Here is what I do not understand.

Sure I can: the isolated hunter-gatherer economies in the rain forests of Africa, Indonesia and South America have no firms (and very little government). Most of Somalia has no significant economic participation by firms other than a cell phone provider.

This, from YOU?!?!?!

ROTFL!!

 

Strange but true. As to the long-standing appeal and influence of neoclassical economics, Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz explained that pretty unambiguously: "One might ask, how can we explain the persistence of the paradigm for so long? Partly, it must be because, in spite of its deficiencies, it did provide insights into many economic phenomena. ... But one cannot ignore the possibility that the survival of the [neoclassical] paradigm was partly because the belief in that paradigm, and the policy prescriptions, has served certain interests."

 

In summary your approach is only suited to isolated hunter-gatherer economies. Got a passport?

 

Nope, just nonsensical. George was desperately unoriginal after all...

 

In summary, you have no facts or logic to offer, so you just tell stupid lies.

 

Here's the best explanation I have ever heard:

[video=youtube;JnX-D4kkPOQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnX-D4kkPOQ[/video]

 

You talk about facts and logic whilst referring to 'isolated hunter-gatherer economies' in a discussion about modern economics? You do amuse! Even with 'primitive economies' you'd still be on a loser over the lack of firms. As Coase noted, for a firm to exist we only need some aspects of vertical integration (ensuring that market allocation is replaced by internal economic planning). The norm in all economies!

 

Yes, because firms from economies where firms are the norm for legal and tax reasons (i.e., they are effectively subsidized at the expense of individuals) operate in any economy that isn't isolated. Some people are just too stupid and/or dishonest to understand that.

No, sorry, you are the loser. Firms are largely an artifact of law, regulation and tax policy.

Already refuted.

 

It gets better! I didn't think you could out-trump your 'modern economics is just an attempt to out-fox Unoriginal George'. We know have you attempting to refer to primitive economies in order to justify your ignorance of the theory of the firm. The firm naturally exist as a means to minimise transaction costs associated with market allocation. We just need to refer to issues such as asset specificity and moral hazard from asymmetric information to appreciate that. And of course we cannot even deny the existence of the Coasian firm in the primitive economy. Try the heady heights of reality, just for the crack!

 

Marx is dated since he could not envision the modern managed firm --peter drucker

socialism lost as a productive method
modern big government is like a vampire
suck blood from the production of capitalism
now think if there was no blood sucked and everyone was producing not on pension
if 100% of people produced we would be far wealthier
this is all libertarians want to do
get gov off backs
people can produce fine
end the blockage
vote against obama