2 Efficiency and All That SI FA PRESTO FACE

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.

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

What does economics have to do with law? Suppose legislators propose that armed robbers receive life imprisonment. Editorial pages applaud them for getting tough on crime. Constitutional lawyers raise the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Legal philosophers ponder questions of justness. An e...

Informazioni su questo sito web

AMAZON.COM

Law's Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and Why It Matters

What does economics have to do with law? Suppose legislators propose that armed robbers receive life imprisonment. Editorial pages applaud them for getting tough on crime. Constitutional lawyers raise the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Legal philosophers ponder questions of justness. An e...

***************

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

Yellow highlight | Location: 376

I. A Very Large Pie with All of Us in It
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?

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

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

Yellow highlight | Location: 388

we are comparing effects on different people using dollars
Note:Secondo assunto: la scala.

Yellow highlight | Location: 390

II. How to Add People Up
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

Yellow highlight | Location: 395

The economist’s term for that approach is “revealed preference.” Preferences are revealed by choices.
Note:Indispensabili trasferimenti reali

Yellow highlight | Location: 404

The transfer was an improvement.
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

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

Yellow highlight | Location: 439

III. Is Efficiency Always a Good Thing?
Note:Ttttttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Location: 442

Although “efficient” is not quite identical to “desirable” or “should,” it is close enough
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.

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

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

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

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

Yellow highlight | Location: 505

IV. Alternatives to Marshall, or Rugs to Sweep the Dust under
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

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

Yellow highlight | Location: 512

Women can trade only with other women.
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

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.

Yellow highlight | Location: 524

The Simple Case for Laissez-Faire
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

Yellow highlight | Location: 536

What Is Wrong with the Simple Case for Laissez-Faire
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

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

Consider again our little world. As long as we have two people, freedom of exchange is efficient whether we use Marshall’s definition (net gains) or Pareto’s (some gain, no loss). At any price between fifty cents and a dollar both Mary and John gain. But now put Anne back into the picture—with a value for the apple of only seventy-five cents. Anne proposes, on the principle of gender solidarity, a new legal rule: Women can trade only with other women. Going from gender solidarity to freedom of exchange produces a net gain by Marshall’s criterion, since it means John instead of Anne getting the apple, and it is worth more to him than to her. But it makes Anne worse off, so it is not a Pareto improvement.