|
Posner is a Socialist http://www.tnr.com/article/economy/...tm_medium=email
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Posner is a Socialist All it took was the collapse of the entire world wide financial industry!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:Since LF gives me the shits, I thought I might post this here for general mockery since it is indeed relevant to our topic: According to his blog this guy overspent on his house, blows every dime he gets on needless luxury goods, has almost nothing saved for retirement, and apparently has no idea how Obama's tax plan will affect his finances. You call this man disconnected from everyday Americans? Shame on you! Sir, this man is America personified. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 17:38
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:How long does it take to be prepared well enough to pass the MPRE? I haven't registered for it yet and really haven't done a drat thing for it yet, but was thinking about taking it in November. Could I be ready by then, or are there any secret prep courses that I don't know about? Barbri likely has a 1 day class you can attend between now and then. I prepped for the thing in a weekend and got like a 140. Easy peezy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:How long does it take to be prepared well enough to pass the MPRE? I haven't registered for it yet and really haven't done a drat thing for it yet, but was thinking about taking it in November. Could I be ready by then, or are there any secret prep courses that I don't know about? If you want to prepare for the MPRE from scratch, you must first create the universe
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Posner is a Socialist I think you are being facetious, but I threw this article up on my Facebook, and I fully expect my crazy Tea Party in-laws to respond by condemning Posner as a socialist. I doubt any of them will even read the article - even though Posner does condemn the February 09 stimulus for being poorly designed and implemented.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
My MPRE review involved buying this book, reading the outline (it was about 30 pages), listening to half the DVD (it was 5 hours of the guy reading the outline very slowly), and doing maybe 100 practice questions. I did it over a period of 3-4 days and got a 124, it wasn't a difficult process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
If you're signed up for Bar-Bri they have a complimentary MPRE lecture, go to that and do the workbook and the practice tests. That's all I and anyone else I know did and everyone passed by a mile. (total prep time maybe 4 hours + the 6 hour lecture)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 18:33
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:My MPRE review involved buying this book, reading the outline (it was about 30 pages), listening to half the DVD (it was 5 hours of the guy reading the outline very slowly), and doing maybe 100 practice questions. I did it over a period of 3-4 days and got a 124, it wasn't a difficult process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:Since LF gives me the shits, I thought I might post this here for general mockery since it is indeed relevant to our topic: And an economist that tore him a new one http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/...-henderson.html quote:Professor Henderson's problem is that he thinks that he ought to be able to pay off student loans, contribute to retirement savings vehicles, build equity, drive new cars, live in a big expensive house, send his children to private school, and still have plenty of cash at the end of the month for the $200 restaurant meals, the $1000 a night resort hotel rooms, and the $75,000 automobiles. And even half a million dollars a year cannot be you all of that. (basically reposting this from the GOP thread)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
entris posted:I think you are being facetious, but I threw this article up on my Facebook, and I fully expect my crazy Tea Party in-laws to respond by condemning Posner as a socialist. I doubt any of them will even read the article - even though Posner does condemn the February 09 stimulus for being poorly designed and implemented. Pretty much every sane person does this. Obama was just afraid of large numbers. Most economists were telling him he needed to throw more at the economy in better places if he wanted to have a chance at denting the recession.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 19:01
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Pretty much every sane person does this. Obama was just afraid of large numbers. Most economists were telling him he needed to throw more at the economy in better places if he wanted to have a chance at denting the recession. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Pretty much every sane person does this. Obama was just afraid of large numbers. Most economists were telling him he needed to throw more at the economy in better places if he wanted to have a chance at denting the recession. Yeah. It annoys me because my in-laws all refer to the stimulus as the "Porkulous" bill (which I think was a Limbaugh saying?), and it's fine to criticize that particular stimulus package for its failure to narrowly target appropriate projects, but they act like the mere concept of "stimulus" is straight up socialism, which is completely absurd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 19:19
|
|
|
entris posted:Yeah. It annoys me because my in-laws all refer to the stimulus as the "Porkulous" bill (which I think was a Limbaugh saying?), and it's fine to criticize that particular stimulus package for its failure to narrowly target appropriate projects, but they act like the mere concept of "stimulus" is straight up socialism, which is completely absurd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 19:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ I feel like this video left out the part about where the school bus drivers union tries to kill the bill because of their love affairs with lead feet and dead students.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
 I am a lawyer and can afford to pay my student loans and still maintain a decent standard of living.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
Save me jeebus posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:here's the cached copy if you'd like to read the whole thing. This guy is kinda' goony: goony bio posted:Todd Henderson received an engineering degree cum laude from Princeton University in 1993. He worked for several years designing and building dams in California before matriculating at the Law School. except for... goony bio posted:While at the Law School, Todd was an Editor of the Law Review and captained the Law School's all-University champion intramural football team. He graduated magna cum laude in 1998 and was elected to the Order of the Coif. but of course: goony bio posted:His research interests include corporations, securities regulation, bankruptcy, law and economics, and intellectual property. Not surprising, seeing as how his post was on a law and economics blog. Now you too can continue to ignore every professor who thinks the Learned Hand method is the greatest innovation in legal theory since the Magna Carta. dividebyzero fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Sep 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
dividebyzero posted:Not surprising, seeing as how his post was on a law and economics blog. Now you too can continue to ignore every professor who thinks the Learned Hand method is the greatest innovation in legal theory since the Magna Carta. Can someone elaborate on the "law and economics" and the Learned Hand reference? I'm not immersed in legal philosophy nor have any connection to lawyers and/or law school, but I've seen law and economics pop up before and have no idea what the deal with it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 08:17
|
|
|
CIGNX posted:Can someone elaborate on the "law and economics" and the Learned Hand reference? I'm not immersed in legal philosophy nor have any connection to lawyers and/or law school, but I've seen law and economics pop up before and have no idea what the deal with it is. Of course, since in the real world it's impossible to accurately value P and L, it basically gives judges a way to legitimize any dumb decision on a negligence issue that they feel like making. Linguica fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Sep 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 14:47
|
|
|
Linguica posted:The "Hand formula" basically says you're only negligent if the cost burden of preventing that negligence (B) is less than the probability (P) of some bad thing happening negligently, multiplied by the cost of the loss (L) of that bad thing, i.e., B < P*L. For instance, if there's a 10% chance that a person might trip on a crack on the sidewalk outside your store and hurt themselves to the tune of $1000, you're only negligent if fixing the crack would cost less than $100. Also don't forget that libertarians love that poo poo and libertarians are monsters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
CIGNX posted:Can someone elaborate on the "law and economics" and the Learned Hand reference? I'm not immersed in legal philosophy nor have any connection to lawyers and/or law school, but I've seen law and economics pop up before and have no idea what the deal with it is. Put simply, law and economics (usually) means a theory of judicial reasoning which holds that judges should try to decide cases to produce the most economically efficient outcome. The idea is that at the end no one could be better off without making someone else worse off. It's become quite popular in the United States. It's total hogwash, for a variety of reasons, both conceptual (see: DK) and, if it's your style, moral (most people, who haven't been deadened by law school anyone, become squeamish when Posner talks about eliminating abortion agencies and selling babies on the open market). But if you're in law school or going to be in law school get ready to have a lot of people who think Posner and Easterbrook are gods (hint they are actually buffoons who know little to nothing about how political economy or decision making actually work) because lawyers are spergin' and love efficiency analyses and are willing to overlook their conceptual incoherence in order to have things have nice clean math. e: Linguica posted:The "Hand formula" basically says you're only negligent if the cost burden of preventing that negligence (B) is less than the probability (P) of some bad thing happening negligently, multiplied by the cost of the loss (L) of that bad thing, i.e., B < P*L. For instance, if there's a 10% chance that a person might trip on a crack on the sidewalk outside your store and hurt themselves to the tune of $1000, you're only negligent if fixing the crack would cost less than $100. Right, and the last bit here is sort of the core of the critique DK makes - that all of these valuations require completely ridiculous and fundamentally subjective evaluations of values that are then recast as objective facts in order to legitimate whatever their opinion of what should happen might be. (It's worth noting that even Calabresi, one of founders of L&E, made the same critique of his own stuff). Petey fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Sep 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
The thing you have to understand about L&E is that in a historical context it was built up to try and establish some order to a system of legal thought that had had its conceptual underpinnings utterly and totally demolished by the legal realists back in the early 1900s. For hundreds of years lawyers and judges had quite happily built this whole model of law as a (pseudo)science where, through the proper "scientific method", objectively correct and logically consistent decisions could be derived from widely agreed upon first principles thought to founded in natural law; that precedent could be controlling and followed in an unbiased way ("rule of law") by skilled and resolute judges; etc. These beliefs provided a stability and foundation and legitimacy to legal practice that was needed to itself legitimate what would otherwise be something that people literally revolted at (why follow a judge's decision if you think it's just his random bullshit beliefs and not based on higher principle?) Then a bunch of folks basically destroyed the entire foundation of this model from like 1920-1940 and so since WWII different schools of legal thought have been trying to rebuild an intellectual structure to support the objective, rules based system of law that lends legal decision making legitimacy. The desperately sought end is something where the decision making process is, when performed well, completely removed from human bias. So because modern economics involves a lot of math (another fascinating historical transformation for similar reasons that would be a huge derail), lawyers seized on (a distorted and broken view of) it to hold up their new system, since math lends legitimacy to whatever you are doing even if it is bad math or used inappropriately or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 15:01
|
|
|
Petey it's a good thing you decided against going to law school because I don't know how you could stand working with the law while being so contemptuous of it. By the way a fun academic exercise you might like is comparing Posner's A Failure of Capitalism to Shiller's Irrational Exuberance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 15:13
|
|
|
