Yes, I realized that the previous post was #1000…
What say we try a bit of a thought experiment to start the next 1000, eh? Since the last post dealt with the Nobel Prizes kind of, take the following (all emphasis mine):
Oliver Williamson, co-winner of this year’s Nobel Economics Prize, said there’s no easy way to deal with the question of institutions whose failure might pose a threat to the financial system.
“There is no silver bullet,” Williamson, 77, said at a news conference today at the University of California at Berkeley, where he is professor emeritus. “There is no instant answer that I or any of my students or any of my colleagues would be prepared to advance on that.”
Williamson is a founder of organizational economics — the study of how institutions are created and developed and how they affect growth. In research that may have applications to the financial crisis, he suggested that it is better to regulate large companies than to try to break them up or limit their size. […]
In his academic work, Williamson found that large corporations exist primarily because they are efficient and benefit owners, workers, suppliers and customers, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said today in Stockholm.
A warning: no, I haven’t read this guy’s work. Hadn’t heard of him until now to be honest. That said, here’s the first thing I thought in response, or more accurately the whole stream of consciousness before I decided to post it:
“‘No silver bullet’, well duh if the idea is to resist any structural change to the system…yeah, fat lot of good that ‘regulation’ is doing, the regulated own the regulators…’efficient’ at what?…If benefit was inherently that widespread, then what exactly would there be to ‘regulate’?…in effect, the claim amounts to ‘bigness is good!’, and if that’s the case then the only question left for people like this is big corporations vs big everything.”
Here’s the experiment: regardless of your own view of it, argue against my attitude. Seriously. I used to have to argue crap I didn’t believe all the time at student debate competitions, I’m curious what comes out when people who read this try it. Why? Because I’m bored, and football is getting annoying to me since the refs placed that protective bubble around the QB.