[HN Gopher] The Nature of the Firm (1937) ___________________________________________________________________ The Nature of the Firm (1937) Author : mooreds Score : 74 points Date : 2022-05-13 18:43 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org) (TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org) | [deleted] | user3939382 wrote: | I've had this book sitting on my shelf for 7 years. I guess I | should get around to reading it... | dredmorbius wrote: | Charles Perrow, Complex organizations : a critical essay, 1972, | 1985. pp. 186--187 looks at the firm and intra- and inter-firm | dynamics from a sociological perspective. It's in large part a | review of the literature to the time of its writing, beginning | with Weber and including serveral economists, though Coase only | merits one mention. There's considerable attention paid to | Herbert Simon and James March, among many others. | | https://www.worldcat.org/title/complex-organizations-a-criti... | | https://archive.org/search.php?query=Complex+organizations+:... | dang wrote: | Related: | | _The Nature of the Firm (1937)_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16837168 - April 2018 (12 | comments) | | _The Nature of the Firm (1937)_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12344575 - Aug 2016 (14 | comments) | | _The Nature of the Firm - Coase_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3622639 - Feb 2012 (3 | comments) | boppo1 wrote: | Is there a simple way to browse older HN posts by date? | pvg wrote: | The search engine the form at the bottom takes you to is | pretty good and has sorting by date. There's also | https://news.ycombinator.com/front | [deleted] | haltingproblem wrote: | This is one of the most seminal papers in Economics and the only | to win a Nobel that does not have a single equation in it :) | | In general, Coase's transaction cost framework is very useful in | the Internet era - Amazon EC2 can be viewed as a way for firms to | lower transaction costs of scaling up and down to zero, something | that not even large firms could manage, some time ago. | | Shopify is a way for small merchants to access costs per | transaction that were only available to large ecommerce giants | and so on and so forth. | | Transaction costs are just a model, and just like all models, the | transaction cost model is imperfect and not always right, but | often useful. | | What transaction costs in the modern economy are ripe to be pared | down? | paulpauper wrote: | That was back when it was much easier to make contributions to | the sciences. Now you need 50+ page paper with 2-4 authors full | of stats and regression to get maybe published in a mid tier | journal. | igorkraw wrote: | From the top of my head | | - Suing a powerful adversary if you are in the right | | - democratically changing a law (and abolishing old laws) to | adapt to changed technologies | | - patents and copyright as a way to motivate innovation (those | are transaction costs introduced with a noble intention, but I | think they can be improved by e.g. just paying people to | | - land speculation (georgism ho!) | | - borders and restrictions on free movement | | - moralistic bans on drugs and prostitution instead of | regulation to make those transactions safe and cut down on | externalities | | The book "radical markets", while not 100% aligned with my | politics gives a more detailed overview on some of these | haltingproblem wrote: | Great list. | | I think #1 is in the process of being unbundled. We _just_ | need a coordination platform which brings lead plaintiffs, | backers and lawyers together on a platform. Perhaps you mean | something else by it? | | Abolishing old laws already happens in some states but it | needs to be lower transaction cost event. This would be a fun | platform to build and something that can bring manifold | benefit to society. Changing laws is a special and more | complex case of creating new laws and has too much complexity | maybe 10x harder than repealing old laws. | | The last two evoke too many beliefs about ideology, moralism | and nativist beliefs so I won't go there. | | Can you extrapolate on land speculation? | dang wrote: | The paper is at | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-0335.... | eastbayjake wrote: | Enginerrrd wrote: | I actually am a member of a sort of 3 man firm that on paper | exists at 3 separate companies. We keep our intra-firm | transactions operating on basically market principles. "Can you | do this part of job x consisting of this rigorously defined scope | for y dollars?" Prices set themselves pretty fairly that way. If | a job of a particular type starts to become more tedious, complex | or time-consuming, the price adjusts naturally and continuously | at an equilibrium. | | We're able to handle larger projects, offer greater breadth of | services and service more clients than we would on our own, but | we use one outward facing name so that clients feel they are | interacting with one entity. We each have sub-speciallizations | and clients are better served by the greater breadth of | expertise. We almost always beat everyone on price too. | | Clients are often, but not always, shared. | | We each buy our own equipment, but we share it when needed and we | share expertise. We each pitch in a 1/3 share for an office space | to meet with clients. | | In practice it works wonderfully. | | But boy, 'the man' does not like that arrangement. They can't | possibly fathom that there's an equal power dynamic, or that we | really are separate entities, each with our own clients and | business infrastructure. We just work together in only the ways | each person finds mutually beneficial. | lelandfe wrote: | So if you share equipment, share an office, publicly use the | same name, frequently work jointly on projects... | | How is this fundamentally different from a single company with | 3 departments? What advantages are you garnering? Are there | purely tax advantages to this? | Enginerrrd wrote: | Yeah so the biggest difference is, all expectations are | financial. If you want to just leave for a month and input | zero labor, we have no issues