Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 471 Publications in Economics
TOTM There’s been enough attention paid to the question of whether Steve Levitt is ruining economics. I did my share to contribute to the focus on . . .
There’s been enough attention paid to the question of whether Steve Levitt is ruining economics. I did my share to contribute to the focus on this question. My bad. But now even Levitt himself has responded to Scheiber’s claim that he is ruining economics. His response: “No I haven’t, and you wouldn’t know it if I had because you don’t know any economics.” Ok, that is paraphrasing but I think captures the spirit of the response.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Peter Klein‘s post over at the always excellent Organizations and Markets reminded me that I have been wanting to blog about the most recent exchange . . .
Peter Klein‘s post over at the always excellent Organizations and Markets reminded me that I have been wanting to blog about the most recent exchange between Ben Klein and Ronald Coase over the asset specificity, vertical integration, and the famous Fisher Body – General Motors example which has become a classic example of hold up in the literature. While this example from the original Klein, Crawford, and Alchian (1978) piece is almost 30 years old, and has been the subject of literally thousands of pages of debate and an entire JLE issue (April 2000), there is still some disagreement over the facts and what they tell us about the relationship between asset specificity and vertical integration.
Popular Media Ben Klein’s new paper, “The Economic Lessons of Fisher Body – General Motors,” appears in the February 2007 issue of the International Journal of the Economics of Business. He . . .
Ben Klein’s new paper, “The Economic Lessons of Fisher Body – General Motors,” appears in the February 2007 issue of the International Journal of the Economics of Business. He is not about to give Ronald Coase the last word. Indeed, Klein writes, the newest evidence on the history of the relationship between Fisher and GM confirms his earlier claim that GM’s acquisition of Fisher in 1926 was a response to opportunistic behavior by Fisher. This evidence…
TOTM Representative Kucinich has announced that the House Oversight and Government Reform Domestic Policy Subcommittee will be launching an investigation into “a variety of marketplace issues . . .
Representative Kucinich has announced that the House Oversight and Government Reform Domestic Policy Subcommittee will be launching an investigation into “a variety of marketplace issues including monopolies in the grocery industry.” HT: AntitrustProf Blog. Hearings are apparently tentatively scheduled for mid-month. What is the committee looking for? Just about anything.
TOTM Libertarian paternalism, behavioral law and economics, and “soft” paternalism are topics of discussion here on TOTM from time to time (see, e.g. here, here, and . . .
Libertarian paternalism, behavioral law and economics, and “soft” paternalism are topics of discussion here on TOTM from time to time (see, e.g. here, here, and here). Two very good economists who think about these problems quite a bit, Mario Rizzo (NYU) and Glen Whitman (Agoraphilia, CSUN), have posted their paper “Paternalist Slopes.”
TOTM The FTC announced this week perhaps its best decision since . . . well, ever. Read the full piece here.
The FTC announced this week perhaps its best decision since . . . well, ever.
TOTM Professor D’Amato is at it again. And by “it,” I mean making overblown claims that economics is useless (you might recall our last exchange where . . .
Professor D’Amato is at it again. And by “it,” I mean making overblown claims that economics is useless (you might recall our last exchange where I responded to his mistaken assertion that economics had not changed antitrust in “any noticeable way”). Here’s his latest from a comment over at Prawfs.
TOTM Elizabeth Warren (Credit Slips) points to an interesting empirical study by Agarwal, Liu, Souleses, and Chomsisengphet (“ALSC”) which examines consumer credit card selection in a . . .
Elizabeth Warren (Credit Slips) points to an interesting empirical study by Agarwal, Liu, Souleses, and Chomsisengphet (“ALSC”) which examines consumer credit card selection in a natural experiment setting in which a card company offers two cards to consumers: (1) a high interest rate, no annual fee card and (2) a low rate card with an annual fee.
TOTM Dan Crane and Thom (who has promised more remarks!) have now both posted their prepared remarks for the Section 2 hearings panel on bundled discounts. . . .
Dan Crane and Thom (who has promised more remarks!) have now both posted their prepared remarks for the Section 2 hearings panel on bundled discounts. Both call for bright-line, administrable liability rules for all forms of unilateral exclusionary conduct, and have important things to say about designing antitrust rules for bundled discounts. Both are worth reading in their entirety. Administrable rules that sensibly balance Type I and II errors are certainly an indisputably admirable goal for antitrust analysis and bundled discounts have proven to be a particularly tricky form of conduct for Section 2 analysis. Despite all of the agreement around here between Thom, Dan and I on the design of antitrust rules in a world of costly Type I errors, I think I have found a topic upon which I can at least offer a mild dissent (or at least a different perspective) regarding the usefulness of the analogy of various anticompetitive theories of bundled discounting practices to exclusive dealing.
