Si fa presto a dire "efficienza", ce ne sono almeno due:
1) Pareto: un cambiamento è efficiente se avvantaggia qualcuno senza danneggiare gli altri.
2) Marshall: un cambiamento è efficiente se i vantaggi superano i danni.
2) Marshall: un cambiamento è efficiente se i vantaggi superano i danni.
Esempio 1: prendiamo una legge che introduca la libera concorrenza. Per Pareto è inefficiente perché danneggia i produttori. Per Marshall è efficiente perché questo danno è compensato dai vantaggi dei consumatori e superato dai vantaggi di chi entra.
Esempio 2: prendiamo una legge che tolga i dazi. Per Pareto è inefficiente poiché danneggia i produttori locali. Per Marshall è efficiente perché questo danno è compensato dai vantaggi dei consumatori locali e superato dai vantaggi dei produttori esteri.
I particolari al capitolo "Efficiency and All That".
#Amazon
#Amazon
Ogni cambiamento crea danni e vantaggi. Quali sdoganare in nome dell'efficienza?
Pareto: solo quelli che creano vantaggi senza danneggiare nessuno.
Marshall: solo quelli che creano più vantaggi che danni.
Esempio della concorrenza: è giusto poter entrare in competizione con gli operatori economici? Per Pareto no, poiché si tratta di una cambiamento che danneggia i produttori. Per Marshall sì perché il danno dei produttori si elide con il vantaggio dei consumatori, il vantaggio di chi entra fa così la differenza.
Si noti che Marshall richiede confrontabilità delle utilità (attraverso il denaro).
2 Efficiency and All That
Note:2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L efficienza si avvicina alla giustizia.Efficienza marshalliana: prevale chi offre di piú.Efficienza paretiana: prevale chi nn danneggia nessuno. Nota che in un asta il secondo offerente danneggiato dal primo.UTILITARISMO. CONFRONTABILITÀ. MARSCHALL E PARETOLIMITI DELL UTILITARISMO TROLLEY VALORE DEI SOLDIEFFICIENTISMO E REDISTRIBUZIONE. MEGLIO TASSAREWHY NOT LAISSEZ FAIRE? NN TUTTE LE RELAZIONI SONO VOLONTARIE
Yellow highlight | Location: 373
how to add people up. If a law benefits some and hurts others, as most do, how can one decide whether the net effect is loss or gain, cost or benefit?
Note:L ETERNO PROBLEMA DELL UTILITARISMO
Note:L ETERNO PROBLEMA DELL UTILITARISMO
Yellow highlight | Location: 376
I. A Very Large Pie with All of Us in It
Note:T
Note:T
Yellow highlight | Location: 377
Alfred Marshall proposed a solution to that problem.
Yellow highlight | Location: 382
The result of the change is to make some people better off and some worse off.
Note:Come valutare il cambiamento?
Note:Come valutare il cambiamento?
Yellow highlight | Location: 383
asking each person affected how much he would, if necessary, pay to get the benefit (if the change made him better off) or prevent the loss (if it made him worse off).
Note:Il metodo
Note:Il metodo
Yellow highlight | Location: 385
One is that we are accepting each person’s own judgment of the value to him of things that affect him.
Note:Primo assunto implicito
Note:Primo assunto implicito
Yellow highlight | Location: 388
we are comparing effects on different people using dollars
Note:Secondo assunto: la scala.
Note:Secondo assunto: la scala.
Yellow highlight | Location: 390
II. How to Add People Up
Note:T
Note:T
Yellow highlight | Location: 390
The experiment of asking people such questions is an imaginary one not only because we don’t do it but also because, if we did, there is no reason to expect them to tell us the truth.
Note:La semplice intervista si espone al bluff
Note:La semplice intervista si espone al bluff
Yellow highlight | Location: 395
The economist’s term for that approach is “revealed preference.” Preferences are revealed by choices.
Note:Indispensabili trasferimenti reali
Note:Indispensabili trasferimenti reali
Yellow highlight | Location: 404
The transfer was an improvement.
Note:MIRACOLO DRL COMMERVIO
Note:MIRACOLO DRL COMMERVIO
Yellow highlight | Location: 415
The rule is freedom of exchange: Anyone who owns an apple is free to sell or not to sell it on any terms mutually acceptable. In our two-person world the result is efficient.
