. The transformation into offering unlimited executive support services for CEOs at $10k per month, and how the model crashed, leading to a reboot and a refined focus on process execution. VI. Ventures and Vision: Pedraza shares insights on various ventures and the vision of Invisible to intelligently organize all the world's data, reflecting on the major technological business platform envisaged to handle all operational work for companies. The narrative also explores the philosophical and theoretical foundations that drive Pedraza's vision, including the profound impact of Ronald Coase's inquiries on the nature of the firm. VII. The Journey Ahead: The discussion progresses to future aspirations, with a focus on creating insanely great services and a new way to think about and start businesses through the lens of Invisible and its spin-off, Infinity. Pedraza reflects on the importance of alignment between teams, boards, and investors, emphasizing a founder-friendly approach to foster innovation and growth. VIII. Closing Reflections: Pedraza reminisces about the remarkable journey, the lessons learned, and the eternal quest for exploring the unchartered territories of business innovation. The conversation encapsulates a holistic blend of business acumen, philosophical inquiry, and an unyielding spirit to challenge the status quo and create value.

Dr. Lynne Kiesling, author of The Essential Ronald Coase, once again joins host Rosemarie Fike to discuss Ronald Coase, specifically his theory of markets and what exactly prevents them from naturally emerging. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Lynne Kiesling, author of The Essential Ronald Coase, joins host Rosemarie Fike to discuss Ronald Coase, one of the most influential economic thinkers of the 20th century, including his dissection of Price Theory in favour of real market evidence and tenure at the University of Chicago Law School that eventually lead to his Nobel Prize.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Brian J. Robertson is a serial entrepreneur and the creator of Holacracy, a comprehensive practice for governing and running our organizations.Holacracy is an often misunderstood, massively influential social and management system. Yet it is more than that, Brian's goal with Holacracy is to give people a taste of self-governance, personal growth and empowerment to impact society.In this episode, we dive deep into the mind that has nurtured Holacracy and brought it to adoption within 10.000+ organizations worldwide.To start with, Holacracy is a modular, open-source, constitution-based management system with clear rules and management responsibilities. It is not no managers (although it aims to reduce the need for managers), and not no structure.Quite to the contrary, it is more structured. The analogy Brian uses is the emergent order market-based order vs. top-down planning. Markets come up with better, more adapted, and more fit-for-purpose sets of rules, institutions, and regulations.Brian solves for me a tension I thought about for a long time: why is it that firms in a competitive market-based system are run to a large degree by central planners?A key answer of mine we discussed is Ronald Coase's "Theory of the Firm" which talks about the planning horizon versus scale efficiency of greater size.Brian's answer is Holacracy. Organizations can be run more like markets and adapt more to tensions as they arise instead of relying too much on top-down decision-making.We discuss Marc Andreessen's reservations against Holacracy, as well as its place in the order of managerial vs. entrepreneurial capitalism, as well as how it steers organizations towards "Antifragility", a term coined by Nassim Taleb.Holacracy is more than a management system. It can be a guide to personal growth and consciousness.Not coincidentally, Brian is currently working as well on starting a psychedelic church by using some clever legal engineering in a Stranded Technologies-like fashion.This is a rich episode and will give you an appreciation for the concept of Holacracy and how it can supercharge your organization and your personal growth.Join us for upcoming events: https://lu.ma/infinitaInfinita Website: https://infinitavc.com/

Why do firms do some activities “in house” and contract out others? British-American economist Ronald Coase gave a cogent explanation in a classic 1937 paper on the nature of the firm. Show host Gene Tunny explains to his colleague Tim Hughes how Coase's insights (e.g. the concept of transaction costs) can be applied to understand the actions of an Australian construction firm Hutchinson's deciding to employ people to do concrete formwork rather than relying on subcontractors. Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored. What's covered in EP181Episode topic: What determines what activities a business does in house? [0:06]What is formwork and why does it matter? [3:29]Hutchinson's moves to bring formwork in house [8:54]When is it important to have an in-house workforce in your firm [14:42]Why you don't always contract out [20:00]What's done in house and what's outsourced? [25:03]Gig economy platforms (e.g. UpWork) [33:02]A closer look at The nature of the firm by Ronald Coase [40:56]Links relevant to the conversationCourier-Mail article on Hutchinson's decision to do its own formwork:https://www.couriermail.com.au/business/citybeat/hard-labour-hutchies-plan-to-survive-building-crisis/news-story/e3b8acc34728e49cc04d0c4b88bafc8dRonald Coase's classic article on the nature of the firm:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.xAmerican Express article on pros and cons of hiring versus outsourcing:https://www.americanexpress.com/en-us/business/trends-and-insights/articles/pros-cons-hiring-house-vs-outsourcing/CreditsThanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show's sponsor, Gene's consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

"I politici e i burocrati non sono diversi dal resto di noi. Essi tenteranno di sfruttare al massimo gli incentivi che gli si presentano, proprio come tutti gli altri" - James BuchananNato nel Tennessee nel 1919, James M. Buchanan fu un ricercatore di grande creatività, che ha dato contributi di grande rilievo alle scienze sociali. Egli incominciò studiando la finanza pubblica: il modo in cui si finanzia lo Stato. Questi studi gli fecero incrociare la tradizione degli economisti italiani, da Francesco Ferrara e Vilfredo Pareto alla scienza delle finanze, appunto, da cui trasse l'idea che si potesse usare la cassetta degli attrezzi dell'economia per comprendere la politica.Con Buchanan quelle idee trovarono sistematizzazione nella cosiddetta public choice, l'economia delle scelte pubbliche.Buchanan tentò di dare anche una sua risposta alla questione capitale di quale sia il buon ordine politico, sottolineando l'importanza (in linea con la tradizione liberale) di regole di rango costituzionale difficilmente aggirabili nella gestione del settore pubblico a scapito degli interessi comuni ed individuali. Insignito del Premio Nobel nel 1986, Buchanan ci ha lasciato degli strumenti analitici ancora del tutto attuali anche rispetto ai fenomeni politici dei nostri giorni.Protagonista:Lisa KinspergherOspite:Luigi Curini, professore di Scienza politica presso l'Università degli Studi di MilanoConsigli di lettura:‘Un potenziale della tirannia nella politica come scienza'; ‘Scelta Sociale: democrazia e liberi mercati', in Stato, Mercato e Libertà, di James M. Buchanan, il Mulino, 2006 https://www.libraccio.it/libro/9788815108739/james-m.-buchanan/stato-mercato-e-liberta.html Democracy and Decision. The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference, di G. Brennan and L. Lomasky, Cambridge University Press, 1997 https://www.amazon.it/Democracy-Decision-Theory-Electoral-Preference/dp/0521585244I fallimenti dello Stato. Introduzione alla Public choice, di G. Tullock, A. Seldon e G. L. Brady, IBL Libri, 2014https://www.amazon.it/fallimenti-dello-Stato-Introduzione-Public-ebook/dp/B00PD0HRG2Per saperne di più:Tra Stato e mercato. Libertà, impresa e politica nella storia del pensiero economico da Adam Smith a Ronald Coase, a cura di Francesco Pulitini, IBL Libri, 2011https://www.amazon.it/mercato-Libert%C3%A0-politica-pensiero-economico/dp/8864400400 The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan in 20 vols, LibertyFund, 1999-2002https://oll.libertyfund.org//title/tollison-the-collected-works-of-james-m-buchanan-in-20-vols

Max Borders is an author and public intellectual. He wrote books like "The Social Singularity" and "After Collapse". He is also Executive Director at Social Evolution, a non-profit organization dedicated to solving social problems through innovation.We start the conversation by discussing competitive governance and using "exit" to improve existing institutions. Max views existing institutions as increasingly ossifying due to their monopolistic nature coupled with high switching costs.This DOS operating system is holding back humans from technological and spiritual progress. For example, the "welfare-warfare" state has increasingly replaced mutual aid organizations and thereby outsourced community care.We further talk about how both centralizing and decentralizing pressures influence how large organizations become (Ronald Coase's "theory of the firm"), the concept of holacracy, and how alternative forms of governance such as DAOs (digital autonomous organizations) provide a useful avenue for experimentation. Towards the end, Max talks about his new project of a "Shadow Constitution" that's taking the work of Balaji Srinivasan's "The Network State" further. Max plans to provide the "ought" to Balaji's "is".Infinita Linktree: https://linktr.ee/infinitavc

Se un economista decidesse di studiare i cavalli, non andrebbe ad osservarli. Si metterebbe comodo nel suo studio e comincerebbe col chiedersi: “cosa farei io se fossi un cavallo?” - Ronald CoaseRonald Coase ebbe una vita lunga e straordinariamente produttiva. Nato nel 1910, morì nel 2013, all'età di 103 anni. Studiò alla London School of Economics, subendo l'influenza di Arnold Plant ed Edwin Cannan. Erano gli anni '30 e Coase esordì pubblicando “La natura dell'impresa” (1937), in cui esaminava a fondo le argomentazioni sull'allocazione dei fattori produttivi che provenivano sia dal campo liberale che da quello socialista. I successivi lavori di Coase saranno appunto dedicati a spiegare il perché l'impresa esiste, e a partire da questa indagine egli definirà dei concetti allora totalmente inediti, ma destinati a diventare basilari nell'analisi economica: la definizione dei costi di transazione e la teoria del costo sociale. Questi passaggi decisamente innovativi e rivoluzionari valsero a Ronald Coase l'assegnazione del premio Nobel per l'economia nel 1991. Fu sempre un economista empirico, nella tradizione di due grandi che molto ammirava: Adam Smith ed Alfred Marshall (di cui voleva scrivere una biografia). Pochi mesi prima di morire pubblicò, con Ning Wang, un libro illuminante per spiegare la transizione della Cina verso l'economia di mercato, tema al quale aveva dedicato gli ultimi anni di studio. Protagonista: Lisa KinspergherOspite:Carlo Stagnaro, Direttore Ricerche e Studi IBLConsigli di lettura:·“Ronald Coase, l'economista pragmatico” (2011), di Carlo Stagnaro, Occasional Paper IBL n.80, https://www.brunoleoni.it/op-80-ronald-coase-l-economista-pragmatico·“Impresa, Mercato e Diritto” (2006) di Ronald Coase, il Mulino https://www.amazon.it/Impresa-mercato-diritto-Ronald-Coase/dp/8815108726 ·“Tra Stato e Mercato” (2011) a cura di Francesco Pulitini, IBL Lbirihttps://www.brunoleoni.it/tra-stato-e-mercato-33 ·“Sull'economia e gli economisti” (2016) di Ronald Coase, IBL Librihttps://www.brunoleoni.it/sull-economia-e-gli-economisti ·Come la Cina è diventata un paese capitalista (2014) di Ronald Coase e Ning Wang, IBL Librihttps://www.brunoleoni.it/come-la-cina-232;-diventata-un-paese-capitalista Per saperne di più:·“The Essential Ronald Coase” (2021) di Lynne Kiesling, Fraser Institutehttps://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/essential-ronald-coase ·“Forever Contemporary” (2015) di Cento Veljanovski, Institute of Economic Affairshttps://iea.org.uk/publications/research/forever-contemporary-the-economics-of-ronald-coase

Today I'm joined by Shreyas, co-founder of Llama. Llama is a community that works with the most respected DAOs in the world, including Uniswap, Aave, ENS, Gitcoin, MakerDAO, Nouns, and more. Llama's contributors work together to provide engineering, treasury management, and analytics services to these protocol DAOs. In this conversation, Shreyas explains the ins-and-outs of Llama's organizational structure. We discuss how blockchains enable a new way to organize laborers, which he calls a Contributor DAO, through the lens of his article on Ronald Coase's theory of the firm. Very few people have experience making successful proposals to such a broad range of high quality protocol DAOs. It was a pleasure speaking with Shreyas. I hope you enjoy the show. Topics Discussed - Llama - Llama on Twitter - Coase in the 21st Century: Building A Contributor DAO by Shreyas Hariharan - Llama Aave proposal

