Organizations and Markets

9 Comments Add your own

• 1. Dick Langlois  |  7 May 2009 at 12:07 pm

  Peter, I’m not sure if you are aware of it, but “A New Economy with No New Economics” was the title of an article by Hal Varian in the New York Times in 2002:

• 2. Peter Klein  |  7 May 2009 at 12:43 pm

  Absolutely! I use it often in my classes. Did you think I was clever enough to come up with that title on my own?

• 3. REW  |  7 May 2009 at 12:59 pm

  And imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

• 4. Warren Miller  |  7 May 2009 at 4:15 pm

  In March 2001, I flew halfway around the globe to give a four-hour presentation to the senior managers of one of the world’s largest agribusiness companies. It focused on “the new economy.” They thought that they needed to keep e-business separate from their other businesses. Hogwash, I told them. (Ignore the fact that the motherboard on my brand-new Dell laptop died five minutes before I got up to speak to people who had flown from the U.S. to hear me. Michael Dell is lucky he wasn’t within reach!)

  E-business was simply a different channel to the customer, I said. The metrics were different, the technology made market segmentation far easier, and, unlike other ways of trying to coummunicate with a customer base, this one allowed the shooter to hit the target market every time, and at very low cost. I also said that people with too much time on their hands and zero grasp of economics were trumpeting the myth that the “old economics” no longer applied. Heifer dust, I said. If you believe that, look at the market crash in dot-bombs in the spring of 2000. “CLick-throughs” were on no P&L I had seen (and have yet to see).

  I’ll grant that “new” can be applied to institutional economics. No problem there. But basic economics as we know it will never change because, at the end of the day, it’s all about choice, which means it’s about human nature. In a turbulent world of technological upheaval, it’s comforting to know that one thing never changes: human nature.

  The singular inability of many politicians to grasp that simple message causes enormous and expensive problems in our society. Just look at the liberal lions who think like the rest of us in private–don’t ask the Kennedys, the Clintons, or the Obamas to send THEIR kids to the “public” (a.k.a. government) schools–but grovel to an incompetent and corrupt monopoly in public. Those educrats are forever dumbing down our children, the better to make them more dependent on government because they come away from primary and secondary education incapable of thinking for themselves.

  New economics, my foot.

  Thanks for the opportunity to rant!

• 5. josephlogan  |  8 May 2009 at 6:11 am

  Flew around the world to give a presentation on the new economy, huh? Reminds me of the binders of documents I helped prepare in a government agency’s submission for compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act.

  Peter, I would have enjoyed hearing your talk. Your points are well taken, and I would go as far as to say that even the “emerging” forms of organization aren’t particularly new.

• 6. Michael Sykuta  |  8 May 2009 at 9:19 am

  I think Warren’s conclusion gets to the heart of it. As long as there is scarcity and decision making, the fundamentals of (old?) economics will continue to be powerfully relevant.

• 7. PatVidal  |  8 May 2009 at 9:59 am

  Peter, is the talk available on line as well? If it was we could all hear your talk. Right, hosephlogan?
  I totatlly agree with you, and keep saying this to my students whenever they think that the theory I teach them is “too old”. I will use your blog as a tool to try to convince them.

• 8. Peter Klein  |  8 May 2009 at 2:39 pm

  Pat, I’m told that video and audio from the sessions will be posted at the conference site:

  http://innovationforum.gmu.edu/index.php

• 9. Robin Gleaves  |  12 May 2009 at 3:34 am

  Peter, nice slides. I’m currently doing a lit review on customer experience and the “experience economy” and have tracked back to Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock.

  Despite having this on my shelf for 15 yrs I had never actually read it. Some good stuff in there on “futurnomics” e.g. the economics of impermenance, much of it ‘on the money’. Highly recommend.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed