This site has moved to
The posts below are backup copies from the new site.

June 3, 2014

Latest Posts from Economist's View

Latest Posts from Economist's View

'How is it Exactly That Cable Companies in the US Don’t Compete?'

Posted: 03 Jun 2014 01:34 AM PDT

Joshua Gans:

How is it exactly that cable companies in the US don't compete?, by Joshua Gans: One of the arguments made in the proposed Comcast-Time Warner merger is that these two, very large cable companies do not actually compete. They are in different markets. This is something Tyler Cowen, for example, has pushed as a reason the merger should go ahead. ... But what should cause us to have pause was an issue raised in this excellent commentary on the state of the industry by John Oliver. ...
John Oliver asks: how is it that cable companies are not competing? After all, we can drum up a story of last mile bottlenecks and sunk investment and non-contestable markets. But the truth remains that somehow these two giants have managed to avoid competition in "the way a drug cartel divides up territories" (to quote Oliver).
I don't have a definitive answer to this but we are all fans of situations where economic theory provides stories that are hard to plausibly deny. And just last week I released an NBER Working Paper co-authored with Martin Byford, that provides a theory as to why cable companies in the US don't compete. ...
You don't have to read the paper. You already know the argument: potential competitors stay out of each other's turf and divide the market. The point of the paper is that this type of collusion is understudied in economics and, indeed, one of the implications is that it has consequences for mergers.
Why this is relevant is because, if this is the reason Comcast and Time Warner do not currently compete more extensively, then to allow them to merge precisely because they don't compete seems to be rewarding and cementing that very behaviour. Thus, those who say Comcast and Time Warner should merge because they don't compete should also explain precisely why they don't now and ought not to compete in the future.

Learning and Economic Development

Posted: 03 Jun 2014 01:01 AM PDT

This is a nice summary of Joe Stiglitz lecture on his new book:

Learning and economic development, by Diane Coyle: Joseph Stiglitz gave today's Jean-Jacques Laffont lecture at the Toulouse School of Economics' Tiger forum, talking about his new book, Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development and Social Progress. The two themes of the lecture were that sustained growth needs a 'learning society', and that markets alone can't create this. ...

Also looking forward to this session. I believe it will be livecast at 1 pm (scroll down, 4 am PST, 7 am EST):

New Stances of Globalization:

Presented by : Diane Coyle,vice-chair, BBC Trust

- Hélène Rey (London Business School)

- Dani Rodrik (Institute for Advanced Study)

- Joseph Stiglitz (Colombia University)

Links for 6-03-14

Posted: 03 Jun 2014 12:06 AM PDT

DeLong's Department of “Huh?!”–I Don’t Understand Piketty’s Critics Per Krusall and Tony Smith

Posted: 02 Jun 2014 05:59 AM PDT

Brad DeLong:

Department of "Huh?!"–I Don't Understand More and More of Piketty's Critics: Per Krusall and Tony Smith, by Brad DeLong: As time passes, it seems to me that a larger and larger fraction of Piketty's critics are making arguments that really make no sense at all–that I really do not understand how people can believe them, or why anybody would think that anybody else would believe them. Today we have Per Krusall and Tony Smith assuming that the economy-wide capital depreciation rate δ is not 0.03 or 0.05 but 0.1–and it does make a huge difference…

No comments: