Archive for January, 2009
According to this thinking, longer delay caused by systemic innovation can be managed as per a pre-reconciled plan. There is little uncertainty involved. Autonomous innovations according to this argument would experience shorter delay. Both these appear to us as unsustainable. Systemic innovations we understand as ex-post. Systemic innovations appear through an uncertain mechanism called by Shackle as “orientation.” The delays and their lengths are attributable to this orientation. Delay as deferment refers Read the rest of this entry »
Have you ever experienced chargeback? Well, most of business experienced this. Customers ask for their money back from the seller because of the online transaction from their credit card. Most of the reason for customers asking chargeback is becasu of credit card fraud and transaction error. This situation is not good for merchant since they can loose the profit. Therefore, if you own an online business you should avoid the chargeback. But if you have been experiencing the chargeback, you have to face it in a good way so that you can stand once more to get your business get in the line. Read the rest of this entry »
Time lag in this model does not take into consideration delays or deferments owing to possibilities. A possibility to link up with or be complemented by a set of alternatives at any point of time is afforded by a technological innovation. This is the first objection. The second objection is that deferment is capital and it happens not because of a “market failure.” In the Richardson-type of argument delay is undesirable. Krafft and Ravix argue for institutions that could alleviate problems of delay. These institutions can take up Read the rest of this entry »
Shackle (1972) argued, “… capital is time … capital is the manifestation of the role of time lapse in the productive process … capital is delay. But delay is an inconvenience, a disutility, a discomfort, something which will not be borne except for a reward. … capital seems to … offer a prize for the endurance of delay … (as) a marginal balance.” A pure Austrian approach assumes that deferments are pre-reconciled amongst Read the rest of this entry »
In this section we elaborate upon coordination that appears necessarily between producers. The context of production is a sequential competition that is production of future products through innovations and based upon increasing returns and along dynamic equilibrium. Successions of short-lived products from several producers must entangle them in a web of expectations on successions. Another aspect of a product is that a product in the future must remain interoperable with a set of other products emergent from Read the rest of this entry »
Moreover previous markets with near-zero innovations in products could afford to make calculations on prices and quantities, such as the average cost, marginal cost and marginal return. In sequential competition no product can complete its life cycle and hence calculations of quantities and prices remain no longer exogenous. Price-quantity variables now come under the scanner of negotiated endogenous settlements. Uncertainties about the potential product and information asymmetries between the current Read the rest of this entry »
Ecom mediates between price quantity and most importantly the product (innovation) decisions of the producer, and the utility expectations of the customers. Under the circumstances of no-innovation, or of one single homogeneous product enjoying monopoly a la Chamberlin (1933), there is no need for coordination between the producer and the customer. However, following Richardson’s (1996) argument, a market experiences a sequential competition between succeeding monopolists (contrary to Chamberlin’s Read the rest of this entry »
Received theory presents intermediation as the structure of a market. Microstructure of a market (O’Hara, 1997; Goodhart, 1989) refers to dynamics of transactions, relations, expectations and the time. Intermediaries served the most essential function of the microstructures of a market. Economic agents who interpolate them in between the producer of a good or services and its consumer are intermediaries according to the structural theorist. As a result of this structural emphasis the presence and the relevance Read the rest of this entry »
A long period of production refers to the entire input-output table of an economy. A short period of production refers to a specific transaction chain of a business or a sector. Electronic commerce increases the length of both these periods. Vertical integration linked up several such industrial sectors. Ecom and associated expansion along the direction of scope have crossed boundaries of specific transaction chains or of industry sectors. Increases in these periods take place because of several other factors as well. With an Read the rest of this entry »
Interpreters of TCE have assumed that Ecom brings about a frictionless (Brynjolffson & Smith, 1999) or transactions-cost-free market. They have wrongly committed TCE to such an explanation and this is my first objection. Second, reduction of transactions cost would increase efficiency and would not increase the rate of profit or capital and would not hasten innovation. About my first objection I must point out that TCE refers not to an accounting cost in an economy, instead it refers to cost due to opportunism or due to increased difficulties in protecting one’s property rights. Cost of information is an additional element. Read the rest of this entry »