Re: Coordination problem

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Sun Apr 20 2003 - 00:11:23 MDT

  • Next message: gts: "Re: FITNESS: Diet and Exercise"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin@tsoft.com>
    To: <extropians@extropy.org>
    Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 12:29 AM
    Subject: RE: Coordination problem

    > Rafal writes
    >
    > > > > ### According to game theory, certain strategies are
    > > > > inherently unstable due
    > > > > to the coordination problem. Forced coordination,
    > > > > as in legislation to impose a monopoly bargaining
    > > > > entity in the form of labor unions, or to stop
    > > > > individual bargaining for wages, does solve the
    > > > > problem, which is why immediately after the imposition
    > > > > the law there is an increase in income to
    > > > > the beneficiaries of the law (as in unionized workers).
    > > >
    > > > I don't know what this BS about coordination is all about,
    > > > but I do see that you are pointing out that for a particular
    > > > set of workers, their wages will go up if it's mandated some
    > > > way, or they achieve it some way through bargaining.
    > >
    > > ### You might want to read about the coordination problem at
    > > http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/game.html.
    > >
    > > The "queuing game" is quite enlightening.
    >
    > Yes, that's fun. (There are many obvious things that airlines
    > could do that would minimize discomfort, although I believe
    > that people are sufficiently irrational that most of them
    > would not be accepted by the herd boarding the planes.)
    >
    > > Formation of an effective monopoly does increase
    > > the potential income of the monopolist compared
    > > to a competitve equilibrium. This is uncontroversial, I
    > > hope?
    >
    > Yes, with stress on "potential". It's not so clear that
    > in practice monopolies are as bad as is commonly thought;
    > Rockefeller, for example, might not have been able to
    > maintain his if gouging had been his objective.

    ### His monopoly wouldn't last - because under market conditions monopolies
    tend to break down except in some unusual circumstances (extreme
    concentrations of land ownership, very steep entry costs, etc.), but a
    state-imposed monopoly (like a state-mandated union law) does last, and will
    cause long-range damage to the economy. Monopolies are bad if they exist,
    but contrary to conventional wisdom they are not a feature of most types of
    market economy.

    -----------------------

    >
    >
    > > > Okay. But what about the following *immediate* effect:
    > > > if all the janitors in the U.S. get their wages doubled
    > > > overnight, then [more janitors are *immediately* without
    > > > jobs]. Likewise, if all unions were busted tomorrow (by
    > > > equally magical fiat), then the total number of employed
    > > > persons would *immediately* go up. Right?
    > >
    > > ### Not immediately in the latter situation.
    > > BTW, you don't need to "bust" labor unions,
    > > merely abolish the laws that mandate their
    > > formation.
    >
    > What is the technical definition of "busting" a union? ;-)

    ### Sending in the Pinkertons?

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 20 2003 - 00:20:49 MDT