Tweet

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1347898774891491332?s=20

https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1347921640005496832?s=20

More from @PerBylund

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

10 Jan

The problem with (and for) #SiliconValley is their lack of #entrepreneurship. Yes, really: they're bad at being entrepreneurs, at providing the entrepreneurial function in the economy. To put it differently, they are technology driven in their profit-seeking but not consumer

driven. The difference is monumental both for the economy and the companies, and this is why they're failing. No, failing doesn't mean they are necessarily losing money, but that their profits are short-term and that they are undermining their own market positions. The business

they are in is not sustainable. This goes way beyond the selling of eyeballs, which is the focus of Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others. As it's often said, if you are not the paying for the product you *are* the product. Facebook is selling you, and your future purchases, to

Read 20 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

30 Dec 20

@AOMConnect

Sadly, the @AOMConnect #AMR editors continue the all-too-common mistake of conflating Coase and Williamson and even cite Coase as source of TCE. But they're not the same, or even commensurable, as I show in my forthcoming SMR paper (linked in next tweet). journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/am…

Bylund (2021). "The firm vs. the market: Dehomogenizing the transaction cost theories of Coase and Williamson." Strategic Management Review Vol. 2, No. 1. leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/jere1232/smr.h…

Here's the error. The #AMR editors even note opportunism alongside the citation of Coase (1937), a concept Coase vehemently opposed. 🤦‍♂️

Read 5 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

20 Dec 20

Many anti-market folks assert that property must have arisen from someone claiming for himself that which was jointly used. That's their bias, not an explanation or theory. Private property can emerge from joint or communal use without conflict. When it does, it is by definition

legitimate property. Locke showed how it could be done through mixing one's labor with unowned/unclaimed land. I have previously drafted an alternative theory. Neither claims that all existing property, or even the existing property *system*, is therefore libertarianpapers.org/5-man-matter-f…

legitimate, only that there can be legitimate private property. This is enough to carefully consider the concept, which must be accepted as a potential alternative solution for social production and economy. The arguments for property-based production are very strong, which is,

Read 13 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

6 Dec 20

https://twitter.com/wef/status/1335569777272688646

This is the type of nonsense we get without basic understanding of economy: Government is recommended to lure businesses to close by offering them money. There are many problems with this, including where that money comes from, but the greatest is the upending of what

https://twitter.com/wef/status/1335569777272688646

economy means. By establishing a payment system based on paying off *producers*, government effectively does away with consumer sovereignty. Businesses remain in business and earn profits because consumers value what they have to offer. When consumers don't, then the business

@CEPS_thinktank

fails. Like so many other schemes, this pretend-smart nonsense by @CEPS_thinktank and @WEF mistake the market economy for production management. Suggesting to pay off producers to not produce effectively shift the determination of the production structure away from consumer wants

Read 4 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

4 Dec 20

Needs do not matter. History is full of thinkers falling into the trap of referring to needs as were they something real and distinct. But by referring to what people "need," you're really using rhetoric without substance. You are creating the illusion that your claims are

objective, whereas they are not. To put it differently, it sounds smart but isn't. Economists recognized this fact in the early 1870s, which caused a revolution in the study of economics. Until then, they had, like everybody else, been trapped by thinking of people's needs in the

objective meaning that the term seems to imply. But there is nothing objective about it, and even if there were--it would still be irrelevant. So referring to "need" in your argument is akin to the trade of stage magicians: what you're doing looks impressive, but it's not. When

Read 25 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

18 Nov 20

Let's clear up some misconceptions about #AustrianEconomics. If people want to dismiss this school of thought, which many seem inclined to do for political (not theoretical) reasons, at least they should do so based on facts and knowledge, not on falsehoods. Here are corrections:

"Austrian economics is not empirical."
False.
Empirical studies ("history") are important in AE and have larger scope than in mainstream economics. Mises worked with applied research in the Vienna Chamber of Commerce and founded the Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research,

for which he appointed Hayek as the first director. This is where Hayek did much of the business cycle research that later won him the Nobel Prize. What critics fail to understand is Austrians' narrower definition of theory, which is not a collection of hypotheses but true,

Read 25 tweets

Share this page!

Per Bylund

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @PerBylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?