27 January 2010 at 1:40 pm Peter G. Klein 6 comments
| Peter Klein |
A grad student inspired these:
“The writer clearly suffers from a fatal conceit.”
“Reading this proposal helps me understand the knowledge problem.”
“Your paper appears to be the result of human action, but not human design.”
“The proposed outline reveals how little people really know about what they imagine they can design.”
Your suggestions?
Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Peter G. Klein and Micheal E. Sykuta, eds., The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics (Edward Elgar, 2010).
Peter G. Klein, The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur: Essays on Organizations and Markets (Mises Institute, 2010).
Richard N. Langlois, The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler, and the New Economy (Routledge, 2007).
Nicolai J. Foss, Strategy, Economic Organization, and the Knowledge Economy: The Coordination of Firms and Resources (Oxford University Press, 2005).
Raghu Garud, Arun Kumaraswamy, and Richard N. Langlois, eds., Managing in the Modular Age: Architectures, Networks and Organizations (Blackwell, 2003).
Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, eds., Entrepreneurship and the Firm: Austrian Perspectives on Economic Organization (Elgar, 2002).
Organizations and Markets 
1.
Anouar El Haji | 27 January 2010 at 2:13 pm
“Spontaneous order does not apply to writing.”
2.
david stinson | 27 January 2010 at 4:49 pm
Time spent on this paper was a malinvestment?
3.
Niklas Hallberg | 28 January 2010 at 4:56 am
“I love the Keynesian touch to this paper… not!;)”
4.
David Gordon | 28 January 2010 at 5:46 pm
As we used to say in Vienna, you must be geisteskrank.
5.
Peter Klein | 28 January 2010 at 11:48 pm
David, is that worse than Mises (teasingly) calling Rothbard a Schmollerite?
6.
Pietro M. | 29 January 2010 at 4:40 am
What about this Schmollerite? Never heard of the anedoct.
My favorite so far is that of human design, but I would add “this paper is an abuse of reason” and “your plan as a researcher and my plan as a reviewer do not coordinate”.