Heaven, for a discussant, might be defined as a group of papers in which there are errors of fact and logic with which he can loudly disagree. In these papers, however, I have not found this kind of heaven; I find nothing of consequence to correct. All of the authors have done a thoroughly professional job on their papers. Since I see little to quarrel with, perhaps the most useful thing I can do is to look at the same subject matter from the standpoint of a set of interests slightly different from those of the authors and try to discuss further some of the same points that seem to me particularly important. A recurring point in the Krausz and Reiss paper is the problem of finding an equitable distribution of costs and revenues. Two related topics are involved here: equity, or some sense of what people in general think is fair; and efficiency, as economists define it. Our society as a whole appears to consider it equitable that people be compensated in proportion to the value in production of the resources they own (with strong reservations, however, in the case of the poor). When the same individual owns all the resources used on the farm, errors in the compensation of each factor cancel out and do not affect equity. This is not true, however, when someone else owns some of the resources. It seems to me that the point Krausz and Reiss are making is that the growing number of instances in which the bundle of resources used in farming are owned by different people has made it much more important that these people know the value-the marginal productivity-of their inputs. It provides a further incentive, if we ever needed one, to help farmers and other resource owners to obtain better management data and to make better decisions. The economic efficiency problem seems to me more difficult. At least since Adam Smith and his invisible hand, economists have relied on the market to provide an optimal distribution of resources in production. We know more about the conditions under which this optimum will be produced than Adam Smith did, but we have not, by and large, deviated from the principle. The availability of institutions to combine inputs owned by different individuals may remove some institutional barriers which otherwise would have prevented an optimal combination of factors of production in farming. The fact, however, that these inputs are owned by different people should not, in itself, affect efficiency. A farm with given quantities of land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship is the same