Talk:X-inefficiency

message: Shouldn't this article be merged with x-efficiency?
--132.180.196.111 (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: X-inefficiency is a standard term in economics. X-efficiency is the literal opposite of X-inefficiency, and has no unique content. If there isn't any objection within a week, I take that we've agreed on the merger and I'll go ahead with it. Ratibgreat (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

text: By the way, I've suggested that the X-efficiency article gets dropped and merges here. Ratibgreat (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jonpatterns (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge with x-efficiency

message: "Economic theory assumes that the management of firms act to maximize owners' wealth by minimizing risk and maximizing economic profits ... Thus firms earn zero economic profits"
What rubbish - if economic profits must be zero all a firm does is minimise risk!!! Economics assumes firms maximise profits and in a perfectly competive market this is achieved by producing the quantity where average and marginal costs are the same. Economic profits only apply in a monopoly where the firm  also sets its price such that demand exactly equals the quantity defined above. It should also be pointed out that in economics the cost includes the opportunity cost of not investing the money elsewhere. The recovery of the oportunity cost is called the normal profit (otherwise to the layman it looks as though firms do not make any profit in a cperfectly competive market).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.42.198 (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  economic profit 

message: My apologies.  It's a real paper, published by a WP:FRINGE organization.  Although I agree more with them than with "mainstream" economics, it is clearly fringe.  It's not a reliable source, except for the opinion of the author and the Foundation, which would not be sufficiently notable for the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  USPS 

message: Something anecdotal, quoted from a blog entry on medical care (in the US):
:\[after long problem description\] "It’s obvious how to fix (this particular problem with) health care. Just make everything run systematically, like FedEx or Amazon. There are no technical or business obstacles to this. Anyone who understands IT and/or business can see how to do it.
:"Back-of-envelope calculations say a working health care system would deliver dramatically better quality at 10-20% of the current cost.
:"Health care is notionally a profit-driven free market. This looks like an easy opportunity to make trillions of dollars by making the world better for everyone. Why doesn’t someone do that?
:"It appears that 73% of the labor cost of a health care organization is spent on trying to communicate with other health care organizations that have no defined interface.3 Patrick Collison has suggested calling this pattern “Leibenstein’s Inefficiency Disease,” by analogy to Baumol’s Cost Disease. An organization can’t improve the 73% by much on its own; that inefficiency is forced on it by the environment it operates in.
:"Instead, organizations in sectors afflicted with inefficiency disease try to push their own administrative work outside. Both out into other organizations, and—more visibly—they force it onto you, the customer. It’s your job to fill out forms they could have done more efficiently themselves. When they screw up, you have to try to fix it. This negative externality could be called “paperwork pollution,” by analogy with negative externalities of smokestack industries.
See "Post-apocalyptic life in American health care" Yes, its a anecdotal blog entry, but it highlights an issue with X-inefficiency in free markets. Perhaps there is some reputable analysis published by someone in economics? (Or, dear lord, has the idea of economists who are trust-worthy broken down and been replaced by alt-facts in support of one or another political-economic theory?) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Leibenstein’s Inefficiency Disease”