The great disservice of the leaders of Negro opinion was to direct the discontent at the white population. It was proper to demand political rights that only a majority could confer. It was proper to ask the white population to assist in the rise of the Negro—a small enough restitution for the unreversible mistakes of the past. But it was a terrible disservice to identify the white man as the main obstacle to the rise of the Negro.
American economist (1911–1991)
George Joseph Stigler (January 17, 1911 – December 1, 1991) was a U.S. economist. He won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1982, and was a key leader of the Chicago School of Economics, along with his close friend Milton Friedman.
From: Wikiquote (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Native Name:
George Joseph Stigler
Alternative Names:
George J. Stigler
From Wikidata (CC0)
Price dispersion is a manifestation — and, indeed, it is the measure — of ignorance in the market. Dispersion is a biased measure of ignorance because there is never absolute homogeneity in the commodity if we include the terms of sale within the concept of the commodity. Thus, some automobile dealers might perform more service, or carry a larger range of varieties in stock, and a portion of the observed dispersion is presumably attributable to such differences. But it would be metaphysical, and fruitless, to assert that all dispersion is due to heterogeneity.
For consumers, the price message is clear: economize on goods that are in short supply relative to demand, and splurge on those in ample supply: eat raspberries in summer, and ski in winter. But the accommodating is not done just by consumers: resorts in the Caribbean are much cheaper in July than in January, precisely because people are not so eager to vacation in hot, humid places.
So the price system gives innumerable messages on the state of supply and demand for each commodity or service at each place where it is bought or produced. If a city is in short supply for windows (following a hailstorm) or has an excess supply of workers, the movements of prices and wages communicate the facts to other communities. Some messages are swift and others slow.
A modern economic system is of extraordinary complexity. Imagine a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle, consisting of roughly 100 million parts. Some parts touch against, let us say, 1,000 other parts. (That is, each family deals at one time or another with that many employers, banks, retail stores, domestic servants, and so on.) Other parts touch—let us be conservative—50,000 other parts (firms that sell to retailers and buy from other firms and hire laborers and so on). It would be enough of a task to fit these 100 million pieces together, but the real difficulties have yet to be mentioned. The pieces change shape quite often—a family has twins; a firm does the next best thing and invents a new product. The economist has the interesting task of predicting (in the aggregate) each of these movements. Meanwhile a busy set of people—congressmen, members of regulatory bodies, central bankers, and the like—are changing the rules on who or what the jigsaw pieces will be and how they are shaped. And of course there are other jigsaw puzzles (foreign economies) of comparable complexity, and these other puzzles are connected at literally a million points with our puzzle.
Economic theories are infinitely diverse in their predictive power. Entirely too many have zero predictive power-they are statements of tautologies. Thus the statement that to maximize profits one should operate a firm where marginal revenue equals marginal cost is a mere mathematical statement of the condition for a maximum. The example we gave of search theory is not a tautology because we can identify the factors that influence costs and returns.· Some theories have negative power: they predict the opposite of what happens (and then become useful in the hands of a sophisticated user).
And anyway, although a fancy theory is not so good as a simple one (more things can go wrong with the fancy one), a fancy theory is better than none. Let the reader try to contrive an alternative explanation of the fact that prices of washing machines vary relatively more than prices of automobiles. He may come up with a rule such as the more expensive the commodity, the less its price varies, which seems to fit our facts-in fact, it makes the same prediction. But quite aside from the fact that it has no logical basis, this alternative explanation will often be wrong: the price of sugar varies much less than that of tea, although sugar costs less per pound. This is not a contradiction of our theory, which in a fuller version says that the aggregate amount spent on a commodity governs the amount of search.