Today we're joined by Tracheopteryx - or Trach - Pioneer of decentralized governance, operations, and compensation systems. Trach is co-founder of Coordinape and previous contributor to yearn finance.   In this conversation, we delve into what DAOs are and why the future lies in this framework. We also talk about the connection between ownership and decision making, striving for a 'trustless' infrastructure, why we might not see companies like Apple or Google 'go DAO' soon, the role of six-person teams - and why everyone working on DAOs are in essence collaborating on a creating a greater pie.   A full transcript of the episode can be found on our website: https://boundaryless.io/podcast/tracheopteryx/   Key highlights  We discussed: > What DAOs are and what key differences with corporate governance  > Trustless mechanisms and the Blockchain > How likely existing traditional players are to embrace DAOs > What we mean by the word 'trustless' > How non-developers can get involved with DAOs projects   To find out more about Trach's work: > Twitter: https://twitter.com/tracheopteryx  > Website: https://coordinape.com/    Other references and mentions: > Compensation in DAOs with Tracheopteryx on the Collectively Intelligent Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/compensation-in-daos-with-tracheopteryx/id1577798978?i=1000538952056  > Helium: https://www.helium.com/technology   > Colony: distributed organizations that actually work - with Aron Fischer and Jack du Rose: https://boundaryless.io/podcast/colony/   > Moving beyond coin voting governance by Vitalik Buterin: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/08/16/voting3.html  > Blue Sky Project: https://blueskyweb.xyz/  > Thirsty Thirsty: https://www.thirstythirsty.org/   > Ronald Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 1937: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x  Find out more about the show and the research at Boundaryless at https://boundaryless.io/resources/podcast/   Thanks for the ad-hoc music to Liosound / Walter Mobilio. Find his portfolio here: https://boundaryless.io/podcast-music   Recorded on 3 June 2022.

durée : 00:04:00 - Le Pourquoi du comment : économie et social - par : Laurence Scialom - Toute transaction entraîne des coûts qui varient en fonction de la nature de la transaction, mais aussi selon la façon dont elle s'organise.

TIEMPO DE DESAFIOS CON JORGE RUSELER: ANALISIS POLITICO Y ECONOMICO. QUE PLANIFICA JUNTOS POR EL CAMBIO PARA EL 2023. Las naciones avanzan y se desarrollan asegurando las reglas de cooperación y la confianza de contratar compitiendo. Sin imposiciones ni alteraciones arbitrarias de las condiciones pactadas. Esa revelación prevalece en países poblados por apenas el 18% de la humanidad y obtiene el 63% del PBI mundial. Desde hace tiempo, aprendimos que las personas saben mejor que nadie sus necesidades; pujan por valorar sus habilidades particulares; y cualquier interferencia caprichosa empobrece, comprueban las mediciones económicas y el avance de la indigencia. El hallazgo de las transacciones privadas es que cada parte gana en la medida que satisfaga apetitos ajenos. El interés por lo propio impulsa satisfacer a otros. La interacción de la especialización y competencia impulsa las destrezas individuales valorizando los ingresos. En contraste, partido el acuerdo del interés compartido, sancionado en la Constitución, la Argentina se empobrece rápidamente, respecto de los otros países. A pesar de las declaraciones, los funcionarios subvierten el orden constitucional en procura de sus intereses particulares, hasta la desesperación por pérdidas de poder y situaciones legales anticipadas. Expropian, imponen gastos, controlan precios, subsidian, emplean, cargan impuestos, corrompen según quién sea. El hallazgo de las transacciones privadas es que cada parte gana en la medida que satisfaga apetitos ajenos Los grandes maestros del rol del conocimiento en la sociedad, los Premio Nobel Friedrich Hayek, Ronald Coase, Vernon Smith y Olivier Williamson, focalizan en el encuadre institucional que favorece el intercambio de información y la confianza de contratar. La base son las prácticas y acuerdos requeridos por los participantes. Reglas de comportamientos y medidas aceptadas, incluyendo idiomas, moral, estándares de mediciones, léase el sistema métrico decimal, la moneda de las cuentas, la defensa de las propiedades y de las vidas individuales, detallo en el libro “Fin de la Pobreza”, prologado por Ricardo López Murphy. Cuanto más parejas las normas y las medidas para todas las personas, mayor el consenso logrado y la confianza en las transacciones. Los argentinos reclaman por la escasez de dólares. El Gobierno desconoce que faltan divisas porque las expropia. En efecto, los funcionarios mandan que todos los dólares cobrados por exportaciones, capitales, servicios, sean cedidos al precio dictado por el BCRA. Una verdadera expropiación violatoria de la Constitución.

Are tech giants such as Google, Amazon, or Facebook dangerous? Do they have too much power? Dive into the murky waters of antitrust as Michael Munger of Duke University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about monopoly, antitrust policy, and competition in the 21st century.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The internet makes it easier to cooperate, that's the problem, published by David Hugh-Jones on April 19, 2022 on LessWrong. The internet makes it easier to cooperate. That is a simple way to explain what is happening to our society and politics. Internet technology has progressed by adding layers. In the 1970s, the Internet itself let different computers anywhere in the world communicate with each other. In the 1990s, the World Wide Web added a layer on top of this, which let humans publish their ideas on a web page. In the 2000s social media added new layers, allowing people to reply to each other, share information with their friends, and upvote what they liked. Other apps link these capacities to the offline world. On Kickstarter, people can coordinate to provide seed funding for firms or projects. On Meetup, they can pick a time and place to meet physically. NextDoor links online conversation to real-world neighbourhoods. A unifying theme of many of these new layers is: they make it easier for people to come together to solve problems. There's no reason to think this process is finished. For example, we still don't yet have truly convenient ways to pay each other. It's easy to pay a company, yes, but not yet trivial for any two people to make a payment via a phone. Apple is moving in that direction. Cryptocurrencies are payment systems that do an end run around State fiat currencies. Easy payments will yet further extend people's ability to cooperate. If this all sounds cheerful, why then is politics so chaotic and troubled? 1. Cooperation is not always socially good. 2. Making cooperation technically easier still only allows some people, not everyone, to cooperate. Cooperation benefits the cooperators, by definition. But it often does so at outsiders' expense. Cartels cooperate to fix prices. This transfers money from consumers' pockets to theirs, and as a bonus has deadweight costs which just make everyone worse off. People can cooperate to threaten violence: states originated as gangs cooperating to dominate others and/or defend against other gangs. Or they can cooperate to lobby politicians for policy changes that benefit them. Mancur Olson (a hero of mine) thinks of politics as an arena which is intrinsically biased towards small groups who are capable of cooperating. As my PhD supervisor used to say: the European Union has a Meat Producers' Association, but no Meat Eaters' Association. If the internet made it easier for everyone to cooperate, point 1 wouldn't matter. When everyone has a place at the table, people can always agree on a solution that's best for everyone, as Ronald Coase pointed out. This is the techno-utopian vision of the internet as a vast collective brain which argues its way to the best possible world. But there are many reasons why cooperation is hard, and the internet only fixes some of them. It makes it technically easier to cooperate, by making communication and contracting easier. As a result, the internet benefits those groups for whom only the technical constraints were binding. Relatively, it disadvantages other groups. Who wins when you unbind the technological constraint? Numerous, geographically diffuse, ideologically united groups. Numerous groups win because before, it was too hard for them to communicate. Small groups — oligopolists, government ministries, the people who meet at Davos — could already work face-to-face. Today, legislatures find it easier to cooperate against executives. I've been surprised by how hard a ride Boris Johnson has had in Parliament, not because he doesn't deserve it, but because previous governments with 80-seat majorities have essentially had the whip hand. Now, backbenchers with a grievance can work together much more easily: any WhatsApp group can start a rebellion. For the same reason, geogra...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The internet makes it easier to cooperate, that's the problem, published by David Hugh-Jones on April 19, 2022 on LessWrong. The internet makes it easier to cooperate. That is a simple way to explain what is happening to our society and politics. Internet technology has progressed by adding layers. In the 1970s, the Internet itself let different computers anywhere in the world communicate with each other. In the 1990s, the World Wide Web added a layer on top of this, which let humans publish their ideas on a web page. In the 2000s social media added new layers, allowing people to reply to each other, share information with their friends, and upvote what they liked. Other apps link these capacities to the offline world. On Kickstarter, people can coordinate to provide seed funding for firms or projects. On Meetup, they can pick a time and place to meet physically. NextDoor links online conversation to real-world neighbourhoods. A unifying theme of many of these new layers is: they make it easier for people to come together to solve problems. There's no reason to think this process is finished. For example, we still don't yet have truly convenient ways to pay each other. It's easy to pay a company, yes, but not yet trivial for any two people to make a payment via a phone. Apple is moving in that direction. Cryptocurrencies are payment systems that do an end run around State fiat currencies. Easy payments will yet further extend people's ability to cooperate. If this all sounds cheerful, why then is politics so chaotic and troubled? 1. Cooperation is not always socially good. 2. Making cooperation technically easier still only allows some people, not everyone, to cooperate. Cooperation benefits the cooperators, by definition. But it often does so at outsiders' expense. Cartels cooperate to fix prices. This transfers money from consumers' pockets to theirs, and as a bonus has deadweight costs which just make everyone worse off. People can cooperate to threaten violence: states originated as gangs cooperating to dominate others and/or defend against other gangs. Or they can cooperate to lobby politicians for policy changes that benefit them. Mancur Olson (a hero of mine) thinks of politics as an arena which is intrinsically biased towards small groups who are capable of cooperating. As my PhD supervisor used to say: the European Union has a Meat Producers' Association, but no Meat Eaters' Association. If the internet made it easier for everyone to cooperate, point 1 wouldn't matter. When everyone has a place at the table, people can always agree on a solution that's best for everyone, as Ronald Coase pointed out. This is the techno-utopian vision of the internet as a vast collective brain which argues its way to the best possible world. But there are many reasons why cooperation is hard, and the internet only fixes some of them. It makes it technically easier to cooperate, by making communication and contracting easier. As a result, the internet benefits those groups for whom only the technical constraints were binding. Relatively, it disadvantages other groups. Who wins when you unbind the technological constraint? Numerous, geographically diffuse, ideologically united groups. Numerous groups win because before, it was too hard for them to communicate. Small groups — oligopolists, government ministries, the people who meet at Davos — could already work face-to-face. Today, legislatures find it easier to cooperate against executives. I've been surprised by how hard a ride Boris Johnson has had in Parliament, not because he doesn't deserve it, but because previous governments with 80-seat majorities have essentially had the whip hand. Now, backbenchers with a grievance can work together much more easily: any WhatsApp group can start a rebellion. For the same reason, geogra...

Michele Zanini is the co-author of the Wall Street Journal Bestseller, Humanocracy. He is the co-founder of the Management Lab, where together with Gary Hamel, he helps forward-thinking organizations become more resilient, innovative and engaging places to work. Michele was previously a senior consultant at McKinsey & Company and a policy analyst at the RAND Corporation. His work has been featured in The Economist, Harvard Business Review, the Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Michele joins the show to discuss how organizations have become so overburdened by bureaucracy and why new organizational models like those developed at Haier and Morningstar can be seen as socially dense markets. Tune in to this episode as we explore Industrial Age contracts, scalable freedom, the open source software movement and the continued need for management innovation. A full transcript of the episode can be found on our website: https://boundaryless.io/podcast/michele-zanini-2/      Key highlights we discussed: > Use case of overcoming bureaucracy and the authoritarian nature of organizations > The benefits of socially dense markets > Why freedom and control don't have to be trade-offs > The cultural reliance on hierarchical organizations > The need to consider management model innovation for the 21st century      To find out more about Michele's work:   > Twitter: https://twitter.com/michelezanini    > Website: https://www.humanocracy.com/    Other references and mentions:   > Simone Cicero, ‘Contracts and the Future of the Firm', 2021: https://stories.platformdesigntoolkit.com/contracts-and-the-future-of-the-firm-3faf6ef27320  > Ronald Coase, The Nature of the Firm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm  > Buurtzorg: https://www.buurtzorg.com/ > Apache foundation: https://www.apache.org/    Find out more about the show and the research at Boundaryless at https://boundaryless.io/resources/podcast/   Thanks for the ad-hoc music to Liosound / Walter Mobilio. Find his portfolio here: https://boundaryless.io/podcast-music   Recorded on 22 February 2022.

Global Policy Watch: Who’s Afraid Of Stakeholder Capitalism?Insights on global issues of the day- RSJSometime in late 2019, Alan Jope, chief executive of Unilever, the global food and cosmetics giant, declared that brands without an evangelical purpose of contributing to society will soon face extinction. As the Guardian reported then:Alan Jope, Unilever’s chief executive, said it was no longer enough for consumer goods companies to sell washing powders that make shirts whiter or shampoos that make hair shinier because consumers wanted to buy brands that have a “purpose” too.“Can these brands figure out how to make society or the planet better in a way that lasts for decades?” said Jope, outlining the company’s thinking. Unilever is not working to a set timetable but Jope, who took over from Paul Polman in January, said it was possible that a brand or even whole product category “is not going to be able to find its purpose”.His comments raised the possibility of the company selling off profitable brands, potentially hurting the bottom line, but Jope said: “Principles are only principles if they cost you something.”This looked good. I mean we all want businesses to have more social responsibility. Here was a CEO willing to take a long view of what’s good for society and let go of short-term gains. How are things going for Alan Jope now? Well, here’s Nils Prately writing in the Guardian last week:Unilever is frustrating its shareholders. Last year’s stock market “rally in everything” bypassed the consumer goods giant entirely. The shares fell by a tenth and, at £39.42, stand roughly at their level of five years ago, soon after the group adopted a supposedly energising cost-cutting and deal-making overhaul in response to its close encounter with Kraft Heinz’s financial engineers. Perhaps, the most entertaining rebuke came from fund manager Terry Smith:“Unilever seems to be labouring under the weight of a management which is obsessed with publicly displaying sustainability credentials at the expense of focusing on the fundamentals of the business.A company which feels it has to define the purpose of Hellmann’s mayonnaise has in our view clearly lost the plot. The Hellmann’s brand has existed since 1913 so we would guess that by now consumers have figured out its purpose (spoiler alert – salads and sandwiches).”Heh!But this isn’t an isolated instance of a corporation grandstanding on contribution to society as its purpose. And a lot of it is driven by other shareholders who value it more than, say, Terry Smith above. For instance, Blackrock, the world’s biggest investment manager, that owns like seven percent of every public company out there, has made ESG (environmental, social and governance) metrics a priority for their investment decisions. Over the last few years, Larry Fink, the chief executive of Blackrock, has emerged as the most influential voice on the role of business in driving the sustainability agenda. This has meant Blackrock cutting back its investments in enterprises that are seen to be bad for environment and sustainability. But this has not been without a backlash. The Republicans and their supporters see this another sign of ‘wokeism’ dominating business agenda. The more left leaning wing of Democratic party feel this is all lip service and Blackrock is not doing enough to push sustainability. There’s also the usual chorus about should it be elected lawmakers who must drive this or an unelected powerful businessman regardless of their good intentions? Plus, there’s been the usual unintended consequences. The throttling of investments into thousands of firms that have business models that still leech off environment while being hugely profitable has increased the spreads on their bonds giving an opportunity to other investors to profit. Also, with so much investments going into ESG, some sort of a ‘green asset bubble’ has been formed with businesses of all stripes positioning themselves as green and sustainable to free ride into billion-dollar valuations. These things usually end up badly for everyone. So, in his latest annual letter to CEOs titled ‘The Power of Capitalism’, Larry Fink seems to suggest he’s moderating things a bit. He starts off in the usual fashion defending the focus on stakeholder capitalism (i.e., thinking beyond shareholder profits):Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not “woke.” It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper. This is the power of capitalism. He continues with his call for net-zero goals and finding a purpose beyond profits but there’s a subtle shift in tone:In today’s globally interconnected world, a company must create value for and be valued by its full range of stakeholders in order to deliver long-term value for its shareholders. It is through effective stakeholder capitalism that capital is efficiently allocated, companies achieve durable profitability, and value is created and sustained over the long-term. Make no mistake, the fair pursuit of profit is still what animates markets; and long-term profitability is the measure by which markets will ultimately determine your company’s success.Purpose Of CapitalWe talk about the role of capital often here. What purpose must it serve in society? How should policies be drafted to channel it for all round, sustainable progress? These aren’t new questions. Adam Smith mulled over it. Marx wrote a whole book thinking about it in ways that were original and revolutionary. That they were fundamentally unsound is a different thing. Unpaid labour is not the source of surplus value in capitalism, like he thought. There was a pause in thinking about capital in a deeper way during the first half of the 20th century. The two world wars and the great depression created the field of macroeconomics that concerned itself with questions of managing the national economy. The early Austrian school economists went the other way in thinking about the micro - a rational individual, her utility from a product or a service and her actions to maximise it. While economic thought about the nature of a firm was around during that time, most notably in the works of Ronald Coase, it wasn’t mainstream. Only in the 60s when American capitalism produced a boom rarely seen before in history did economists turn their attention to the nature of wealth creation in society and its purpose. Of course, the most famous of the economists among them was Milton Friedman. We have written about Friedman before. After a lot of soul searching, Friedman concluded:“But the doctrine of “social responsibility” taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book “Capitalism and Freedom,” I have called it a “fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society, and have said that in such a society, there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception fraud.”   The role of any business is to maximize shareholder value in a legal way. That’s it. Everything else can be counted as good intentions but will have unanticipated consequences. Shareholder value maximisation, on the other hand, checks all the boxes of a good metric for three reasons.A simple and measurable metric: The shareholder value maximisation goal is easy to set and monitor. It helps that there is a common understanding of the metric. The alternatives are amorphous. It is difficult to understand what does maximising societal value entail, for instance. Who will define what society wants? Are societal objectives of India and the US similar?Rewarding the risk-takers: The shareholders invest risk capital in an enterprise. This willingness to take risk is what leads entrepreneurs to build new products, satisfy the consumers and create new jobs. The shareholders deserve the pursuit of maximum return by the firms for this risk they undertake. It is up to them what they do with these returns. They can invest it in newer enterprises or use it to improve society as they deem fit. The management or anyone else should have no claim on how to invest the returns that belong to the shareholders.Shareholders are the residual claimants: Everyone who contributes to the value creation of an enterprise – the employees, the management team and the customers – get their fixed claim on the value through compensation for their efforts, stock options and the value derived from the products or services offered by the enterprise. Whatever is left is for the shareholder. Only when these fixed claimants are served well, the value for the residual claimant (the shareholder) is maximised. So, the pursuit of shareholder value will by itself serve the other stakeholders well.Doing One Thing WellThe Global Financial Crisis (GFC) wasn’t good for the Friedman doctrine. The massive ‘financialisation’ of business, the loosely regulated nature of financial markets which allowed for the excesses and the bailouts which saved those who had brought about the crisis were seen to be a product of Friedman’s profit maximisation philosophy. Since then controlling free markets and unbridled capitalism as ideas have found favour in most capitalistic societies. More so among the young. And in the last few years, we have had ESG added into the mix. Corporations are now supposed to do things that will serve the interest of the environment and sustainability in the long run. It sounds good and who can argue with it. But like all good intentions, it is hard to implement and runs the risk of doing just the opposite. One, beyond profit maximisation, the shareholders will have heterogenous objectives and time horizons for their investment. The definition of what’s good for humanity will be amorphous among them. Should a company increase its costs of production by adopting ‘green’ practices and make losses in the next five years in the hope that it will eventually make more profits in the long run because of this shift? Will all shareholders reward the management for this? Seems quite unlikely. Some shareholders will have shorter time horizons. Others will disagree on what’s truly ‘green’ and a few might even ask if climate change is for real. Two, the management which is the agent of the shareholders running the business has an incentive to have shareholders with ambiguous objectives. The classic management defence for short-term underperformance is we are building things for the long run. Nothing is more long-run than saving the earth seen from the perspective of the management annual performance cycle. The more ESG pressure that shareholders bring about on the management, the easier it is for them to include the long-term indeterminate objective of saving the earth in explaining their decisions and performance. There is already a danger that a lot of management teams have embraced this notion of purpose (like for mayonnaise) for performative reasons. They know talking ESG is good for the stock in the short term. Or, there is an incentive to explain away their lack of near-term performance to the pivot of being ESG friendly. Neither is good for society.Three, the core management problem in an enterprise is how to allocate capital among the many competing priorities in an enterprise. This is a prioritisation problem that takes a lot of skills to get right - understanding the financial returns of different products and markets, anticipation trends in consumer behaviour, figuring out competitors and regulatory environment. Managers spend their careers learning to get this right. Most fail in the long run which is why corporate mortality is so high - maybe 10 companies or fewer have survived among the top 100 U.S. enterprises from about 50 years ago. Now to burden them with a variable that’s not just difficult to quantify or predict but also is freighted with political and personal beliefs will only make decision making more difficult. More likely than not they will get it wrong. It is for these reasons Friedman’s doctrine remains the most elegant and practical way for firms to pursue its objectives that deliver the most value to society. For Friedman, enterprises in a competitive market pursuing shareholder maximisation will do well for society. The policymakers should work on frameworks that create the right incentives for shareholders and the management to do so while serving the long-term interests of the society. The management then works within it. It isn’t for the management or for the shareholders to optimise for objectives beyond that. The shareholders can take those returns and do what they believe is best for the society based on their beliefs. Somewhere in that Fink annual letter is a muted acceptance of this idea. PolicyWTF: One Person, One Hand BagThis section looks at egregious public policies. Policies that make you go: WTF, Did that really happen? - RSJ This caught my attention yesterday (from the Business Standard). Yes, there’s a guideline to enforce one handbag rule as cabin baggage in flights. In a memo, BCAS (Bureau of Civil Airport Security - who knew there was this too?) said: “It has been seen that an average passenger carries 2-3 hand bags to the screening point. This has led to increased clearance time as well as delays, congestion and inconvenience to passengers. It is, therefore, felt that enforcement of the aforesaid circulars must be ensured by all stakeholders,” it added. Like those hold-all bags my family used to carry during rail travel in three-tier compartments, there’s a lot to unpack here. Congestion has been a problem for long in Indian airports. In fact, the pandemic has meant lower congestion than usual. So, how did this problem and this solution present itself to the Bureau? Here’s the answer from the same report:People aware of the development said a few parliamentarians had complained to Civil Aviation Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia regarding congestion at security checks. Following that, the regulator was asked to implement steps to ease congestion.“We had a meeting with the representatives of airlines and have told them to impose the rule. It takes more time to clear multiple bags,” the security agency said. Ah! Few parliamentarians complained. I’m unsure if they were held up because of congestion because there’s usually a separate VIP channel in all Indian airports. Maybe the number of VIPs have proliferated to such an extent now that there’s congestion in that queue too. It ain’t easy to be a VIP these days. Anyway, the solution that we have come up is two-fold. Quoting the report again:“All airlines and airport operators may be instructed to take steps to implement ‘One Hand Bag rule’ meticulously on ground to ease out the congestion and other security concerns. Airlines may be made responsible and depute staff to guide passengers and check and verify their hand bag status before allowing the passenger for pre-embarkation security checks, “ the memo added.And the second solution:Besides, airlines were also asked to change flight timings so that too many flights don’t arrive or depart around the same time to prevent overcrowding at airports. However, the idea was dropped after airlines opposed this saying changing flight timings in between an ongoing schedule will not leave flexibility and force them to cancel flights, leading to chaos.Thankfully, the second solution was dropped. On to the first solution about enforcing the one-bag rule strictly. So, what will people do? They will be forced to check in their luggage to comply with this. And that will mean the baggage check-in queues will be congested which takes even more time than the security check queue. This is the Indian flyover solution. Build a flyover to solve for congestion and soon realise the congestion hasn’t eased. It has only moved to another location. What about the real solutions? Like thinking about better queue management processes, figuring out queuing patterns during different hours of the day and week based on data and planning capacity to manage the peaks or increasing the capacity for security checks - there’s not a word on these.It is a chhota story. But it has everything that you need to know about public policy in India. India Policy Watch: The Problem with ProtectionismInsights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthanePolicy success, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. One such policy success that’s been talked about a lot of late is the increase in mobile phone production in India. The narrative underlying the success is that through a prudent mix of protectionism and industrial policy instruments, India has been able to reduce its mobile phone dependence on other countries, particularly China. This deemed policy success is now being seen as the playbook for many other manufacturing sectors such as electric vehicles and pharmaceuticals. For instance, see this excerpt from Nilesh Shah and Pankaj Tibrewal’s article titled The mobile phone sector has lessons for India’s economy:“We were one of the largest consumers of mobile phones in 2014. In 2014-15, our mobile phone imports exceeded $8 billion. Our electronics imports were threatening to exceed our oil imports. The government took many steps like 100 per cent automatic FDI, levy of import duties to protect local manufacturers, the Phased Manufacturing Plan (PMP), manufacturing clusters (EMC 2.0) and the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme. Despite some execution challenges on the ground, these steps have developed our mobile phone manufacturing base. They have attracted investments, created lakhs of jobs, and have moved us from being a net importer to a net exporter.Our mobile phone manufacturing value has jumped more than eight times from Rs 0.27 trillion in 2013-14 to Rs 2.2 trillion in 2020-21. Samsung runs the world’s single-largest location mobile handset manufacturing plant in Uttar Pradesh. We have surpassed the US and South Korea to become the second-largest manufacturer globally.” [Indian Express, Jan 20] Impressive, isn’t it? By now, you already know there’s going to be a “but” somewhere. So here it is.Judging a policy based only on the benefits it brings is possibly the most common mistake in policy discussions. To understand the complete picture, we also need to analyse the costs.What about the Costs?Of the policy instruments used, allowing 100 per cent FDI through the automatic route is an unequivocally positive step. And we have dealt at length with the promise and perils of the mushrooming PLI schemes in editions 86, 118, and 153.In this edition, we will limit the discussion to the third instrument in the armour: increasing import tariffs. The modus operandi seems to be somewhat like this. Through the Phased Manufacturing Program (PMP), the government increases import duties on final consumer products such as mobiles, chargers etc. This leads to import substitution because products assembled in India (even with imported parts) start to become cost-comparable to the duty-levied imports. Every year, the government keeps adding new products to this PMP list, with the objective of increasing the number of final goods that are assembled in India. The final aim and hope is that these assembly units will become the nuclei for a complete manufacturing ecosystem over time. No, the costs of this strategy are being borne by two sets of Indians. The first losers are all consumers. Higher import duties mean that mobile phone prices have been increasing. The absolute increase isn’t alarming at first sight, to be frank. But electronics prices commonly fall sharply with improving technology, and that has certainly not happened for phones over the last five years. Vivek Kaul has explained the cascading effect of this price rise here:When an individual spends more on something, she cuts down on expenditure in some other area. Given this, if one business benefits due to protectionism, another business or other businesses, lose out in the process. It’s just that this is not so obvious in the first place and hence, is the unseen effect of protectionism.Second, the Indian manufacturers themselves have been under the pump because of rising tariffs for mobile phone parts. The lure of protectionism is such that it quickly spreads from final products to intermediate inputs. Soon, it was felt that not just mobile phone makers but domestic manufacturers of camera modules and connectors should also be ‘protected’. The result — not surprisingly — the import duties are now negating all the benefits provided under the PLI schemes. Manufacturers are still unable to compete in export markets because the parts they import have become costlier. A recent comparative study analysing import tariff regimes of India, Thailand, Vietnam, China, and Mexico puts this well.The main difference in their policy approach is the tariff policy of India compared to others. India has relied heavily on higher tariffs whereas other countries have not done so. Higher tariffs orient the approach of investors and domestic producers away from global markets and towards the domestic market. Notably the exports for India compared with others have remained low as has been examined in this report.This is a crucial point. While the various incentives and protectionism has been successful to the extent that imports of phones have reduced, we are still far away from becoming a competitive exporter. Have a look at this chart I made from government data on mobile exports.As you can see, India’s mobile phone exports fell sharply from FY15 to FY18 with increasing tariffs. Though exports in absolute terms have picked up in the last three years, mobile phones as a share of India’s total exports is still below what was achieved way back in FY09! Going ahead, India’s domestic market alone (projected to be 8.8% of the global market in FY26) is insufficient to attract more manufacturing here. The ability to competitively export will be a key determinant of policy success going ahead. And for exports to rise, imports tariffs must be brought down.In sum, before copying the mobile phone policy success playbook in other sectors, we must remember that the burden of protectionist policies is borne by the consumers and eventually the manufacturers, both. Protectionism can play spoilsport in India’s hopes of exporting its electric vehicles and mobile phones to the world.HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Podcast] An insightful episode of All Things Policy with MR Sharan on his new book Last Among Equals: Power, Caste & Politics in Bihar’s Villages[Report] An excellent comparative study on tariffs in electronics by ICEA. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

