A Quote by David Autor

Markets are, in many settings, self-organizing and 'efficient' in terms of maximizing the welfare of both buyers and sellers. — © David Autor
Markets are, in many settings, self-organizing and 'efficient' in terms of maximizing the welfare of both buyers and sellers.
Today, there are also buyers and sellers of all these energy commodities, just like there are buyers and sellers of food commodities and many other commodities.
Most of what we know about sales comes from a world of information asymmetry, where for a very long time sellers had more information than buyers. That meant sellers could hoodwink buyers, especially if buyers did not have a lot of choices or a way to talk back.
Information costs are reduced by the existence of large numbers of buyers and sellers. Under these conditions, prices embody the same information that would require large search costs by individual buyers and sellers in the absence of an organized market.
One thing that is unique to Stadium Goods is that they have a consolidated view of everything that is going on in the footwear ecosystem because they are connecting with customers, both buyers and sellers of sneakers, in so many different places.
Markets go up not because there is abundance of buyers, but because there is a lack of sellers.
Now it's easy for someone to set up a storefront and reach the entire world in very modest ways. So these technologies that we thought would dis-intermediate traditional sellers gave more people the tools to be sellers. It also changed the balance of power between sellers and buyers.
I think a way to behave is to think not in terms of representative government, not in terms of voting, not in terms of electoral politics, but thinking in terms of organizing social movements, organizing in the work place, organizing in the neighborhood, organizing collectives that can become strong enough to eventually take over - first to become strong enough to resist what has been done to them by authority, and second, later, to become strong enough to actually take over the institutions.
It has been my experience that maximizing income is a helluva lot less important than maximizing passion and fulfillment in your both professionally and personally.
The first principle of the market economy is that it is comprised of many small buyers and sellers, which implies a substantial degree of equity. Another fundamental market principle is that costs are internalized in the producer's price.
I think a lot of things will be self-correcting, even in America. After all, human societies are essentially self-organizing emergent systems. The catch is, how much disorder will we have to endure while this re-self-organizing process occurs.
General welfare is a general condition - maybe sound currency is general welfare, maybe markets, maybe judicial system, maybe a national defense, but this is specific welfare. This justifies the whole welfare state - the military industrial complex, the welfare to foreigners, the welfare state that imprisons our people and impoverishes our people and gives us our recession.
Why should antitrust laws be used to block mergers that the market, by the existence of willing buyers and sellers, shows to be desirable?
There is such opacity within the art market. There's also an abundance of fraud and misrepresented goods, which leads to mistrust between buyers and sellers.
Markets are useful instruments for organizing productive activity. But unless we want to let the market rewrite the norms that govern social institutions, we need a public debate about the moral limits of markets.
For most of Wall Street's history, stock trading was fairly straightforward: buyers and sellers gathered on exchange floors and dickered until they struck a deal.
Our financial system is driven by a giant marketing machine in which the interests of sellers directly conflict with the interests of buyers.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!