Acemoglu tells Russ that he only is "50% correct." I disagree. I think Acemoglu is only 20% correct. Shareholders are the only stakeholders of a corporation who simultaneously maximize everyone's claim in seeking to maximize their own. If a company does not perform, capital will flow to their competitors.
AJ are not concerned about productivity growth. They care about how productivity gains accrue to the factors of production. In their framework a company may be productive and the employees are still underpaid due to factors like 1) (lack of) competition 2) labor coercion and 3) the nature of the technological change.
DA is totally unbiased 😂 almost every argument depends on some sort of biased assumption. The British Empire's economic mode required labour and skill export/allocation as well as capital, institutes and military backing. Information access and how information access effected quality of life is the unaddressed aspect in the beginning of this conversation which can invalidate DA's claims associating the QoL to trade unions. The argument also fails to analyse the modern dynamics of the labour market. I don't think big firms are as powerful as we realise because alternatives very quickly can make their argument and attract both equity and debt to emerge as competition. In fact people allocate too much brand value to big corporations and because workers aren't working for basic needs and working for wants working for these big brands are satisfying the workers' desires to work for a brand. Therefore their analysis may not be capturing the utility correctly.
Man you can’t accuse one of the most prolific modern economists alive today of using unbiased assumptions only to offer a 100% speculative counter argument.
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
Great discussion
Acemoglu tells Russ that he only is "50% correct." I disagree. I think Acemoglu is only 20% correct. Shareholders are the only stakeholders of a corporation who simultaneously maximize everyone's claim in seeking to maximize their own. If a company does not perform, capital will flow to their competitors.
AJ are not concerned about productivity growth. They care about how productivity gains accrue to the factors of production. In their framework a company may be productive and the employees are still underpaid due to factors like 1) (lack of) competition 2) labor coercion and 3) the nature of the technological change.
DA is totally unbiased 😂 almost every argument depends on some sort of biased assumption. The British Empire's economic mode required labour and skill export/allocation as well as capital, institutes and military backing. Information access and how information access effected quality of life is the unaddressed aspect in the beginning of this conversation which can invalidate DA's claims associating the QoL to trade unions. The argument also fails to analyse the modern dynamics of the labour market. I don't think big firms are as powerful as we realise because alternatives very quickly can make their argument and attract both equity and debt to emerge as competition. In fact people allocate too much brand value to big corporations and because workers aren't working for basic needs and working for wants working for these big brands are satisfying the workers' desires to work for a brand. Therefore their analysis may not be capturing the utility correctly.
Man you can’t accuse one of the most prolific modern economists alive today of using unbiased assumptions only to offer a 100% speculative counter argument.
Look at his data, site his paper. Publish your own. Expose him for the biased scammer or what not you think he is.
Excellent historical analysis of our current economic systems.