« Questions I haven't made much progress on | Main | How to flip a coin »
Assorted links
1. The rule of law.
2. Markets in everything: fake babies.
3. Hail Kevin Drum.
5. Henry Farrell reviews Create Your Own Economy.
6. Catholic/Anglican game theory.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM | Permalink
Comments
I read Drum, Yglesias, and E Klein.
They are all pretty reasonable.
Different priorities, but pretty reasonable.
I agree, Fox should be allowed to attend.
Posted by: Chuck at Oct 24, 2009 11:11:18 AM
Time for the Church of England to set up an anti-Pope in Avignon.
Posted by: dearieme at Oct 24, 2009 11:17:50 AM
I'm totally not getting the rule-of-law connection to Obama's capping of executive pay. Isn't it the "rule of law" when our democratically elected Congress passes legislation that gives Obama the authority to regulate the operation of government-controlled assets? Isn't it the "rule of law" when bondholders and shareholders to a bankrupt firm exercise their authority to make restructuring decisions, regardless of whether said bondholders and shareholders are the government?
I have no opinon on whether these pay cuts are sound policy, but I really don't understand the basis for complaining that the paycuts violate "the rule of law".
Posted by: Curt Fischer at Oct 24, 2009 11:42:28 AM
Bainbridge is being a disingenuous jerk. If a private company bought up as much ownership as the Federal government has, it would feel no compunction about forcing renegotiation of employment contracts: we see that all the time. That's what the NY Times Corp. has done to the Boston Globe.
A corporate law prof saying that exercising ownership rights is unconstitutional. How stupid. This is a general problem with libertarians and their ilk: the idea that government should not even be able to do what any ordinary citizen can do.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Oct 24, 2009 11:45:20 AM
@5
Tyler's arguments are generalizable.
Perhaps when economists examine externalities for clues on the mechanisms most likely to generate positive externalities, they should think about neurodiversity and the autistic spectrum. Is the economics blogosphere disproportionately represented by aspies and NT's exercising ASD style internal orderings?
Henry and I share a desire for Tyler to write about "some general mechanism connecting the individual and collective benefits of self-ordering".
Posted by: RP at Oct 24, 2009 11:53:04 AM
@4
Every time I see 'markets in everything' I think 'bubbles in everything'.
Do economists' models have a robust enough relativity theory built into resource axioms?
Posted by: RP at Oct 24, 2009 12:04:09 PM
As for the Fox dustup, here's a different account.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Oct 24, 2009 12:13:00 PM
I think mIke Huben is correct. A company in desperate straits seeking major financial assistance can reasonably be rquired to change its employment agreements as a condition of that assistance. In substance, that's what seems to have happened here.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Oct 24, 2009 12:20:39 PM
"Rule of law" = "The rich must be kept rich at all costs"
It's nice to see the true colors come out once in a while.
Posted by: nobody at Oct 24, 2009 12:23:47 PM
RE: "biophysical economics"---which seems to actually be bog standard ecological economics: I wish one of these folks would actually phrase an objection to mainstream theory in a manner which doesn't make a bosh of mainsteam theory. The level of economic thought here is, perhaps not entirely fairly, but tellingly, illustrated by the "Encycopedia of Earth" entry on neoclassical economics,
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Neoclassical_economic_theory
written by English lit professor Robert Nadeau.
On peak oil: I don't understand why they apparently think mainstream economists reject the notion that oil production must *eventually* decline, nor do I understand why they insist that production must be single-peaked. Do they actually have some sort of coherent theory? Allow me to put in a plug here for a new working paper on the topic by my colleague John Boyce:
http://econ.ucalgary.ca/sites/econ.ucalgary.ca/files/seminars/Boyce%20Peak%20Oil%20September%202009.pdf
Posted by: Chris Auld at Oct 24, 2009 1:05:42 PM
I followed that "rule of law" post, and it talked about "Obama remaking the economy."
Is that a full and impartial view? I mentioned in another thread that the Fed has outright purchased $737 Billion in mortgage backed securities.
Why the heck is pay the high-flying discussion on MR and similar blogs? The arc of this story only has Obama in it as a minor character. The entire US government, under two radically different presidencies, has "remade the economy." To wake up only to complain that bank executives should still get their pay is absurd -n ot to mention blind.
Posted by: odograph at Oct 24, 2009 1:09:58 PM
Maybe the point is that these criminals are still making hefty salaries, instead of being imprisioned, and that is the mockery of rule of law?
