New Yorkers love their greenmarket produce.  And rightly so this time of year, though the commitment to local gardens makes a March full of sauteed fiddlehead fern salads really dreary.  Maybe that's why Hunts Point Market dealers often bribe USDA inspectors to show up particularly quickly when a shipment of actually fresh vegetables comes in, or, sometimes, to rate produce as worse than it really is, so that buyers can purchase low, and resell high. 

In honor of tomato season, but unseasonably late in a schedule that usually features a summer off for the  court, the D C Circuit recently barred a veteran Hunts Point outfit from participating in the USDA's Hunts Point inspection scheme.  It agreed with the Department of Agriculture that one of the firm's vice presidents gave a USDA inspector fifty bucks every time he came for inspection, in exchange for which the inspector allegedly did what the firm wanted.

Fifty bucks ain't a lot of money.  Which is why I note with slight sadness the passing of Kleiman & Hochberg, Inc, traduced by an employee with a too-close relationship with a regulator, and condemned to dealing, from this point forward, in uninspected fruits and vegetables.  Could it possibly have been worth it to bribe the USDA on the penny ante level?  The opinion may be found here.

Permalink | Rules & Standards | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Lynnely Browning profiles Lee Sheppard in the Int'l Herald Tribune.  I don't always agree with Lee, but she does a wonderful job of asking the hard questions and keeping us all current.  And give her credit -- a couple of years ago when the Treasury proposed partnership tax regulations which would quasi-codify the status quo on carried interest, Lee was the only one out there making a fuss. 

And what would we do without her cultural commentary on what the fashionable set in the Hamptons is wearing these days?

Speaking of the Hamptons, the rioting over carried interest has begun.

Permalink | Taxation | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

That line appears in a form letter I just received from Christine Durham, Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court. My name has been "drawn at random" for possible jury service. I am doubting the randomness of the draw. I suspect this has more to do with the fact that I recently registered to vote.

When I told a friend about the letter, he said, "That's good for you, right? I mean, wouldn't you be particularly interested in that because your are a law professor?"

No. Unlike Christine, I have never wanted to be on a jury. I don't care much for litigation of any sort. My only trip to the courthouse as a lawyer was the day I was sworn into the bar.

Anyway, this led to a conversation with one of my colleagues about exclusion of law professors. He felt that law professors would be highly unlikely to make the cut, but I know law professors who have served on juries. Still, I wonder whether I would want one of us on the jury if I were a litigant. Perhaps the decision requires too much context, but as a general matter, wouldn't law professors tend to exert a disproportionate influence over the other jurors?

Permalink | Law & Society | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Classes started on Monday here at BYU, and the first college football games of the year are being played today. It's official ... fall is here.

BYU is preparing to dismantle the University of Arizona on Saturday (no repeat of last year, Darian!), and one BYU fan has offered some rules for BYU football fans. Most are patronizing, some are a bit dated, and a few would only appear on a BYU fan board, but with a bit of editing, many of the rules might have broader application. Like these:

1. Do not EVER bring "something to do" to a game.

16. Stadium dogs just taste better.

35. We have to stay to the end of blowouts. That's the part where we can see next year's players.

Permalink | Sports | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

On Monday Maryland held a panel discussion on the current credit/housing crisis. The discussion sparked debate about responses to the crisis and potential bailout solutions that are similar to those occurring in Congress. As far as I can tell, views about bailout options fell into three categories:

First were those who believed that we should not engage in any form of bailout. The rationale for such a view was that we should not be in the business of helping people who gambled and loss. Those who held this position, however, appeared to recognize that a total “hands off” approach may not be feasible given the potential for significant foreclosures and their impact on the housing market and the economy in general. However, it was clear that people in this first category would like any bailout solution to be as limited as possible.