Note:Efficienza del laissez faire
Note:Efficienza del laissez faire
Yellow highlight | Location: 436
Our simple example also illustrates another important point—that money, although convenient for both making transactions and talking about them, is not what economics is about.
Note:Vale la pena di notarlo
Note:Vale la pena di notarlo
Yellow highlight | Location: 439
III. Is Efficiency Always a Good Thing?
Note:Ttttttttttttttt
Note:Ttttttttttttttt
Yellow highlight | Location: 442
Although “efficient” is not quite identical to “desirable” or “should,” it is close enough
Note:La ns fortuna
Note:La ns fortuna
Yellow highlight | Location: 449
Consider a sheriff who observes a mob about to lynch three innocent murder suspects and solves the problem by announcing (falsely) that he has proof one of them is guilty and shooting him.
Note:Il male minire. Efficienza e giustizia. Il trolley problem.
Note:Il male minire. Efficienza e giustizia. Il trolley problem.
Yellow highlight | Location: 452
many of us would have serious moral reservations
Yellow highlight | Location: 456
a dollar is worth more to some people than to others—more to poor than to rich, more to materialist than to ascetic.
Note:Altro problema dell efficientismo. Il denaro come metro
Note:Altro problema dell efficientismo. Il denaro come metro
Yellow highlight | Location: 475
Marshall’s response was that most economic issues involve costs and benefits to large and heterogeneous groups of people, so that differences in individual value for money (in the language of economics, differences in the “marginal utility of income”) were likely to average out.
Note:Risposta alla critica del denaro come metro
Note:Risposta alla critica del denaro come metro
Yellow highlight | Location: 493
An alternative argument for efficient law is that, even when legal rules can be used to redistribute, there are better tools available, such as taxation.
Note:Un altra risposta alla critica del denaro come metro
Note:Un altra risposta alla critica del denaro come metro
Yellow highlight | Location: 496
My conclusion is that efficiency, defined in Marshall’s sense, provides a useful, although imperfect, approach to judging legal rules and their outcomes.
Note:CONCLUSIONE
Note:CONCLUSIONE
Yellow highlight | Location: 505
IV. Alternatives to Marshall, or Rugs to Sweep the Dust under
Note:Ttttttt
Note:Ttttttt
Yellow highlight | Location: 507
defining an improvement as a change that benefits someone and injures nobody.
Note:MARSHALL VS PARETO. Un approccio alternativo che evita la confrontabilit
Note:MARSHALL VS PARETO. Un approccio alternativo che evita la confrontabilit
Yellow highlight | Location: 509
freedom of exchange is efficient whether we use Marshall’s definition (net gains) or Pareto’s (some gain, no loss).
Note:Caso pacifico
Note:Caso pacifico
Yellow highlight | Location: 512
Women can trade only with other women.
Note:Esempio di norma genderizzata.
Note:Esempio di norma genderizzata.
Yellow highlight | Location: 512
Going from gender solidarity to freedom of exchange produces a net gain by Marshall’s criterion,
Yellow highlight | Location: 513
But it makes Anne worse off, so it is not a Pareto improvement.
Note:Niente aste con Pareto poiché il terzo resta scornato
Note:Niente aste con Pareto poiché il terzo resta scornato
Yellow highlight | Location: 516
Not even the most enthusiastic supporter of free trade—myself, for example—would deny that the abolition of tariffs makes some people worse off.
Note:L esempio dei dazi.
Note:L esempio dei dazi.
Yellow highlight | Location: 524
The Simple Case for Laissez-Faire
Note:Tttttttttt
Note:Tttttttttt
Yellow highlight | Location: 525
The discussion so far suggests a simple solution to the problem of creating efficient legal rules—private property plus freedom of exchange. Everything belongs to someone.
Note:WGY NOT LAISSEZ FAIRE
Note:WGY NOT LAISSEZ FAIRE
Yellow highlight | Location: 536
What Is Wrong with the Simple Case for Laissez-Faire
Note:Ttttttt
Note:Ttttttt
Yellow highlight | Location: 541
When I drive my car down the street, both the car and the gasoline were obtained by voluntary exchange. But the same is not true of the relation between me and pedestrians
Note:Il problema é che viviamo in un mondo zeppo di relazioni nn volontarie
Note:Il problema é che viviamo in un mondo zeppo di relazioni nn volontarie
Yellow highlight | Location: 543
A second assumption implicit in the argument is that transactions are costless,
Note | Location: 544
Altro problema x il lassez faire