Peter J. Hill is Professor of Economics Emeritus at Wheaton College and a Senior Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, where he currently resides. He joins Garrett on Forgotten America to discuss free-market environmentalism (FME) and the property rights framework he uses to evaluate conservation issues. P.J. also gives us a look back into the truth about the Wild West and whether or not it was really all that wild.    Follow P.J.'s work and the work of PERC at https://www.perc.org/    Rachel Carson's Silent Spring: http://www.rachelcarson.org/SilentSpring.aspx   Learn more about the economist Ronald Coase: https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Coase.html    Read about Terry Anderson at PERC: https://www.perc.org/people/terry-anderson-2/     You can buy the book Free Market Environmentalism for the Next Generation on Amazon.    Edward Abbey was originally discussed in Ep. 021.    The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry Anderson & P.J. Hill    The Foundation for Economic Education teaches about the Knowledge Problem.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------   You can support the Cardinal Institute by donating or following us on social media:    Donate: www.cardinalinstitute.com/donate Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cardinalinstitute Newsletter: www.cardinalinstitute.com/contact YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCosCMp86mjLbf8ZWfE5yS7Q Twitter: @CardinalWV Facebook: /CardinalInstitute/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cardinal-institute-for-wv-policy/ Instagram: @teamcardinalwv  

Economist and author David Henderson talks about his book (co-authored with Steve Globerman) The Essential UCLA School of Economics with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Much of the conversation focuses on the work of Armen Alchian and Harold Demsetz, who both saw economics as a powerful tool for understanding human behavior and how the world works.

Econtalk Podcast Notes Key Takeaways Who's property is the space between passengers on an airplane?“The fight for ownership is over ambiguity”– James SalzmanThis ambiguity is more defined on interpretations of ownership agreements and established social norms between passengers than the actual laws of the airlineThe recline button is the best example: there are no rules by the airline to not recline but rather an ownership agreement between passengers“The language of possession is one that happens almost completely outside the law”– Michael HellerThe norms of ownership have regional accentsOwnership is a remote control for social engineering – the owner of the resource shapes how the consumer gets things and consequently influences consumption behaviorNot all ownership conflicts need to end in polarized ‘I win, you lose' verdictsProperty rights are never static – they fluctuate in the face of scarcity, changes in population, or technological innovationThe new book,Mine!, outlines stories and anecdotes designed to communicate that ownership is more dependent on context and circumstance than lawRead the full notes @ podcastnotes.orgLaw professors Michael Heller and James Salzman talk about their book, Mine! with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Heller and Salzman argue that ownership is trickier and more complicated than it looks. While we tend to think of something as either mine or not mine, there's often ambiguity and a continuum about who owns what. Salzman and Heller explore a wide and surprising range of property rights from everyday life. The conversation includes a discussion of the insights of Ronald Coase on the assignment of property rights when rights conflict.

Econtalk Podcast Notes Key Takeaways Who's property is the space between passengers on an airplane?“The fight for ownership is over ambiguity”– James SalzmanThis ambiguity is more defined on interpretations of ownership agreements and established social norms between passengers than the actual laws of the airlineThe recline button is the best example: there are no rules by the airline to not recline but rather an ownership agreement between passengers“The language of possession is one that happens almost completely outside the law”– Michael HellerThe norms of ownership have regional accentsOwnership is a remote control for social engineering – the owner of the resource shapes how the consumer gets things and consequently influences consumption behaviorNot all ownership conflicts need to end in polarized ‘I win, you lose' verdictsProperty rights are never static – they fluctuate in the face of scarcity, changes in population, or technological innovationThe new book,Mine!, outlines stories and anecdotes designed to communicate that ownership is more dependent on context and circumstance than lawRead the full notes @ podcastnotes.orgLaw professors Michael Heller and James Salzman talk about their book, Mine! with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Heller and Salzman argue that ownership is trickier and more complicated than it looks. While we tend to think of something as either mine or not mine, there's often ambiguity and a continuum about who owns what. Salzman and Heller explore a wide and surprising range of property rights from everyday life. The conversation includes a discussion of the insights of Ronald Coase on the assignment of property rights when rights conflict.

Law professors Michael Heller and James Salzman talk about their book, Mine! with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Heller and Salzman argue that ownership is trickier and more complicated than it looks. While we tend to think of something as either mine or not mine, there's often ambiguity and a continuum about who owns what. Salzman and Heller explore a wide and surprising range of property rights from everyday life. The conversation includes a discussion of the insights of Ronald Coase on the assignment of property rights when rights conflict.

In this week's episode, host Kristin Hayes talks with Penny Liao, a scholar of behavioral and market responses to environmental risk, who joined Resources for the Future as a fellow earlier this month. Liao elaborates on a new working paper she coauthored about how home equity shapes a household's decision to purchase flood insurance. In the end, Liao finds that homeowners with more home equity are especially likely to purchase flood insurance because they do not want to default on their mortgage, while households with highly leveraged mortgages have less incentive to insure against flood risks. References and recommendations: “What's at Stake? Understanding the Role of Home Equity in Flood Insurance Demand” by Penny Liao and Philip Mulder; https://www.rff.org/publications/working-papers/whats-at-stake-understanding-the-role-of-home-equity-in-flood-insurance-demand/ “The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garrett Hardin; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243 “The Problem of Social Cost” by Ronald Coase; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230523210_6 “Bewilderment” by Richard Powers; https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/688002/bewilderment-by-richard-powers/ “The Overstory” by Richard Powers; http://www.richardpowers.net/the-overstory/

Economist Don Boudreaux of George Mason University talks about the pandemic with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Boudreaux argues that a perfect storm of factors created a huge overreaction, including unnecessary lockdowns that accomplished little at a very high cost in physical and emotional health. Instead, Boudreaux argues, we should have focused attention on the population most at risk of dying from COVID--the elderly and especially the elderly with co-morbidities. The conversation includes a discussion of externalities and the insights of Ronald Coase applied to the policies during the pandemic.