Petey posted:if it's your style, moral (most people, who haven't been deadened by law school anyone, become squeamish when Posner talks about eliminating abortion agencies and selling babies on the open market). The moral objection is every bit as legitimate as the other you mentioned; there's no need for the "if it's your style" nonsense. It's not a matter of squeamishness, either; there are plenty of moral actors who have no problem dealing hands on with real, disgusting events that you will likely never have first hand experience of. They went to law school, too, and their moral compass was far from deadened. Petey posted:For hundreds of years lawyers and judges had quite happily built this whole model of law as a (pseudo)science where, through the proper "scientific method", objectively correct and logically consistent decisions could be derived from widely agreed upon first principles thought to founded in natural law; that precedent could be controlling and followed in an unbiased way ("rule of law") by skilled and resolute judges; etc. These beliefs provided a stability and foundation and legitimacy to legal practice that was needed to itself legitimate what would otherwise be something that people literally revolted at (why follow a judge's decision if you think it's just his random bullshit beliefs and not based on higher principle?) Natural law is quite real, and objectively correct and logically consistent decisions can be derived from the eternal and unchanging forms. Don't mislead 0Ls into thinking that whatever goes on in your head represents reality, or how their experiences will work out. There are no shortage of people who believe in the objective nature of right and wrong, and the ability to make coherent law based on objective principles. They also participate in such a system, and are moral actors, five days a week (even more if bond court comes knocking). There is no lack of stability, foundation, and legitimacy in the eyes of many people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 15:44
|
|
|
Petey posted:These beliefs provided a stability and foundation and legitimacy to legal practice that was needed to itself legitimate what would otherwise be something that people literally revolted at (why follow a judge's decision if you think it's just his random bullshit beliefs and not based on higher principle?) Man, that kind of makes me think of the first down chain they use in football. Except there's a totally different kind of chain gang in this situation.  Linguica posted:The "Hand formula" basically says you're only negligent if the cost burden of preventing that negligence (B) is less than the probability (P) of some bad thing happening negligently, multiplied by the cost of the loss (L) of that bad thing, i.e., B < P*L. For instance, if there's a 10% chance that a person might trip on a crack on the sidewalk outside your store and hurt themselves to the tune of $1000, you're only negligent if fixing the crack would cost less than $100. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 15:44
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:Man, that kind of makes me think of the first down chain they use in football. I've said this before but one day I will write an article analyzing the use of the first down chain from a legal realist perspective / as a metaphor for legal decision making. It's basically the best analogy out there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 17:14
|
|
|
Recettear is actually a pretty fun little game to pass the time. Thanks to however mentioned it here. Unfortunately i can't play it at the office as much as I'd love to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
Linguica posted:The "Hand formula" basically says you're only negligent if the cost burden of preventing that negligence (B) is less than the probability (P) of some bad thing happening negligently, multiplied by the cost of the loss (L) of that bad thing, i.e., B < P*L. For instance, if there's a 10% chance that a person might trip on a crack on the sidewalk outside your store and hurt themselves to the tune of $1000, you're only negligent if fixing the crack would cost less than $100. But it's as subjective as anything else and therefore is perfectly adequate to give as a rationalization to the fact-finder who's going to be performing a subjective analysis anyway on the ultimate question of negligence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
Petey posted:I've said this before but one day I will write an article analyzing the use of the first down chain from a legal realist perspective / as a metaphor for legal decision making. this paper, footnote 54 is the only reference I've seen to the idea e: I've got some free time next week, want to joint author a paper with me?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
Petey posted:I've said this before but one day I will write an article analyzing the use of the first down chain from a legal realist perspective / as a metaphor for legal decision making. I know, I was actually referencing/plagiarizing your work!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
I'm giving a mock opening statement for class today. I'm wearing a sexy 3 piece suit and am thinking of delivering it without the jacket on. Good idea or bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 22:07
|
|
|
I'd only do it if I had some rad suspenders. Realtalk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 22:09
|
|
|
Vander posted:I'm giving a mock opening statement for class today. I'm wearing a sexy 3 piece suit and am thinking of delivering it without the jacket on. Good idea or bad idea? Only if you rip off the jacket while sexyback is playing
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 22:20
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Only if you rip off the jacket while sexyback is playing Sexbomb would be preferable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Only if you rip off the jacket while sexyback is playing That's my closing argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
Vander posted:I'm giving a mock opening statement for class today. I'm wearing a sexy 3 piece suit and am thinking of delivering it without the jacket on. Good idea or bad idea? I didn't even bring a jacket or tie, just said "If the flag is green, you must come clean" and that p much sealed it (it was a case about illicit shipments to libya)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
Vander posted:I'm giving a mock opening statement for class today. I'm wearing a sexy 3 piece suit and am thinking of delivering it without the jacket on. Good idea or bad idea? If you're not wearing the jacket you're no longer wearing a suit. Ask yourself if you should wear a suit when you make your opening or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:this paper, footnote 54 is the only reference I've seen to the idea Seriouspost: I would 100% joint-author with you but I'm working 16 hour days from basically now until late March. Next spring, though - absolutely. Just in time for there to be no football. Hooray lockout. MoFauxHawk posted:I know, I was actually referencing/plagiarizing your work! Are...are you belgian?? Petey fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Sep 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
.
Stop fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2010 00:46
|
|
