"Has any article explained" ???? I dont know? did you have a point you wanted to make? I wouldn't think so because there is no wage limit for economic rent to lead to an overpayment. Multi-million dollar NFL quarterbacks can be overpaid due to economic rent.
You've put your foot in it again! We're referring to firm economic rent (in orthodox terms, supernormal profits such that firms more than cover their opportunity costs). Overpayment would lead to a reduction in economic rent. You've probably confused yourself with agency costs. Moreover, the existence of overpayment in the firm is usually understood in terms of inefficient hierarchy (which necessary leads to an understanding of efficiency gain from socialism)
I and the person I was responding to were quite CLEARLY referring to employees who are overpaid. You just dont realize the world doesnt revolve around you.
Given the discussion is about the firm, at best you're struggling to find relevance. Of course, as I said, its much more amusing. By referring to employee overpayment you've actually introduced a benefit of socialism over capitalism (whereby the internal labour market can be separated from hierarchical inefficiencies)
Since I was responding to danilepalos comment regarding overpayment, you need to address that to him. I have no doubt that socialism could eliminate the overpayment of wages in capitalism, no matter what their source.
Let's not bother. Given you've referred to overpayment, do you understand how you've referred to an aspect of inefficient hierarchy in capitalist firms?
What private Firm could take the place of the corporation known as a State? - - - Updated - - - I was merely interested why it never seems to imply S&P CEOs.
Well, of course not. Ricardo was an economist, not a lawmaker. He promoted economic theory in an attempt to understand market phenomena. The premise of my post was to imply that the profit motive is not necessarily eliminated in socialism as an economic and social philosophy. The post I responded to was pointing to why socialism fails due to the profit motive. This is not true in accordance with economic theory, and certainly not in accordance with economic reality considering socialism is no way relevant to what the poster was trying to reference to, State Capitalism/Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism. What he was trying to refer to was in fact a combination of authoritarian Capitalism and Communism rather than Socialism. In that regard, I agree that the profit motive is not conducive, hence the horrific standards of living found in the USSR.
Thats what the poster you were responding to aknowledged in the post you were responding to. The poster made no references to State Capitalism/Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism.
Dont be silly. The corporation would take the place of the Department of Water Resources, not the state. Keep struggling. Eventually we might get a relevant point from you.
A lack of synergy could explain it. - - - Updated - - - The Department of Water Resources is part of the "firm" called a State; it has not authority to act on its own without State direction. Are you claiming that a private sector Firm can do something similar on a for profit basis when a public sector can do it on a not for profit basis?
What if I claim that a public sector monopoly may be such, simply because the private sector has no profit motive, as in the case of public goods and public services.
Did you know that non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies? Have you run out of propaganda and rhetoric, already?