Since humans roamed in paleolithic clan groups, humans have arranged themselves in different ways in order to coordinate. New forms of organization continue to emerge to this day. Max Borders and Michael Porcelli have a deeper look at these organizational forms, where they come from, and where they could be going. The hosts peer through the lenses of institutional rules, culture, as well as the technologies that enable different forms. The upshot? Insights about these rapidly evolving forms could be the most important lessons humanity has to learn so as to reckon with the onrush of complexity. Notes: Organization Eight metaphors of organization Hunter-gatherers Prosocial behavior and Eusociality Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society by Nicholas Christakis Paleolithic - the era of hunter-gatherer society Neolithic Revolution - the transition to settled agrarian society Hierarchical organization Institution Constitutional Documents - the legalistic definition of an organization Corporate governance  Capitalization Table Business Entity Types and 501(c)(3) Organization Exogenous and Endogenous Dutch East India Company and British East India Company Juridical Person and Corporate Personhood Carrot and stick Protection racket Profit motive Biological Thermodynamics Entropy Social Organization: The Thermodynamic Basis by Adrian Bejan, et al. How physics explains the evolution of social organization Blood vessels and the Aorta Tree structure Dunbar number Jeff Bezos and Amazon.com The Nature of the Firm by Ronald Coase and Transaction Costs,   Holacracy Property rights Org chart Workplace politics Buck passing Political decay Executive function Decision fatigue Biological bases of conformity Biological cases of hierarchy Employment Organizational structure Visionary entrepreneurship Intrapreneurship Corporate values Processing tensions in holacracy Corporate culture The HP Way Emergent culture Ouja board Peter Drucker Globalization Cultural relativism / pluralism  Metarelating practice Clearing the air Weaving shared reality Diversity, equity, and inclusion “Dismantling” racism at work “Dismantling” patriarchy at work Technical debt and organizational debt Cosmopolitanism Information Technology, Telecommunication, Databases Cryptocurrency and distributed ledger Smart contract Disintermediation Distributed Autonomous Organization (DAO) Forking the code Bitcoin and Ethereum BTC, BCH, BSV Reduced transaction costs Economies of scale Client server model Amazon Web Services Decentralized web Cosmos and Taxis by Friedrich Hayek After Collapse: The End of America and the Rebirth of Her Ideals Economic planning Emergent order Taylorism and Fordism Teal organization Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage in Human Consciousness by Frédéric Laloux

Ostrom explica los procesos temporales en los cuales se ven enfrentadas las comunidades para llegar a acuerdos institucionales que hacen sustentable la extracción de los recursos comunes. De manera secuencial, incremental, las instituciones van cambiando hasta llegar a un equilibrio institucional. El artículo es el discurso que dio Ronald Coase cuando recibió el Nobel. Ahí explica sus dos mayores contribuciones al estudio de la economía y las leyes, la importancia de las instituciones para el funcionamiento correcto de los mercados reduciendo los costos de transacción.

My very first guest is NYU Professor and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, best known for his books The Righteous Mind in 2012 and The Coddling of the American Mind with Greg Luckianoff, in 2018. Jon and I talk about what has been described as a crisis of epistemology -  in the very ways in which we discover and generate knowledge and truth. Why has this epistemic crisis hit so many liberal democracies? What lies behind it, and more importantly, what we can do about it? We discuss why Jon hates twitter; how combining the insights of the 18th century philosopher David Hume and the 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill can give you "social superpowers"; the way Gen-Z has driven a change in the culture of college campuses and subsequently the corporate world; why kids born in 1996 had such "fundamentally different childhoods" to those born in 1990; and what he sees as a "gravitational change" in the information ecosystem from around 2009.  + Here is our Mill for the modern age: All Minus One (2021)  + Some of Haidt's related work: Although Jon doesn't much like Twitter you should still follow him here. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012) The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, with Greg Lukianoff (2018) (Or you can read the Atlantic essay here.) The Dark Psychology of Social Networks, with Tobias Rose-Stockwell, The Atlantic, December 2019 Here's his 2016 Duke lecture on the "Two incompatible sacred values in American universities" (i.e Truth U versus Social Justice U). Also check out Heterodox Academy + Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life by Annette Lareau (2011) Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis by Robert Putnam (2015) Civilization and Its Discontents by Sigmund Freud (1930)  Conversation: How Talk Can Change Our Lives by Theodore Zeldin (2000) “The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas” by Ronald Coase (1974)   The Dialogues Team Creator: Richard Reeves Research: Ashleigh Maciolek Artwork: George Vaughan Thomas Tech Support: Cameron Hauver-Reeves Music: "Remember" by Bencoolen (thanks for the permission, guys!)    

Dr. Mary Shirley is President of the Ronald Coase Institute, a nonprofit organization working to improve knowledge of institutions and to build the capacity of young scholars to analyze and overcome institutional problems in their own countries. Mary has a PhD in economics and has worked for over 30 years in development, including over 20 years as a research manager in the World Bank. She's author of numerous scholarly articles and books on institutional issues and economic development. She's also written on reform of state owned enterprises, including telecom, water, and more.

Jeff Wald, founder and former CEO of WorkMarket, shares his data-rich perspective with authoritative clarity to discuss the evolution of the On-Demand Economy, including the impact of technology, regulation, and the pandemic on its future direction and potential. Jeff considers how new understanding about remote working affects opportunities for on-demand workers, what is the ‘future of the firm’, and the critical issues facing us all with shifting business conditions and labor markets.   TAKEAWAYS   [03:44] A lack of systems and processes was holding back the On-Demand economy.   [04:57] The IRS has a 2-factor test to determine if someone should be classified as an employee or not.   [06:02] Each company has a complicated task to decide relevant criteria for their on-demand workers.   [06:55] Labor force regulation needs simplifying, but there’s zero near-term possibility of it happening.   [07:25] The impact (or continuing uncertainty) resulting from California’s Uber lawsuit conclusion.   [08:36] How regulation-related confusion is causing companies to consider hiring fewer freelancers.   [11:00] How much the On-Demand economy has been going over the last 10 years.   [12:20] Regulation has been hindering growth, but software has helped interpret regulations.   [12:39] Jeff guesses that regulation will shrink the on-demand economy over the next 10 years.   [14:48] Are more companies tapping into the ‘total extended workforce’ strategically?   [17:00] The percentage the remote workforce will grow as a result of COVID19.   [17:31] 42% of the US workforce CAN work from home.   [18:03] Moving on from ‘productivity equals presence’ mindsets.   [19:27] How policies, procedures, and infrastructure changed in March 2020, so that everyone possible could work remotely.   [20:11] Humans are social animals—the ‘Hub and Club’ role of offices in the future.   [21:39] The percentage of people wanting flexible work arrangements going forward.   [23:53] Needing to be more responsive, organizations can adapt the employee/freelancer composition of the workforce.    [24:42] One impetus for WorkMarket was the prediction that firms have small fixed cost kernels with everything else done on-demand.   [25:08] Understanding ‘total talent management’ where companies see all their labor resources together.   [26:08] Job versus income security relating to full-time jobs and on-demand work.   [27:12] How the economic environment might affect workers’ attitudes towards full-time positions.   [30:00] The changing social contract and convergence between full-time and on-demand workers.   [32:05] The depletion of training budgets with responsibility shifting to workers.   [32:49] The COVID19 disruption enabling non-incremental change and crafting new work conditions and practices.   [33:50] The rise of robots means displaced workers and re-skilling—but who owns workers’ training?   [35:15] What the impact of workers getting left behind means for society.   [36:00] Now, the average skill diminishes in four to six years, rather than 30 years.   [38:52] Jeff’s interim full-time gig with the Biden campaign, supporting the democratic process, and the need for Presidential support of the working class and retraining.     [40:31] Jeff’s next entrepreneurial venture—potentially helping companies benefit from staying connected with former employees.   [34:14] IMMEDIATE ACTION TIP: Jeff’s lingering question—'who should own employees’ retraining?’ Until there is a clear answer, be proactive, keep learning, and keep your skills updated!     QUOTES“The tailwind pushing the on-demand economies, people wanting to be more agile. The headwind is regulation pushing the other way.”   “My guess is that regulation wins that fight, and that the on-demand economy shrinks.”   “There is convergence between the part-time or on-demand worker, and the full-time worker.”   “You will see millions of workers that need to be retrained…and as a society we have not done that retraining well, and it’s unclear who should own that training.”   “Everybody has got to constantly be reading and updating and staying in touch with the new stuff, or you will become irrelevant… Everybody’s got to own it in some way on their own.”   RESOURCES Jeff LinkedIn Jeff on Twitter The End of Jobs: The Rise of On-Demand Workers and Agile Corporations by Jeff Wald The Nature of the Firm by Ronald Coase

In this episode, Professor Victor Menaldo and Nicolas Wittstock discuss Capitalisms historical trajectory and the pathbreaking economic expansion of the last 250 years as well as concerns over the current economic performance of industrialized economies. The conversation mentions works by Deirdre McCloskey, James Bessen, Robert Gordon, Haber and Calomiris, Ronald Coase as well as Daron Acemoglu. Produced by Nicolas Wittstock Any questions or feedback, please contact uwpoliticaleconomy@gmail.com

In this episode, the founders and organizers of the UW Political Economy Forum discuss the importance of the scientific method to improve how policymakers make decisions. Professors Rachel Heath, James D. Long and Victor Menaldo discuss how scientific inquiry is conducted in political economy and public policy – the pitfalls of relying on intuition and ideology when deciding on policy – and how to ensure that dysfunctional approaches to solving problems get weeded out. The conversation repeatedly makes references to a recent post on Ronald Coase's contribution to evidence-based policymaking as well as a more general post on the topic by Victor Menaldo. Produced by Nicolas Wittstock Any questions or feedback, please contact uwpoliticaleconomy@gmail.com

David Friedman is one of the pioneering theorists of anarcho-capitalism, as laid out in his book The Machinery of Freedom. In this free-wheeling discussion, he discusses physics versus economics, the work of Ronald Coase, his dad's view of anarchism, and what happened to the SlateStarCodex site. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: The YouTube version of this interview.David Friedman's homepage.David's book The Machinery of Freedom. Heinlein's classic The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. #CommissionsEarned (As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.)David debates Bob at Porcfest on Austrian vs. Chicago School methodology in economics.One of Walter Block's essays on hanging from an apartment flagpole.The website SlateStarCodex and the post Bob mentioned, “You Are Still Crying Wolf,” which defended Trump from accusations of racism. For more information, see BobMurphyShow.com. The Bob Murphy Show is also available on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, and via RSS.

David Friedman is one of the pioneering theorists of anarcho-capitalism, as laid out in his book The Machinery of Freedom. In this free-wheeling discussion, he discusses physics versus economics, the work of Ronald Coase, his dad's view of anarchism, and what happened to the SlateStarCodex site. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: The YouTube version (https://youtu.be/2FpfJregAP4) of this interview. David Friedman's homepage (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/). David's book The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440001358/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=consultingbyr-20&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0440001358&linkId=1db78a9e3317d8baffff007849362ad5). #CommissionsEarned (As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.) David debates Bob at Porcfest (https://youtu.be/l2RByG_vutE) on Austrian vs. Chicago School methodology in economics. One of Walter Block's essays on hanging from an apartment flagpole (https://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2019/13_17.pdf). The website "You Are Still Crying Wolf," (https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/) which defended Trump from accusations of racism. Help support (http://bobmurphyshow.com/contribute) the Bob Murphy Show. The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media (http://podsworth.com/).

