Maybe you think you have, but you have not. You may be referring to some vague notion of a theory, but you are doing nothing to explain any of them whatsoever. Take your string of statements above.A crass fib! I've referred directly to both orthodox and heterodox theory. The monopsony case is an interesting one as it only requires that we adopt (or try to adopt) a reservation wage strategy. This is simply a decision rule which equates marginal benefits and marginal costs of job search, such that your behaviour is motivated by maximising expected income. The effects on supply & demand conclusions are straightforward: We get consequences such as wage dispersion that is independent of human capital characteristics.
1. The monopomy case requires that we adopt a reservation wage strategy.
2. Therefore we get wage dispersion that is independent of human capital characteristics.
As anyone can see, you did not connect those two strings of thought in any way. You just assumed it. Furthermore, your first statement is does not do anything to explain why such a strategy is a requirement.
The fact that labor originates from a human being has no bearing on the cost of labor. Feel free to make that argument though (and by argument, I mean something with premises and a conclusion that follows from the premises, not restating one premise ad nauseum)Perhaps you're not aware of what you've typed? Read back
Because you say so. Once again, you provide no argument. As I said before, I am referring to the price of labor. The entire purpose of minimum wage is to increases wages. To say that minimum wage does not result in an increase in the price of wages is silly.This is just repetition of error. Unit labour costs do not necessarily increase. Again your opinion is merely inconsistent with valid economic comment
I'm not suggesting that at all.You're suggesting that human beings, rather complex beasts don't you know, can be simply compared to tubs of lard. Again you show a dogma that is inconsistent with valid economic comment. We've seen, for example, that just the admission of asymmetric information will destroy your position.
Throwing around the names of studies without actually providing anything contained in the study is not sufficient evidence in an argument. If that study is so definitive, it should be easy for you to provide me specifically with the information to disprove everything I am saying. Trying to use an appeal to hypocrisy is equally unacceptable.I'm supporting my position with evidence. Note that, in contrast, you've given naff all. For analysis into monopsony try something like Bhasker and To (1999, Minimum Wages for Ronald McDonald Monopsonies: A Theory of Monopsonistic Competition, Economic Journal, Vol. 109 Issue 455, pp. 190-203). Perhaps you can inform me what you've read on the subject? I hope you're not another victim of mises.org
Another fallacious argument. You use petty emotional attacks against Austrian economics, and then state that because a labor text book does not include a discussion of Austrians that makes them wrong. With all due respect, you simply are not providing any arguments at all.Again, you show your innocence. Austrian economics is childlike in its understanding of the labour market. Pick up a labour text (which, compared to other dismal science texts, can be much more interesting as there is often comparison of schools of thought as the orthodox position is critiqued by reference to heterodox approaches) and note the lack of reference to the Austrians.
A firm is a collection of resources in the end, meant to maximise returns on investment in it to its owner. It's thus a hub for an entrepreneur. The entrepreneur is central to Austrian economics. You may disagree, but it would be incorrect to say no theory of the firm exists.A poor attempt! You won't be able to refer to entrepreneurship to understand how the visible hand replaces the invisible hand. You do get attempts to try and integrate the 'Coasian firm' (where hierarchy is used as part of an effort to minimise transaction costs) with Hayekian information problems. However, that certainly isn't a coherent theory of the firm. That is just a realisation that the Austrians are a side issue, showing that its not just influence costs and agency costs that impinge on the boundaries of the firm. Once we switch to an institutionalist approach we automatically have to consider coercion and conflict (e.g. the rejection of the orthodox economies of scale approach to firm growth will assuredly lead to discussion over market power)
Here is a list of journals the Austrian schools has published articles in (excluding journals run by the Austrians) referring specifically to the theory of the firm.
So please. Enough of this nonsense. It is a pathetic attempt to discredit a theory due to your own inability to provide valid arguments.Boettke, Peter J. 1998. "Coase, Communism, and the Black Box of the Soviet-Type Firm." In Steven Medema, ed., Coasean Economics: Law and Economics and the New Institutional Economics. Boston: Kluwer, pp. 193-207.
Boudreaux, Donald, and Randall Holcombe. 1989 "The Coasian and Knightian Theories of the Firm." Managerial and Decision Economics 10: 147-54.
Foss, Kirsten and Nicolai Foss. 2000. "Economic Organization in a Process Perspective: an Explorative Discussion." In Jackie Krafft, ed. The Process of Competition. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Foss, Kirsten and Nicolai Foss. 2002. "Coase vs Hayek: Economic Organization in the Knowledge Economy." International Journal of the Economics of Business 9: 9-36.
Foss, Kirsten, Nicolai J. Foss, and Peter G. Klein. 2007. "Original and Derived Judgment: An Entrepreneurial Theory of Economic Organization." Organization Studies 28, no. 12 (June 2007): 1893-1912.
Foss, Kirsten, Nicolai J. Foss, Peter G. Klein, and Sandra K. Klein. 2002. "Heterogeneous Capital, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Organization." Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines 12, no. 1: 79-96.
Foss, Kirsten, Nicolai J. Foss, Peter G. Klein, and Sandra K. Klein. 2007. "The Entrepreneurial Organization of Heterogeneous Capital." Journal of Management Studies 44, no. 7: 1165Ė86.
Foss, Nicolai J. 1993. "More on Knight and the Theory of the Firm." Managerial and Decision Economics 14: 269-76.
Foss, Nicolai J. 1999. "The Use of Knowledge in Firms." Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 155: 458-86.
Foss, Nicolai and Jens FrÝslev Christensen. 2001. "A Market Process Approach to Corporate Coherence." Managerial and Decision Economics 22: 213-26.
Foss, Nicolai J., and Peter G. Klein. 2005. "Entrepreneurship and the Economic Theory of the Firm: Any Gains from Trade?" In Rajshree Agarwal, Sharon A. Alvarez, and Olav Sorenson, eds., Handbook of Entrepreneurship: Disciplinary Perspectives. Norwell, Mass: Kluwer.
Foss, Nicolai J., and Ibuki Ishikawa. 2006. "Towards a Dynamic Resource-based View." To appear (in a slightly revised version) in Organization Studies.
Langlois, Richard N. 1995. "Do Firms Plan?" Constitutional Political Economy 6: 247-61.
Langlois, Richard N. 2002. "Kirznerian Entrepreneurship and the Nature of the Firm." Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines 12, no. 1.
Lewin, Peter. 1998. "The Firm, Money and Economic Calculation: Considering the Institutional Nexus of Market Production." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 57, no. 4: 499-512.
I would have no way of knowing for you have done provided much reason or empirical evidence. You just keep linking to other sites expecting me to do all the work for you. It is your job to bring forth the ideas you want me to either consider or reject.Unlike you I bothered to read up on the labour economics required to derive a supportable conclusion.
The error was the obfuscating nature of your sentence, which can hardly be deciphered in the English language. It is full of ambiguities, and is a run-on sentence at best. My only question is why are you not providing detailed arguments of your views?There was no error. You simply do not understand what I said because you do not understand the economics used. Its not complex stuff mind you so ask any questions you need!
I cannot discount the importance of monopsony because you have yet to explain that importance or how monopsony exists in the real world labor market.Already done! Given you cannot discount the importance of monopsony, will you apologise for the erroneous remarks that you've made? It would be the decent thing to do.
There are plenty of other people on this site who I disagree with but at the very least provide arguments which can be discussed. If your next response does not contain arguments, I will not bother to continue this discussion with you as it is a fruitless waste of my time.