Phil Miller might be known as “the King Banaian of Mankato”.
Or he might not.
But “Market Power” is very worth a read. I liked this bit on non-profits’ penchant for institutional self-glorification:
There is a statement on a another department’s bulletin board near my office that states that “non-profits are the driving force behind change in our community.” Of course the statement is nonsense aside from its rhetorical content. That something needs to “change” means that something is not working well. If something is to change, someone has to realize it and he must take actions to make things work better. That means he has to have the right incentives. Why is it that the incentives are better and/or the information use is better in non-profits than in the profit seeking world?
At any rate, “Market Power” is an excellent economics blog, sort of like “SCSU Scholars” but with less Red Sox and – this is important – more home-brewing recipes.
This post is silly.
Why are there incentives that are just as effective, if not moreso, than economic?
Goodness, that question, and the fact you reprinted it point out the very nature of your impairment. Do you seriously think that the only true motivation in life is money? For that matter, do you truly think that money is the strongest motivator for many, even most people?
Please read about Mazlow’s Hygiene theory – economic compensation is, for most people, a demotivator when not present, but is not, for most people, a strong motivator to action.
Further, economic incentive often leads to warped decision making. The Japanese (and others) have long pointed out our flawed “10-Minute” economic vision. We don’t worry about corporations as organism in a community, but rather short-term profit. Part of NWA’s (Northwest Airlines- not N… with Attitude) major issues in profitiability came from Al Checci (sic) selling off all of NWA’s aircraft to NW Holding, and then leasing them back. It made a LOT of money in the short term for NWA, and of course for Checci, who cashed out and left – but was virtually fatal for the airline.
So, I ask again, are you serious?
Many people have very strong compassion, duty, integrity motivators that are part of proving self-worth, and a self-worth having NOTHING to do with money. Mazlow expresses it precisely as ‘self-actualizers’ and he makes no bones that money is really not part of the equation.
I know it fits well into your ‘economic incentive’ meme, but a pretty fair amount of study says that while money motivates some level of action, it is rarely a strong, long-term motivator for most.
peevish, I think your comment is silly and that you are impaired.
How do you measure your “motivators…having NOTHING to do with money”? You cannot because they are intangible.
The thing about “profits” and “money” is that they are tangible, they are measurable, and they are versatile. They are similarly valued by people who have little else in common, and the incentive they provide brings some predictability to the actions of free people and groups.
Thank you Mitch for the link! Market Power linked here and I enjoyed reading the “profits as information” idea:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-and-industry/how-to-replace-the-profit-motive-200803231099/
“One of the things that can be very hard to get across is the idea that making a profit isn’t simply or solely a manifestation of human greed: it’s also information. Making a loss is the market’s way of telling you that you’re doing something stupid.”
Unfortunately, peevish, pointing out individual greedy grinches behaving badly does not provide you with an economic leg to stand on.
Mitch kindly recommended a blogger
Causing Peev, resident pettifogger
To bleat on ’til bleary
Abstruse Mazlow theory
It’s Friday, Peev, please have a lager
Bravo, Mr. D. I would add a prescription for anti-OCD drugs to the recommendation.
Does Peev ever tire of putting a heap-load of words in folks’ mouths?
Badda – if you pay attention to the actual text, you can see the points being made.. it’s a novel idea I know, but give it a whirl.
On a related note – Gotta love them Mormons – Good thing Mitch like Mitt. Hey, as compared to Rev. Wright, what’s a few polygimists.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/national/main3994946.shtml
Troy – I get that you obfuscated by the points made by well-renown and eminently respected business research analysts, but changing the subject into something it wasn’t – specifically that some motivations are ephemeral – and some are tangible – but how would that possibly be limited to economic remuneration? It is not, of course, nor are things like integrity necessarily purely ephemerally equated. I can receive accolade (which I suppose you could say was motivation by acclaim) for my works, for my dedication, but truly, my thought could indeed be directed to the validation of my drives, rather than the specific award.
You think too small, but that’s ok, it’s a pretty normal condition for you conservatives. And the rather banal and simplistic point that failure is a good teacher doesn’t, in any way, negate the point that economic motivation isn’t seen as much of a motivator.
I understand, really I do, that you neo-nutzies can’t conceive of things being of greater value to a human than money – but the truth is, for most of us, there are many things more important. Faith, family, honor, integrity, to name a few.
The truth is, I’m sure they are more important to you too, but admitting it, implies that economic incentives as the penultimate answer of how to organize a society then becomes indicted by that admission, and so you demure, or worse, deny.
Keep up the ‘change the point’ work though, you didn’t get close, but, at least it gives you something to do.
BTW Froggie, my OCD prescription, I assure you, is probably at a dosage 1/10th that of your favorite online blog author. So, worry not little reptile, anything I can take, Mitch can use more of.
but changing the subject into something it wasn’t…Keep up the ‘change the point’ work thoug
Ha! Hahahahaha! Hahahahahahahaha!
anything I can take, Mitch can use more of.
Like Peev taking a break from long-winded, gratuitously insulting, poorly-reasoned commenting?
Nah. You need that ten times as much as I do.
Well Mitch, at least you admit to needing to stop with the long-winded gratuitously insulting, porrly-reasoned comments.
As they say, admission is the first step.
And Mitch, you post 10,000 times to my 400, so um… yeah.
Well Mitch, at least you admit to needing to stop with the long-winded gratuitously insulting, porrly-reasoned comments.
No, Peev. Your reading comprehension let you down again. I admitted you have a problem with both.
And Mitch, you post 10,000 times to my 400, so um… yeah.
Right. On my blog. I alone judge whether it’s worth the time and effort – and, after six years, it’s a huge “yes”.
People are free to come and go as they wish; it’s free, and it’s voluntary. I’d write if nobody came, of course, but a little over 2,000 people do so a day, in a field where about 200 uniques a day is pretty respectable.
On the other hand, you have left 400 comments since the last time I banned you, in order to…what? Insult, condescend, puff yourself up, threaten…
…and that’s fine. I leave the space open for that. Whatever floats your boat.
The difference is, I have written 10,000-odd posts because it’s a huge net add to my life; it’s opened vistas to me that had been closed for years; it’s an outlet I’d spent half of my adult life searching for. In the emotional bank account of my life, to cite Covey (something I don’t do much, because, blah), it’s a constant deposit.
You, on the other hand, have spent hours and hours being, for lack of a better term, a crank.
If you find that a useful investment of your time, more power to ya. I don’t get it, but whatever!
You are condescending for no discernible reason, peevish, as your knowledge of economics does not impress.
Someday I hope you realize this is not your blog.