In this week’s episode of School of Thought, IEA Research and Academic Director Professor Syed Kamall sits down with Dr Cento Veljanovski, IEA Law and Economics Fellow, to discuss economist Ronald Coase. ‘School of Thought’ is the IEA discussion series based on ‘101 Great Liberal Thinkers’ by Dr Eamonn Butler. Each week, Syed discusses classical liberalism’s role in bringing the modern world into existence, profiling the lives and ideas of some of the leading thinkers on individual liberty and examining their relevance today. '101 Great Liberal Thinkers' is available to download for free on the IEA website - https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads...

On Episode 4 of Loose, Vague, and Indeterminate, Rajee Agrawal joins me as cohost to talk to PhD student Jon Murphy. We ask Jon about his experience teaching introductory economics, international economics, and law and economics. We also discuss the recent Nobel Prize in Economics winners and the prize in general. Jon talks about what economists should do and retells a classic story about Ronald Coase at the University of Chicago.

European countries in the Eastern Bloc were faced with a dilemma after the fall of Soviet Russia. They were tasked with transitioning from a centrally planned economy to a market-based one. That proved more difficult for some than for others. How quickly those countries should make the transition was also a hot topic of debate. Gently nudge the economy along, or rip off the bandage and change everything all at once? Nobel laureate Gary Becker lays out his main reason to fast-track the process, “In any country when you experience rapid change, the window of opportunity to make major changes …

Humans are irrational beings. Choices differ from person to person, and even from lab experiments to the real world. So, with all that differentiation, how can economists expect to understand how market forces will impact the decisions that individuals make? It turns out that most individuals go about making decisions the same way, but the results of these decisions vary wildly. Nobel laureate Gary Becker attempts to explain how that process works, “To me, maximizing utility simply means the following: that consumers can order all the opportunities they have available to them…possible choices. They can order them so they prefer …

Echoing the narrative style of Director Quentin Tarantino, Professor Lawrence H. White delivers an overview of the economic intellectual debates of the 20th century in his book 'Clash of Economic Ideas.' These debates are framed through the lenses of individuals such as Irving Fisher, Rexford Tugwell, Wilhelm Röpke, Ludwig Erhard, George Stigler, Ronald Coase, John Maynard Keynes, F. A. Hayek, and others. What results is a non-linear and captivating historical narrative that offers a refreshing perspective from the roaring twenties and the Great Depression to the Great Inflation and fiscal policy issues of today. CC Music: Twisterium

Today I'm kicking off a new series tentatively called the Not Unreasonable Book club to be co-hosted with Steve Mildenhall (who is running for the board of the Casualty Actuarial Society, so vote for him!). Steve is an assistant professor at St John's University's school of risk management and former head of Analytics at Aon Re. Steve's an all-around smart dude and I'm looking forward to learning from him and hopefully disagreeing once in a while! Books and papers discussed in today's show: On Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society by Richard Posner and Eric Glen Weyl Capitalism without Capital: The Rise of the Intangible Economy by Jonathan Haskell and Stian Westlake The Theory of Risk Bearing: Small and Great Risks by Ken Arrow The Nature of the Firm by Ronald Coase

In the mid-1960s, the University of Virginia had an impressive economics department with scholars such as James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, Ronald Coase, Leland Yeager, and G. Warren Nutter. In 1963, Richard Wagner began his PhD in economics at UVA. What exactly led Richard Wagner to UVA for his graduate studies? What was it like to take classes and work with these notable scholars? Hayek Program scholar Richard Wagner discusses all of this and more with colleague Donald Boudreaux on this episode of the Hayek Program Podcast. CC Music: Twisterium

Veronique de Rugy, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, discusses the lessons learned from intellectual giants in the long-running battle over economic ideas. Economist Milton Friedman's impossible battle for school choice began in 1955, yet today is widely accepted. Friedrich Hayek's 1952 treatise against authoritarian government economic controls that informed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's revolutionary economic policies in Great Britain. Ronald Coase's concept of auctioning the spectrum (thought a joke by the FCC when he testified to it in 1959) became reality under President Clinton in the 1990s. The pattern in these stories is that (a) it takes time to fight the battle of economic (or any other) ideas, (b) it takes tenacity, and (c) it takes patience to win the battles of ideas that continue today with each of us. She closes with advice to today's warriors. Her remarks were recorded at CBLPI's Florida Women's Summit in April 2018.

Veronique de Rugy, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, discusses the lessons learned from intellectual giants in the long-running battle over economic ideas. Economist Milton Friedman's impossible battle for school choice began in 1955, yet today is widely accepted. Friedrich Hayek's 1952 treatise against authoritarian government economic controls that informed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's revolutionary economic policies in Great Britain. Ronald Coase's concept of auctioning the spectrum (thought a joke by the FCC when he testified to it in 1959) became reality under President Clinton in the 1990s. The pattern in these stories is that (a) it takes time to fight the battle of economic (or any other) ideas, (b) it takes tenacity, and (c) it takes patience to win the battles of ideas that continue today with each of us. She closes with advice to today's warriors. Her remarks were recorded at CBLPI's Florida Women's Summit in April 2018.

Guest: Steven Medema, Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Colorado Denver Hosted and Produced: Christina Laskaridis This episode features the Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on Economics (HPPE) seminar at LSE with Professor Steven Medema on "Exceptional and Unimportant"? The Rise, Fall, and Rebirth of Externalities in Economic Analysis that took place on 8th November 2017. About the presenter: Steven Medema is Distinguished Professor of Economics and Director of CU Denver's University Honors and Leadership Program. His research focuses on the history of twentieth-century economics, and his current project analyzes the origins, diffusion, and controversies over the Coase theorem in economics, law and beyond. He co-edited the 2014 book, Paul Samuelson on the History of Economic Analysis: Selected Essays (CUP) with Anthony Waterman. His 2009 book, The Hesitant Hand: Taming Self-Interest in the History of Economic Ideas (Princeton), was awarded the 2010 Book Prize by the European Society for the History of Economic Thought. Professor Medema served as Editor of the Journal of the History of Economic Thought from 1999-2008 and currently serves as General Editor of Oxford Studies in the History of Economics (OUP). He is a member of the editorial boards of several history of economics journals and served as President of the History of Economics Society for 2009-10. About the Paper: Economists typically locate the origins of the theory of externalities in A.C. Pigou’s The Economics of Welfare (1920, 1932), where Pigou suggested that activities which generate uncompensated benefits or costs—e.g., pollution, lighthouses, scientific research—represent instances of market failure requiring government corrective action. According to this history, Pigou’s effort gave rise to an unbroken Pigovian tradition in externality theory that continues to exert a substantial presence in the literature to this day, even with the stiff criticisms of it laid down by Ronald Coase (1960) and others beginning in the 1960s. This paper challenges that view. It demonstrates that, almost immediately after the publication of The Economics of Welfare, economists largely stopped writing about externalities. On the rare occasions when externalities were mentioned, it was in the context of whether a competitive equilibrium could produce an efficient allocation of resources and to note that externalities were an impediment to the attainment of the optimum. When economists once again began to take up the subject of externalities in a serious way, the very real externality phenomena—pollution, etc.—that had concerned Pigou were not in evidence. Instead, the analysis was targeted at identifying how and why externalities violated the necessary conditions for an optimal allocation of resources in a competitive system. In short, externalities were conceived very differently in the welfare theory of the 1950s than they had been in Pigou’s treatise. It was only when economists began to turn their attention to environmental and urban problems that we see a return to a conception of externalities as real, policy-relevant phenomena—that is, to the type of externality analysis that had preoccupied Pigou and that characterizes the economic analysis of externalities today. Even then, however, the approach to externality policy was anything but straightforwardly Pigovian in nature. The history of externality theory is therefore not a history of a continuous tradition but of changing conceptions of externalities, framed by changing ideas about what economic theory is attempting to achieve. The paper can be downloaded here. About HPPE: The HPPE seminar series is organised by PhD students at the Economic History Department at LSE established by Gerardo Serra and Raphaelle Schwarzberg in 2012. The seminar brings together scholars from different disciplines to discuss the evolution of economic thinking and embraces topics from Ancient Greece...

The choice between rules and standards in lawmaking is a central question. But the line between the two forms is not as clear as most scholars presume. This talk argues that the lack of a coherent unifying principle in the rules-and-standards distinction is becoming more evident as technologies behind lawmaking evolve. It will explore the leading accounts of rules and standards, the insights they have provided into the process and meaning of law, and why the distinction may be reaching the end of its useful life. The talk will conclude with thoughts on how we should think about forms of law going forward. This lecture is in honor of Ronald Coase. Coase, who spent most of his academic career at the University of Chicago Law School, helped create the field of law and economics through groundbreaking scholarship that earned him the 1991 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and through his far-reaching influence as a journal editor. Anthony J. Casey is Professor of Law and Mark Claster Mamolen Teaching Scholar. This Coase Lecture was presented on February 21, 2017.

The choice between rules and standards in lawmaking is a central question. But the line between the two forms is not as clear as most scholars presume. This talk argues that the lack of a coherent unifying principle in the rules-and-standards distinction is becoming more evident as technologies behind lawmaking evolve. It will explore the leading accounts of rules and standards, the insights they have provided into the process and meaning of law, and why the distinction may be reaching the end of its useful life. The talk will conclude with thoughts on how we should think about forms of law going forward. This lecture is in honor of Ronald Coase. Coase, who spent most of his academic career at the University of Chicago Law School, helped create the field of law and economics through groundbreaking scholarship that earned him the 1991 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and through his far-reaching influence as a journal editor. Anthony J. Casey is Professor of Law and Mark Claster Mamolen Teaching Scholar. This Coase Lecture was presented on February 21, 2017.

Today TK became inexplicably obsessed with me respecting his name (also he's getting a haircut for the first time in years so he's respecting his mane...ba-dum!) We talk a little about PDP's and persistence without doing stuff you hate, then we dive into tons of great questions from: Eric Olson, Sigal Sharabani, Andrew Stover, Simon Fraser, Thomas Bogle, Michael Hogan, Julia Patterson, Jeff Till, Forrest Plaster, Gabe Mitchell, Philip Gross, and Kelly Hackman. Some of the questions were: Can you promote my book? (Yes! See below) Can order exist without state monopolies, even when bad people want to do bad things? The Terminator-like future of Praxis How to get important people to do favors for you Why is success specific but failure is universal? (or is it?) Should you cut negative people out of your life? (Yes) Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson duets How to get off the conveyor belt Hayek and the size and structure of companies Is boredom good? Is the German school system good? Lessons from seeing life as a game Mentioned in the episode: Blake Boles, Taking a Walk as a Revolutionary Act, Noble Boredom, Ronald Coase, The Pretense of Knowledge, The Use of Knowledge in Society, Robert Heinlein, Ursela Le Guin, Don't Do Stuff You Hate (now on Amazon!) Today's recommendations: The Option Method by Bruce Di Marsico, The Optimistic Child by Martin Seligman. This and all episodes are available on SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, YouTube, and Stitcher. Eric's Book: Why Every President Sucked - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1929635985/why-every-president-sucked-hardcover-book

We hit the jackpot with this one! Economist Robert Frank (you may remember him from such episodes as The Greatest Books Ever Written) joins David and Tamler to talk about his new book Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy. What role does pure chance play in making or breaking our careers and lives? Are effort and talent enough to succeed, or does the ball need to bounce our way? Where do we get our will-power and talent--is that ultimately a matter of luck as well? And what happens when we reflect on the lucky breaks we've received in our lives? Does it make us happier and more generous? Or do we feel like our accomplishments have been taken away? Plus a brief discussion of the Frank's revelatory 1988 book Passions Within Reason, and of some recent studies about how we convey our commitment to cooperate.     LinksRobert Frank [johnson.cornell.edu]Robert Frank interviewed on Fox News by Stuart Varney [video.foxbusiness.com]Ronald Coase [wikipedia.org]Everett, J.A.C., Pizarro, D. A. & Crockett, M.J., (in press). Inference of Trustworthiness from Intuitive Moral Judgments.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. [papers.ssrn.com]Passions within Reason by Robert Frank [amazon.com affiliate link]Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). The evolution of one-shot cooperation: An experiment. Ethology and sociobiology, 14, 247-256.Desteno, D., Breazeal, C., Frank, R. H., Pizarro, D., Baumann, J., Dickens, L., & Lee, J. J. (2012). Detecting the trustworthiness of novel partners in economic exchange. Psychological science, 23, 1549-1556. [pdf from davedesteno.com]Frank, R.H. (2016) Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy. [amazon.com affiliate link] Special Guest: Robert Frank.

Matt Zwolinski joins us this week to talk about his recent paper, “Libertarianism and Pollution,” available on the Social Science Research Network. In it, he examines how various libertarian philosophers and economists, including Nozick, Rothbard, Ronald Coase, and Eric Mack have dealt with the problem of pollution.In a system of strictly enforced rights to private property, how should one account for pollution? Should it be allowed at all? And in either case, how can the term “pollution” be defined?Show Notes and Further ReadingMatt Zwolinski, “Libertarianism and Pollution” (SSRN paper)Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (book)Murray Rothbard, “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution” (Cato Journal article)Michael Huemer, The Problem of Political Authority (book)Ronald Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost” (Journal of Law and Economics article)Eric Mack, “Locke on Property” (Liberty Matters essay) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week we discuss the philosophy of utilitarianism and it’s relationship with libertarianism.What is utilitarianism? How is utilitarianism related to economics? What makes utilitarianism seem to work so well when applied to economic thinking? And where does it go wrong?Show Notes and Further ReadingAdam Gurri, “Morality, Economics, and the Problem with Preferences” (column)Adam Gurri, “Liberty with Dignity, Mutual Respect, and Morality” (column)Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism and Other Essays (collection)Lorraine Hansberry, A Raisin in the Sun (play)Alfred C. Pigou, The Economics of Welfare (book)Ronald Coase, The Firm, the Market, and the Law (book) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Robert Frank of Cornell University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the implications of Ronald Coase's views on externalities. Drawing on his book, The Darwin Economy, Frank explores the implications of Coase's perspective for assessing public policy challenges where one person's actions affect others. Examples discussed include pollution, cigarette smoking and related issues.

Robert Frank of Cornell University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the implications of Ronald Coase's views on externalities. Drawing on his book, The Darwin Economy, Frank explores the implications of Coase's perspective for assessing public policy challenges where one person's actions affect others. Examples discussed include pollution, cigarette smoking and related issues.

Don Boudreaux of George Mason University and Cafe Hayek talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the intellectual legacy of Ronald Coase. The conversation centers on Coase's four most important academic articles. Most of the discussion is on two of those articles, "The Nature of the Firm," which continues to influence how economists think of firms and transaction costs, and "The Problem of Social Cost," Coase's pathbreaking work on externalities.

Don Boudreaux of George Mason University and Cafe Hayek talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the intellectual legacy of Ronald Coase. The conversation centers on Coase's four most important academic articles. Most of the discussion is on two of those articles, "The Nature of the Firm," which continues to influence how economists think of firms and transaction costs, and "The Problem of Social Cost," Coase's pathbreaking work on externalities.

Don Boudreaux of George Mason University and Cafe Hayek talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the intellectual legacy of Ronald Coase. The conversation centers on Coase's four most important academic articles. Most of the discussion is on two of those articles, "The Nature of the Firm," which continues to influence how economists think of firms and transaction costs, and "The Problem of Social Cost," Coase's pathbreaking work on externalities.

Diese Animation stammt aus dem Kurs Volkswirtschaftslehre im Online Fernstudiengang BWL. Mehr Infos: http://oncampus.de/index.php?id=1250 Fischer und Chemieproduzenten konkurrieren in diesem Beispiel um die Verwendung des Sees. Können beide Parteien trotzdem in freien Verhandlungen zu einem Ergebnis kommen, das eine effiziente Nutzung der Ressource herbeiführt? Ronald Coase hat gezeigt, dass dies im Prinzip möglich ist, wenn die Nutzungsrechte institutionell klar geregelt sind.Grundsätzlich gibt es zwei Möglichkeiten, die Nutzungsrechte zu regeln: Schadenshaftung: Die Fischer besitzen das Recht zur Nutzung des Gewässers und müssen bei einer Verschmutzung des Wassers durch die Chemiefabriken entschädigt werden. Schädigungsrecht: Die Chemieproduzenten dürfen ihre Abwässer in den See leiten. Die Fischer besitzen allerdings die Möglichkeit, das Schädigungsrecht von den Chemiefabriken abzukaufen. Diese Animation zeigt ihnen wie "Schadensrecht" im Idealfall zu einer optimalen Nutzung des Wassers führt.

Diese Animation stammt aus dem Kurs Volkswirtschaftslehre im Online Fernstudiengang BWL. Mehr Infos: http://oncampus.de/index.php?id=1250 Fischer und Chemieproduzenten konkurrieren in diesem Beispiel um die Verwendung des Sees. Können beide Parteien trotzdem in freien Verhandlungen zu einem Ergebnis kommen, das eine effiziente Nutzung der Ressource herbeiführt? Ronald Coase hat gezeigt, dass dies im Prinzip möglich ist, wenn die Nutzungsrechte institutionell klar geregelt sind.Grundsätzlich gibt es zwei Möglichkeiten, die Nutzungsrechte zu regeln: Schadenshaftung: Die Fischer besitzen das Recht zur Nutzung des Gewässers und müssen bei einer Verschmutzung des Wassers durch die Chemiefabriken entschädigt werden. Schädigungsrecht: Die Chemieproduzenten dürfen ihre Abwässer in den See leiten. Die Fischer besitzen allerdings die Möglichkeit, das Schädigungsrecht von den Chemiefabriken abzukaufen. Diese Animation zeigt ihnen wie "Schadenshaftung" im Idealfall zu einer optimalen Nutzung des Wassers führt.

After a night of deadly violence between crowds of his supporters and opponents, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi is inviting the opposition to what he calls a "comprehensive" dialogue starting Saturday at his presidential palace. Morsi's speech came a night after thousands of his supporters and foes fought in the streets near his palace, leaving at least six dead and nearly 700 injured. Suzette Grillot, a global security expert and the dean of the University of Oklahoma's College of International Studies, said Morsi's opponents argue he is trying to eliminate any kind of oversight for the presidential position. "These protesters are not unified, they're actually serving different purposes," Grillot said. "But they're all targeting the president in terms of wanting him to go back to a legitimate kind of presidential power." Across the continent, Washington is backing a lead role for Algeria in promoting dialogue between the government of Mali and the rebels in Mali's north. West African nations announced plans to help Mali reconquer the area through a military operation, and comparative political scientist Rebecca Cruise said the Pentagon recently declared al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is the strongest and most well-funded branch of the Islamist militant organization. "The United States supports intervention and the involvement of the West African states," Cruise said. "But they have yet to give any money as they're concerned about the actual implementation of the plan." In the interview segment of the program, Grillot talks with Ning Wang, a political scientist at Arizona State University. His latest book How China Became Capitalist traces China's 30 year-transformation from a closed agrarian, socialist economy to a powerful force on the world stage. "A richer, stronger China is going to be great for everyone," Wang said. "Just like a great, stronger America is great for everyone else." Much of Wang's work with 101-year-old Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase focuses on the importance of economic reforms in the 1980s led Deng Xiaoping. Wang argues a series of grassroots "marginal revolutions" were just as important. "The Chinese government quickly recognized the contribution, and they changed their views of socialism," Wang said. Wang also says China's economic growth could be impaired by the leadership's desire for stronger control over the political system.

Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase of the University of Chicago talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about his career, the current state of economics, and the Chinese economy. Coase, born in 1910, reflects on his youth, his two great papers, "The Nature of the Firm" and "The Problem of Social Cost". At the end of conversation he discusses his new book on China, How China Became Capitalist (co-authored with Ning Wang), and the future of the Chinese and world economies.

Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase of the University of Chicago talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about his career, the current state of economics, and the Chinese economy. Coase, born in 1910, reflects on his youth, his two great papers, "The Nature of the Firm" and "The Problem of Social Cost". At the end of conversation he discusses his new book on China, How China Became Capitalist (co-authored with Ning Wang), and the future of the Chinese and world economies.

Monty Pelerin's background includes academic degrees from Duke University (AB), the University of Chicago (MBA) and Syracuse University (PhD) all in finance and economics. At Chicago, he was fortunate to have classes from Milton Friedman, George Stigler and Ronald Coase. He knew Merton Miller. All of these gentlemen subsequently became Nobel Laureates in Economics. His early career was in the corporate world where he served as Chief Financial Officer for a few companies. Later in life he went back to school for the doctorate degree and then taught for about 10 years at the college and graduate level. He enjoyed the classroom, but disliked the bureaucracy and dealing with too many peers who were educated beyond their levels of competence. He retired early and have supported myself primarily as an investor. Monty Pelerin is an avid reader, investor and reasonably decent golfer (or used to be). He was exposed to both Keynesian and Monetarist economics in formal training and became an Austrian economist on my own. In his opinion, it is the only "school" of economics that makes any sense. In September of 2009 he started a website: Monty Pelerin's World at www.economicnoise.com. Since its inception, he has put up almost 1,500 posts. The posts deal primarily with economics, politics and investing. The name Monty Pelerin is a pseudonym derived from the Mont Pelerin Society founded by Friedrich Hayek after WWII. Hayek saw a need for a forum for like-minded individuals who believed in Classical Liberalism. At the time, government planning and control dominated economic and political thought. The Mont Pelerin Society was composed of friends of freedom from around the world. Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman were original members. More information on Mont Pelerin can be obtained from my site or the internet. He have no connection with the Society other than a coincidence of philosophy. He uses Friedrich Hayek as an gravatar in honor of his enormous contributions to classical liberalism. A photo of Hayek is attached. Here are the full articles published on American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/) Articles By Monty Pelerin The Coming Political Upheaval Put Uncle Sam on an Allowance Jekyll and Hyde Government Why the Democratic Party Cannot Survive Bernanke's Cowardice Has Sealed Our Fate Red vs. Blue: Bloods vs. Crips Obama: Not Moses, Merely Elmer Gantry A Depression May Be Our Best Hope Keynes as 'Useful Idiot' The Divine Right of Government Desperate Economic Action Ahead? Inflation: The Last Gasp of the Obama Economic Crisis Our Patrick Henry Moment Is Here Repent -- The End Is Near Worse than a Depression The End of Democratic Socialism Political Fatal Conceit The Keynesian Fraud Obama the Entrepreneurship Expert Obama's Ides-of-March Moment is Near The Economic Crisis Is Only a Symptom Health Care Reform Vaporizes Obama Presidency 2010 Will Be Worse Obama's Vote-Buying Dilemma Why Obamanomics Will Not Improve the Economy