Posted by: KenF at Oct 24, 2009 1:22:32 PM
On FoxNews, the White House is just being stupid with their pettiness. What they should have done is simply ignore them altogether, but not exclude them from traditional press briefings and pool coverage, or attack them publically. What they are doing is a boon to FoxNews, and I know that cannot be their goal. In addition, they make themselves appear small and thin-skinned.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Oct 24, 2009 1:31:23 PM
Bernard Yomtov, Thanks to the link to TPM site which provides links to both sides of the Fox/Whitehouse story. (i.e. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/wh-were-happy-to-exclude-fox-but-didnt-yesterday-with-feinberg-interview.php?ref=fpb )
It's instructive when even bloggers like TPM, who admit to pushing a particular ideology, are comfortable linking to other side's version of events as well. I find that it builds their credibility.
Posted by: Erik Brynjolfsson at Oct 24, 2009 1:57:46 PM
"Pentagon to use cyborg flies to spy on people."
http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/pentagon-to-use-brain-dead-cyborg.html
Posted by: Josh Fulton at Oct 24, 2009 4:22:06 PM
Re: Rule of Law. Maybe because I'm from Texas I don't understand the concept of employment contracts. Did these executives actually have contracts that were broken?
Posted by: rob at Oct 24, 2009 4:45:07 PM
Mike/Bernard,
The employment contracts at the bailed out banks were not renegotiated. They were unilaterally changed by the bank without the consent of the employee. A new private owner of a company has no right to do that.
Posted by: FXKLM at Oct 24, 2009 4:46:10 PM
Re: Rule of Law. If the government, as a large, activist shareholder, had simply pressured the boards of these companies into offering lower wages to the executives, would that have gone against the rule of law? I have trouble believing these so-called "employment contracts" mean much. Can't a company at any time:
1) Fire an executive
2) Offer them their jobs back at lower wages
?
No?
Posted by: rob at Oct 24, 2009 4:53:43 PM
You guys did notice that the "Fox News exclusion" was a fake right? Oh, I guess you didn't! Well it was: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/10/fox-update
Posted by: capitalistimperialistpig at Oct 24, 2009 5:12:52 PM
From your biophysical economic link: "Still, all biophysical economists see only very bleak prospects for the future of modern civilization, putting a whole new spin on the phrase "the dismal science.""
Nope. It's the same old Malthusian spin. Dr. Malthus has never been refuted (or even seriously challenged).
Posted by: capitalistimperialistpig at Oct 24, 2009 5:16:37 PM
I have called myself a libertarian, and I don't have much problem with the "renegotiated" salaries: money frequently has strings attached to it, those are the consequences.
But the idea that the government ought to be able to do what an ordinary citizen can is strange because, well, the government is not an ordinary citizen. I can turn down FOIA requests from my fellows for transcripts of my e-mail. I can decide to do only sole source contracts with people who are left-handed. I can make arbitrary decisions to keep my children from going out without a hearing or an appeals process. Those are things I don't think the state should be able to do. I also don't think that corporations are the same as ordinary citizens. Anthropomorphism can be fun, but it can also be dangerous. Please, don't let that stand in the way of wild generalizations, do carry on ...
Posted by: Eric H at Oct 24, 2009 5:44:27 PM
To clarify, I don't think the government should be lowering salaries, but I don't think it is correct to say they are breaking contracts in doing so. These aren't baseball players with long term contracts. Executives at US companies can be fired at any time, can't they? Can't they? Please tell me they can be?????
Posted by: rob at Oct 24, 2009 6:02:23 PM
If I am wrong and executives do have genuine employment contracts which guarantee future pay of x amount, then at the very least we should continue the loud booing and throwing of beer bottles from the bleachers for the dismal performance on the field.
(I suspect it was the booing that has caused so many executives to leave, not greener fields...)
Posted by: rob at Oct 24, 2009 6:33:10 PM
Tyler, I'd like to back up Bernard Yomtov, Erik Brynjolfsson and capitalistimperialistpig in pointing out that Kevin Drum was critiquing an action of the White House that didn't actually happen. Perhaps you should have a followup post that says "Hail Obama White House, Bah to inaccurate coverage of OWH"?
Also, while I think Alex T. has pointed out some real issues with the executive pay cuts, the "rule of law" argument strikes me as very disingenuous. These organizations can very very easily protect themselves from govt intervention in this regard by refusing the government's money. The fact that, as I understand it, any one (of the companies facing the caps) that did it would immediately implode is EXACTLY THE POINT.
Posted by: Geoffrey at Oct 24, 2009 6:34:09 PM
CapitalistImperialistPig and Others,
Well, no, that link from TPM wasn't evidence that the event didn't happen. Fox wasn't initially included- no is denying this as far as I can tell. Now, this may have been an innocent oversight that was rapidly rectified, but it certainly wasn't "fake". Given the recent context, it is difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to the White House on this one.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Oct 24, 2009 7:00:09 PM