with that. You just still have | to pay your share of rent. | | If we were partners, we'd basically have to have some sort of | salary or profit-sharing agreement which would likely require | all manner of careful management of expectations. So, for | example, say we split profit 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Well, how do you | handle the situation where one partner is not putting out? | What if they become less efficient for several months because | of personal issues? What if one wants to just go travel for a | month? What if one partner wants to be more lenient on their | tax write-offs than others are comfortable with? Rather than | hash out some complicated agreement with lawyers and all | that, we just operate internally as independent companies. | | This way, problems are much more contained. If one partner | starts fucking off, the others just stop sharing work. There | is no "milking their hours" situation because that is | reflected in the pre-work price negotiations. There's no | unfairness in expectations, because we treat each other as | separate entities and let the 'market' figure it out. | | Also, everyone has complete skin in the game on their own | projects and own clients. | | I wouldn't say there are any inherent tax advantages except | that you have complete flexibility to make it work for your | own person. | justinpowers wrote: | This is very interesting. Similar to a path I almost went down | with some partners, but it fizzled due to too many unknowns and | lack of energy to research them. Would you be willing to | expound on your arrangement? Either here or privately. In | particular... | | What legal structure are you each using? sole proprietorships, | llcs, s-corps? (Assuming you're US based) | | Are there any tax benefits/costs to this arrangement? | | Has the government hassled you regarding the arrangement? (It | sounds like it has, but...how exactly and how did you respond?) | | Have counterparties hassled you or been scared off? Do they | even "know" of the arrangement? | | Are there significant legal/transaction costs between the three | of you? If not, is that simply because you have strong trust in | each other? | boppo1 wrote: | Who is 'the man'? If it's not your clients... what is the NYT | writing hit pieces about you guys or something? | coward123 wrote: | He / she likely means the IRS or other government regulatory | bodies. | labster wrote: | The man be keepin us down. | narush wrote: | My (novice) highest-level summary of the argument in this paper: | firms emerge as a result of transaction costs between people. By | being in a firm together, people build shared structures, and as | a result can reduce these transaction costs. A firm is like a | ball of low transaction costs, pretty much. | | This paper is the first economics paper I ever read (a long time | ago, excuse my if my summary is awful lol), and still one of the | most thought-provoking and interesting papers I've encountered. | | The fun-to-think-about questions that it leads me to: | | 1. What sort of transaction costs between people today are | _practically_ the most important to leading to a creation of a | firm? | | 2. What if we built technology that reduced those transaction | costs to near zero? E.g. what would it mean for there to be less | incentives for a firm to form? | | 3. How does questions of transaction costs relate to market | structure and monopoly? | | I guess mostly this paper is amazing b/c it made me realize I | never really thought to ask the question "why companies in the | first place?" | [deleted] | sigil wrote: | On (2), here's something I've been wondering. Shouldn't the | explosion of SaaS and remote work tools close the gap between | internal/external transaction costs, and lead to a decrease in | firm size? Because we've been seeing the opposite. [0] | | Maybe this just hasn't shown up in the numbers yet, because | there's a delayed effect? Or do SaaS and remote work tools | benefit firms internally just as much, or more, than someone | contracting out work on the open market? | | [0] https://marginalrevolution.com/wp- | content/uploads/2019/01/HN... | pragmatic wrote: | I think you are right but underestimating the sheer number of | small SaaS companies out there. | | Just rode through a startup and acquisition in a space I'd | never thought much about (way underserved but all kinds of | money sliding around) until I worked there with a smaller | than I would have thought possible team. | mooreds wrote: | > What sort of transaction costs between people today are | _practically_ the most important to leading to a creation of a | firm? | | Discovery of services (what can I help you with? what can you | do for me) and trust (can I trust you to do task <x>? Can you | trust me to pay you) are two of the biggest person to person | transaction costs I see nowadays. | Animats wrote: | Yes. The transaction cost includes both trust for this | transaction, and trust for future transactions. Supply chain | issues are much more of a concern today than two years ago. | pineconewarrior wrote: | I was thinking the same. Leverage and trust as a mechanism | of "sunk cost" on both parties. | Barrin92 wrote: | There's two articles related to this that I really like. One is | Herbert Simon's paper from 1991 on the topic of organizations and | markets with a great passage | | _" A mythical visitor from Mars, not having been apprised of the | centrality of markets and contracts, might find the new | institutional economics rather astonishing. Suppose that it (the | visitor I'll avoid the question of its sex) approaches the Earth | from space, equipped with a telescope that reveals social | structures. The firms reveal themselves, say, as solid green | areas with faint interior contours marking out divisions and | departments. Market transactions show as red lines connecting | firms, forming a network in the spaces between them. Within firms | (and perhaps even between them) the approaching visitor also sees | pale blue lines, the lines of authority connecting bosses with | various levels of workers. As our visitor looked more carefully | at the scene beneath, it might see one of the green masses | divide, as a firm divested itself of one of its divisions. Or it | might see one green object gobble up another. At this distance, | the departing golden parachutes would probably not be visible. No | matter whether our visitor approached the United States or the | Soviet Union, urban China or the European Community, the greater | part of the space below it would be within the green areas, for | almost all of the inhabitants would be employees, hence inside | the firm boundaries. Organizations would be the dominant feature | of the landscape. A message sent back home, describing the scene, | would speak of "large green areas interconnected by red lines." | It would not likely speak of "a network of red lines connecting | green spots."