What do you think the American Enterprise Institute is for? Cato? Chambers of Commerce? The multitude of other business umbrella lobby groups? What did you think they did other than come together to form a united front to represent their interests (conspire)?
We're talking about a conspiracy to hire people for no other reason than to keep them busy so they don't revolt. This is laughably absurd. What do I, as a company owner, gain by adhering to this conspiracy? What I lose is obvious: huge waste on salaries for jobs that accomplish nothing. This conspiracy does not pass the economics sniff test: it purports a huge artificial externality with no apparent free-riding.
Now you're just moving the goalposts. My response is directed towards the original claim made in Graeber's essay, not your liberal interpretations thereof.
If you use neoclassical assumptions like you did, his claims are absurd. However, we live in the real world, not some magic fantasy of perfect markets, perfect competition and zero transaction costs.
Comments
What do you think the American Enterprise Institute is for? Cato? Chambers of Commerce? The multitude of other business umbrella lobby groups? What did you think they did other than come together to form a united front to represent their interests (conspire)?
We're talking about a conspiracy to hire people for no other reason than to keep them busy so they don't revolt. This is laughably absurd. What do I, as a company owner, gain by adhering to this conspiracy? What I lose is obvious: huge waste on salaries for jobs that accomplish nothing. This conspiracy does not pass the economics sniff test: it purports a huge artificial externality with no apparent free-riding.
No, we're talking about hiring people for this reason, among others.
You mean a share holder? Nothing. You seem to be laughably under the impression that the company is run for your personal benefit. It isn't.
You explain why companies hire based upon headcount instead of pure cost. It doesn't make intrinsic sense, but that's how it happens.
Congratulations, you just assumed away the principal-agent dilemma.
Now you're just moving the goalposts. My response is directed towards the original claim made in Graeber's essay, not your liberal interpretations thereof.
If you use neoclassical assumptions like you did, his claims are absurd. However, we live in the real world, not some magic fantasy of perfect markets, perfect competition and zero transaction costs.