Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,795
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: − +
Regulatory attempts to correct negative externalities, which some consider to be a type of market failure, will add inefficiencies if the regulations increase transaction costs.
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.
The implication in economics is that governments can create better outcomes when they intervene to define property rights and lower transaction costs where feasible. This is usually done to correct negative [[externalities]], which are a type of [[market failure]].
The implication in economics is that regulations that increase transaction costs are harmful, and the best that government can do is to clarify property rights and lower transaction costs. Regulatory attempts to correct negative [[externalities]], which some consider to be a type of [[market failure]], will add inefficiencies if the regulations increase transaction costs.
The implications in politics are that, in a free society, it is almost irrelevant who has wealth and who does not with respect to economic activity. Useful or desired economic activity will occur regardless of who owns property or wealth. A list of the wealthiest individuals (Forbes 500) is meaningless, as wealth will flow to efficient activity regardless of who controls the money.
The implications in politics are that, in a free society, it is almost irrelevant who has wealth and who does not with respect to economic activity. Useful or desired economic activity will occur regardless of who owns property or wealth. A list of the wealthiest individuals (Forbes 500) is meaningless, as wealth will flow to efficient activity regardless of who controls the money.