Monty Pelerin's background includes academic degrees from Duke University (AB), the University of Chicago (MBA) and Syracuse University (PhD) all in finance and economics. At Chicago, he was fortunate to have classes from Milton Friedman, George Stigler and Ronald Coase. He knew Merton Miller. All of these gentlemen subsequently became Nobel Laureates in Economics. His early career was in the corporate world where he served as Chief Financial Officer for a few companies. Later in life he went back to school for the doctorate degree and then taught for about 10 years at the college and graduate level. He enjoyed the classroom, but disliked the bureaucracy and dealing with too many peers who were educated beyond their levels of competence. He retired early and have supported myself primarily as an investor. Monty Pelerin is an avid reader, investor and reasonably decent golfer (or used to be). He was exposed to both Keynesian and Monetarist economics in formal training and became an Austrian economist on my own. In his opinion, it is the only "school" of economics that makes any sense. In September of 2009 he started a website: Monty Pelerin's World at www.economicnoise.com. Since its inception, he has put up almost 1,500 posts. The posts deal primarily with economics, politics and investing. The name Monty Pelerin is a pseudonym derived from the Mont Pelerin Society founded by Friedrich Hayek after WWII. Hayek saw a need for a forum for like-minded individuals who believed in Classical Liberalism. At the time, government planning and control dominated economic and political thought. The Mont Pelerin Society was composed of friends of freedom from around the world. Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman were original members. More information on Mont Pelerin can be obtained from my site or the internet. He have no connection with the Society other than a coincidence of philosophy. He uses Friedrich Hayek as an gravatar in honor of his enormous contributions to classical liberalism. A photo of Hayek is attached. Here are the full articles published on American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/) Articles By Monty Pelerin The Coming Political Upheaval Put Uncle Sam on an Allowance Jekyll and Hyde Government Why the Democratic Party Cannot Survive Bernanke's Cowardice Has Sealed Our Fate Red vs. Blue: Bloods vs. Crips Obama: Not Moses, Merely Elmer Gantry A Depression May Be Our Best Hope Keynes as 'Useful Idiot' The Divine Right of Government Desperate Economic Action Ahead? Inflation: The Last Gasp of the Obama Economic Crisis Our Patrick Henry Moment Is Here Repent -- The End Is Near Worse than a Depression The End of Democratic Socialism Political Fatal Conceit The Keynesian Fraud Obama the Entrepreneurship Expert Obama's Ides-of-March Moment is Near The Economic Crisis Is Only a Symptom Health Care Reform Vaporizes Obama Presidency 2010 Will Be Worse Obama's Vote-Buying Dilemma Why Obamanomics Will Not Improve the Economy

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Friday, December 4 to Saturday, December 5, 2009University of Chicago Law School AuditoriumThis Conference brings together a group of scholars to honor the life and research of Ronald Coase. 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Coase's seminal paper on the Federal Communications Commission. 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of his paper on "The Problem of Social Cost", and his 100th birthday.The presentations on this occasion cover specific topics on which Coase's work has exerted profound influence, including such areas as telecommunications policy, airline regulation and development, environmental economics, economic development, organization of the firm, and general discussions of the questions of transactions costs and social rationality to which he has contributed so much.The conference web page is at http://iep.gmu.edu/CoaseConference.php.The Conference is being organized by Richard A. Epstein of the University of Chicago, Thomas Hazlett of George Mason University, and Roger Noll and Greg Rosston of Stanford University. These papers shall be published in special issues of the Journal of Law and Economics and the Journal of Legal Studies. The Conference will be held at the University of Chicago Law School on Friday, December 4, and Saturday, December 5, 2009. The public is invited.The event is sponsored by the John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, the Information Economy Project at George Mason University, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics, the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, and the China Center for Economic Research.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Friday, December 4 to Saturday, December 5, 2009University of Chicago Law School AuditoriumThis Conference brings together a group of scholars to honor the life and research of Ronald Coase. 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Coase's seminal paper on the Federal Communications Commission. 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of his paper on "The Problem of Social Cost", and his 100th birthday.The presentations on this occasion cover specific topics on which Coase's work has exerted profound influence, including such areas as telecommunications policy, airline regulation and development, environmental economics, economic development, organization of the firm, and general discussions of the questions of transactions costs and social rationality to which he has contributed so much.The conference web page is at http://iep.gmu.edu/CoaseConference.php.The Conference is being organized by Richard A. Epstein of the University of Chicago, Thomas Hazlett of George Mason University, and Roger Noll and Greg Rosston of Stanford University. These papers shall be published in special issues of the Journal of Law and Economics and the Journal of Legal Studies. The Conference will be held at the University of Chicago Law School on Friday, December 4, and Saturday, December 5, 2009. The public is invited.The event is sponsored by the John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, the Information Economy Project at George Mason University, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics, the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, and the China Center for Economic Research.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Friday, December 4 to Saturday, December 5, 2009University of Chicago Law School AuditoriumThis Conference brings together a group of scholars to honor the life and research of Ronald Coase. 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Coase's seminal paper on the Federal Communications Commission. 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of his paper on "The Problem of Social Cost", and his 100th birthday.The presentations on this occasion cover specific topics on which Coase's work has exerted profound influence, including such areas as telecommunications policy, airline regulation and development, environmental economics, economic development, organization of the firm, and general discussions of the questions of transactions costs and social rationality to which he has contributed so much.The conference web page is at http://iep.gmu.edu/CoaseConference.php.The Conference is being organized by Richard A. Epstein of the University of Chicago, Thomas Hazlett of George Mason University, and Roger Noll and Greg Rosston of Stanford University. These papers shall be published in special issues of the Journal of Law and Economics and the Journal of Legal Studies. The Conference will be held at the University of Chicago Law School on Friday, December 4, and Saturday, December 5, 2009. The public is invited.The event is sponsored by the John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, the Information Economy Project at George Mason University, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics, the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, and the China Center for Economic Research.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Friday, December 4 to Saturday, December 5, 2009University of Chicago Law School AuditoriumThis Conference brings together a group of scholars to honor the life and research of Ronald Coase. 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Coase's seminal paper on the Federal Communications Commission. 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of his paper on "The Problem of Social Cost", and his 100th birthday.The presentations on this occasion cover specific topics on which Coase's work has exerted profound influence, including such areas as telecommunications policy, airline regulation and development, environmental economics, economic development, organization of the firm, and general discussions of the questions of transactions costs and social rationality to which he has contributed so much.The conference web page is at http://iep.gmu.edu/CoaseConference.php.The Conference is being organized by Richard A. Epstein of the University of Chicago, Thomas Hazlett of George Mason University, and Roger Noll and Greg Rosston of Stanford University. These papers shall be published in special issues of the Journal of Law and Economics and the Journal of Legal Studies. The Conference will be held at the University of Chicago Law School on Friday, December 4, and Saturday, December 5, 2009. The public is invited.The event is sponsored by the John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, the Information Economy Project at George Mason University, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics, the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, and the China Center for Economic Research.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Friday, December 4 to Saturday, December 5, 2009University of Chicago Law School AuditoriumThis Conference brings together a group of scholars to honor the life and research of Ronald Coase. 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Coase's seminal paper on the Federal Communications Commission. 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of his paper on "The Problem of Social Cost", and his 100th birthday.The presentations on this occasion cover specific topics on which Coase's work has exerted profound influence, including such areas as telecommunications policy, airline regulation and development, environmental economics, economic development, organization of the firm, and general discussions of the questions of transactions costs and social rationality to which he has contributed so much.The conference web page is at http://iep.gmu.edu/CoaseConference.php.The Conference is being organized by Richard A. Epstein of the University of Chicago, Thomas Hazlett of George Mason University, and Roger Noll and Greg Rosston of Stanford University. These papers shall be published in special issues of the Journal of Law and Economics and the Journal of Legal Studies. The Conference will be held at the University of Chicago Law School on Friday, December 4, and Saturday, December 5, 2009. The public is invited.The event is sponsored by the John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, the Information Economy Project at George Mason University, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics, the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, and the China Center for Economic Research.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Friday, December 4 to Saturday, December 5, 2009University of Chicago Law School AuditoriumThis Conference brings together a group of scholars to honor the life and research of Ronald Coase. 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Coase's seminal paper on the Federal Communications Commission. 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of his paper on "The Problem of Social Cost", and his 100th birthday.The presentations on this occasion cover specific topics on which Coase's work has exerted profound influence, including such areas as telecommunications policy, airline regulation and development, environmental economics, economic development, organization of the firm, and general discussions of the questions of transactions costs and social rationality to which he has contributed so much.The conference web page is at http://iep.gmu.edu/CoaseConference.php.The Conference is being organized by Richard A. Epstein of the University of Chicago, Thomas Hazlett of George Mason University, and Roger Noll and Greg Rosston of Stanford University. These papers shall be published in special issues of the Journal of Law and Economics and the Journal of Legal Studies. The Conference will be held at the University of Chicago Law School on Friday, December 4, and Saturday, December 5, 2009. The public is invited.The event is sponsored by the John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, the Information Economy Project at George Mason University, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics, the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, and the China Center for Economic Research.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Friday, December 4 to Saturday, December 5, 2009University of Chicago Law School AuditoriumThis Conference brings together a group of scholars to honor the life and research of Ronald Coase. 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Coase's seminal paper on the Federal Communications Commission. 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of his paper on "The Problem of Social Cost", and his 100th birthday.The presentations on this occasion cover specific topics on which Coase's work has exerted profound influence, including such areas as telecommunications policy, airline regulation and development, environmental economics, economic development, organization of the firm, and general discussions of the questions of transactions costs and social rationality to which he has contributed so much.The conference web page is at http://iep.gmu.edu/CoaseConference.php.The Conference is being organized by Richard A. Epstein of the University of Chicago, Thomas Hazlett of George Mason University, and Roger Noll and Greg Rosston of Stanford University. These papers shall be published in special issues of the Journal of Law and Economics and the Journal of Legal Studies. The Conference will be held at the University of Chicago Law School on Friday, December 4, and Saturday, December 5, 2009. The public is invited.The event is sponsored by the John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, the Information Economy Project at George Mason University, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics, the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, and the China Center for Economic Research.

Mike Munger, of Duke University, talks about why firms exist. If prices and markets work so well (and they do) in steering economic resources, then why does so much economic activity take place within organizations that use command-and-control, top-down, centralized structures called firms? Within a firm, most of the goods and services that the workers use are given away rather than allocated by prices--computer services, legal services and almost everything else is not handed out by competition but by fiat, decided by a boss. A firm, the lynchpin of capitalism, is run like something akin to a centrally planned economy. Munger's answer, drawing on work of Ronald Coase, is a fascinating look at the often unseen costs of making various types of economic decisions. The result is a set of fascinating insights into why firms exist and why they do what they do.

Mike Munger, of Duke University, talks about why firms exist. If prices and markets work so well (and they do) in steering economic resources, then why does so much economic activity take place within organizations that use command-and-control, top-down, centralized structures called firms? Within a firm, most of the goods and services that the workers use are given away rather than allocated by prices--computer services, legal services and almost everything else is not handed out by competition but by fiat, decided by a boss. A firm, the lynchpin of capitalism, is run like something akin to a centrally planned economy. Munger's answer, drawing on work of Ronald Coase, is a fascinating look at the often unseen costs of making various types of economic decisions. The result is a set of fascinating insights into why firms exist and why they do what they do.

Mike Munger, of Duke University, talks about why firms exist. If prices and markets work so well (and they do) in steering economic resources, then why does so much economic activity take place within organizations that use command-and-control, top-down, centralized structures called firms? Within a firm, most of the goods and services that the workers use are given away rather than allocated by prices--computer services, legal services and almost everything else is not handed out by competition but by fiat, decided by a boss. A firm, the lynchpin of capitalism, is run like something akin to a centrally planned economy. Munger's answer, drawing on work of Ronald Coase, is a fascinating look at the often unseen costs of making various types of economic decisions. The result is a set of fascinating insights into why firms exist and why they do what they do.