It was never my intent to say that the solution to mazes is less competition between corporations or between organizations. If you look at the solutions that were proposed, none of them were about decreasing competition.
The idea I was going for in terms of mazes, as I tried to explain here (it is entirely possible I botched this explanation on top of the initial confusion), was that super-perfect competition between people to get ahead within an organization (or larger system that likewise has not enough slots for too many people) is the problem here.
I also maintain, as a distinct claim, that if we were to see true perfect or super-perfect competition in the overall world, that would have some very bad effects, and that the reason we don’t see this is because perfect competition is a really weird set of assumptions that are not that close to applying in those situations, and I do think exploring these things more is interesting in its own right but isn’t what I’m trying to centrally do. Related to that I would argue that no, sufficiently competitive markets don’t do the thing you think they do, they do something else that can in some ways and situations be wonderful or even optimal, but that depends on what you care about and a lot of detail, and you can also get a big disaster.
Barring a massive edit or additional post creation I don’t know how to do better than that in terms of responding.
I’ve often wished to see some pubic choice type research into the internal working of large corporations. All too often it is assumed that the external competition will result in the internal efficiencies that are typically assumed in most economic theory. The problem, I think, is that large corporations are such joint production settings that marginal unit of analysis is something much larger than individual pay, job class pay.
Internally I suspect the really economic decisions are more like the political economic decisions about distribution and not as much about marginal allocation and marginal pricing.
I wonder if such an approach might not shed some additional light on this type of interaction regarding the role of competition and any effect on maze behaviors.
It was never my intent to say that the solution to mazes is less competition between corporations or between organizations. If you look at the solutions that were proposed, none of them were about decreasing competition.
The idea I was going for in terms of mazes, as I tried to explain here (it is entirely possible I botched this explanation on top of the initial confusion), was that super-perfect competition between people to get ahead within an organization (or larger system that likewise has not enough slots for too many people) is the problem here.
I also maintain, as a distinct claim, that if we were to see true perfect or super-perfect competition in the overall world, that would have some very bad effects, and that the reason we don’t see this is because perfect competition is a really weird set of assumptions that are not that close to applying in those situations, and I do think exploring these things more is interesting in its own right but isn’t what I’m trying to centrally do. Related to that I would argue that no, sufficiently competitive markets don’t do the thing you think they do, they do something else that can in some ways and situations be wonderful or even optimal, but that depends on what you care about and a lot of detail, and you can also get a big disaster.
Barring a massive edit or additional post creation I don’t know how to do better than that in terms of responding.
I’ve often wished to see some pubic choice type research into the internal working of large corporations. All too often it is assumed that the external competition will result in the internal efficiencies that are typically assumed in most economic theory. The problem, I think, is that large corporations are such joint production settings that marginal unit of analysis is something much larger than individual pay, job class pay.
Internally I suspect the really economic decisions are more like the political economic decisions about distribution and not as much about marginal allocation and marginal pricing.
I wonder if such an approach might not shed some additional light on this type of interaction regarding the role of competition and any effect on maze behaviors.