_ | | That is itself referenced in the second piece which ties this | into compuational complexity and socialist planning, by Cosma | Shalizi. | | https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.5.2.25 | | https://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/in-soviet-union-optimiz... | arkis22 wrote: | a slightly sarcastic but not incorrect purpose of the firm: | having a large amount of employees gives you leverage against | politicians. | | I think about that when I see some tech companies and their | employment levels. | lkrubner wrote: | This also has implications when we discuss workers who want to | "work from home." I reference Coase in "What work can be done | from home? What work needs to be done at an office?" While I | think this piece is carefully researched, it is easily the least | popular thing I've ever written. I'm surprised at how angry | people get around this subject. I don't fully understand what is | going, but I've never written anything else that drew such angry | reactions from people. Simply pointing out the limits of the | work-from-home movement seems to leave some people on edge, | defensive, wary, and emotional. I'm not sure why. Obviously there | must be some limit to work-from-home. | | http://www.smashcompany.com/business/what-work-can-be-done-f..." | haltingproblem wrote: | Yours is one of the reasoned and illuminating takes on the WFH | debate. I am going to share it with my team and one of my | senior engineers who is extremely reluctant to come to the | office, which in the long term will hurt his prospects. | | As for meltdowns, I think it is because you are poking at | something irrational namely "the urge to work from home". WFH | has been a "freebie" for most folks - to use your example jobs | that should pay $110k are paying $250k. | | When you poke at this irrationality, like questioning the | provenance of stolen goods, people get defensive and have | emotional reactions. Deep down folks know that they have to | accept the inevitability of going back or take a pay cut and | neither option sits well. | dylan604 wrote: | People seem to just have these drastic reactions to everything | now. Knee jerk reaction wants to blame it on social media. | While the socials might not be THE reason, they definitely | amplify it. A large portion of society seems to think that if | you have a differing opinion/thought/belief on a given topic | you are against them in a way that must be vigorously defended | against without any consideration of the differing | opinion/thought/belief. | Enginerrrd wrote: | It's so bad that when I hear something I WANT to believe, but | merely ask why they think that particular thing or what are | they basing that (unjustified) conclusion on, they | immediately start assuming I believe in the contrary position | and leveling personal attacks at me. | | Like fuck me for wanting more information and to base my | beliefs on sound conclusions. | acuozzo wrote: | The issue is that many people view inquisitiveness now as a | dog whistle due to its increasing use in bad faith by | extremists. It's called "sealioning": | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning | dylan604 wrote: | bwahahahaha: "metaphorically described as a denial-of- | service attack targeted at human beings." | dylan604 wrote: | I mean, who are YOU to question them in the first place. /s | | I have always had the "Asks why way too much" problem. Most | people are defensive at first as if I had the gall the | question them, but the ones I've learned the most from are | the ones that realize the "why" isn't questioning them as | it is questioning the process for better understanding. | hn_version_0023 wrote: | Do you also consider the limits of working from the office? I'm | thinking of things like lost productivity from open office | floor plans, for instance. | | I wonder how many firms arise simply to feed the ego of the | people who start it? Certainly you must address this part of | WFH? That fact was brought sharply into focus by the pandemic, | no? | dang wrote: | If you email hn@ycombinator.com in a few weeks, I'll send you a | repost invite for | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30914179, which will put | the repost in the second-chance pool (explained at | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308). | | The reason for waiting is just that there's a sharp dropoff in | interestingness along the repetition curve. A few weeks is long | enough to flush the hivemind caches. | lkrubner wrote: | Thank you. | Centigonal wrote: | To me, it's pretty clear: A lot of people like working from | home, and are wary that they will be forced back into the | office, along with the long commutes and sometimes-frustrating | social interactions that go along with it. They see arguments | like yours as a real threat to their quality of life. | | Also, you make a lot of assertions in your post without | substantiating them. This generally contributes to outcry when | the assertions don't line up with people's personal experience. | lkrubner wrote: | In terms of making assertions from personal experience, I do | emphasize that what I've seen is limited to New York City. If | you live some place else, your experiences might be very | different. Perhaps I should repeat this point. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-13 23:00 UTC)