Ideas are nonrival, so increasing returns to scale is an essential feature of technological change in a market economy.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
---|---|---|---|---|
Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
Fixed costs & market power in tech are a fact of life. But this need not correspond to simple IRS b/o duplication & business/idea stealing
|
||||
Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
I don't know what "essential" means. And ideas are rival in a market economy with a patent system.
|
||||
Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
Spoiler alert: Anti-science is especially dumb
|
||||
Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
Yes, if you mean that Af(x) has increasing returns in A and x. Not restricted to market economies. Generation, copy of ideas is important.
|
||||
Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
An idea is non-rival and having one requires a large upfront cost (as in discovering the cure to a disease). Increasing returns follows.
|
||||
Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
This also means large potential gains to globalization.
-see background information here -see background information here |
||||
Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
One of the central insights of economics.
|
||||
Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
The increasing returns created by nonrival ideas is perhaps the leading contender for explaining economic growth.
|
||||
José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
True if we assume, as it seems natural, that doubling all rivalrous inputs doubles output.
|
||||
Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
The key point is that developing an idea is a fixed cost, not that ideas are nonrival.
Conclusion also follows if ideas do not transfer.
|
||||
Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
James Stock |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
This is the key source of improving material well-being over time; disruptive as it can be.
|