| | This simple theorem, first published in a 1960 paper<ref>Ronald H. Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost,” 3 J. Law & Econ. 1 (1960)</ref> by [[Ronald Coase]] who won the Nobel Prize for Economics for this in 1991, has powerful implications for economics, law, politics, and even [[Christianity]]. This theorem reinforces teachings of [[Jesus]], such as the parable of the sprouting seed,<ref>[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)#4:26|Mark 4:26-29]].</ref> and supports [[conservative]] interpretations of the [[Chicago School of Economics]]. | | This simple theorem, first published in a 1960 paper<ref>Ronald H. Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost,” 3 J. Law & Econ. 1 (1960)</ref> by [[Ronald Coase]] who won the Nobel Prize for Economics for this in 1991, has powerful implications for economics, law, politics, and even [[Christianity]]. This theorem reinforces teachings of [[Jesus]], such as the parable of the sprouting seed,<ref>[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)#4:26|Mark 4:26-29]].</ref> and supports [[conservative]] interpretations of the [[Chicago School of Economics]]. |
| | + | The Coase theorem proves the availability of infinite opportunities to all who are productive. This is helpful to understanding paradoxical miracles and parables. For example, the [[Multiplication of the loaves]] is straightforward example of supplies (food) becoming available to further the most productive activity (spreading the [[Gospel]]). The otherwise baffling Parable of the Vineyard Workers, whereby workers who toil merely at the end the day are paid as much as those who worked the full day, is logical under the Coase Theorem because the owner needed the work done and thus was willing to overpay for it. |
| | The implications in law are that the best a judge can do for the economy as a whole is to minimize transaction costs, such as bureaucracy. Court decisions that impose additional procedural obligations, such as ''[[Goldberg v. Kelly]]'' (1969), can only detract from overall wealth and efficient economic behavior. The Coase theorem implicitly holds that many of the legal attempts to improve the economy are illusory, because there is no way to improve over the combination of clear legal entitlements and no government interference. | | The implications in law are that the best a judge can do for the economy as a whole is to minimize transaction costs, such as bureaucracy. Court decisions that impose additional procedural obligations, such as ''[[Goldberg v. Kelly]]'' (1969), can only detract from overall wealth and efficient economic behavior. The Coase theorem implicitly holds that many of the legal attempts to improve the economy are illusory, because there is no way to improve over the combination of clear legal entitlements and no government interference. |