Second were those who believed that any solution should distinguish between borrowers, allowing some relief for low-income borrowers, but not for others. I got the sense that this solution was premised on two notions. First was the notion that low-income borrowers have fewer resources to help themselves, and hence the risk of foreclosure in their cases was more severe. Moreover, the impact of that foreclosure would be more severe—that is, if such borrowers were to lose their current houses, they may have relatively few housing options, raising the specter of not just increased foreclosures, but also increased homelessness. It seemed that people in this category also believed that low-income borrowers were less blameworthy. That is low-income borrowers may have been more susceptible to hard-sale tactics, that—while falling short of fraud—may have nevertheless been objectionable. In contrast, people in this category viewed middle-income borrowers with less sympathy. This is not only because such borrowers were perceived to have more resources, but also because such borrowers were perceived as having the educational background that should have made them less susceptible to unfair lending tactics. In this regard, these middle-income borrowers appeared to be more at fault for their current situation, and thus less deserving of rescue.

Finally were those who believed that we should have a bailout solution that encompassed everyone. For these people, the subprime and near-prime lending industry had created a climate pursuant to which many homeowners had been talked into houses that they could not afford. People in this category believed that the crux of the problem was not borrowers’ conduct, but the failure to effectively regulate the industry. Moreover, people in this category shunned the effort to draft a solution based on the relative blame of borrowers.

The panel and ensuing discussion was fascinating because there was disagreement not only about the extent of the problem, but also about the feasibility of any solution. At core, however, people’s disagreement centered around their views of the market as well as their views about whether borrowers were “to blame” for their current situation and whether such blame should matter.

Permalink | Current Affairs| Economics | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

International tribunals theoretically don’t follow precedent. But in reality, they cite prior decisions all the time making the conventional aphorism “there is no stare decisis in international law” one of the least important and most inaccurate rules of international procedure. I like citation studies, and I like Jeffery Commission’s work on ICSID. He has compiled a table of each authority cited in each ICSID decision that he could find (see table A).

By my very rough count, the most cited case by ICSID panels is the Barcelona Traction case, decided by the International Court of Justice in 1970. In Barcelona Traction, the “World Court” encouraged states to create investor protections via treaty, rather than relying on other principles of international law (here is Andreas Lowenfeld on the case). Something of a throat-clearing decision, in other words, it has been cited in 18 of 151 publicly available ICSID arbitration decisions between 1972 and 2006.

Permalink | Globalization/Trade | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

The New York Times had an article questioning whether the activist shareholder could survive the credit crisis. Certainly, in the past few years we have seen a rise in activism among shareholders and demands for shareholder democracy. The story points out that the credit crisis may mean the end of such activism because many activist shareholders, particularly private equity funds, relied heavily on cheap capital to finance and employ their strategies. Without that capital, we can expect such shareholders’ activism to wane. And what about the push for shareholder democracy? On the one hand, it may be that during times of economic turmoil, shareholders are more willing to put their faith in the hands of management than in the hands of other shareholders. On the other hand, perhaps as investors grow more concerned about declining share value, they will be even more likely to push for a voice in corporate decision-making.

Permalink | Corporate Governance | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Today the NYT has a story on a nonprofit organization that is offering payday loans in order to help debtors out of the payday loan trap where a one-time borrowing of $150 balloons into $2000/month just for financing charges (yikes!).  Although some customers felt very appreciative of GoodMoney, a collaboration between Goodwill and a credit union, who eventually allowed them to turn numerous serial payday loans into one 12-month loan with a much lower interest rate, some critics complained that the payday loans offered still had high APRs:  $9.90 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks compared with $22 for every $100 for two weeks. 

However, what was interesting is that the very high rate that GoodMoney, the nonprofit, charges covers losses due to bad loans and administrative costs.  To charge a lower rate, GoodMoney would either have to lose money or fundraise to cover shortfalls or in the alternative, offer their services only to those with better credit, which might not serve their mission.  I think critics of payday loans have all along suspected that the 500-plus% APR was compensating for more than the inherent risk of the loans, but I'm not sure that I realized that 250% was necessary.

Permalink | Finance | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Greg Mankiw gets a mash note from a medical student asking: why are economists so great? They’re better in seminars, the student gushes, they’re aggressive and probing, they’re all business and no cant. The student then asks an economist – not Mankiw – if he knows why economists are so great. The economist is happy to answer. It turns out:

• Economists have higher test scores than everybody else

• Economists go to better graduate programs than everybody else

• Economists get their jobs through a market that works better than everybody else’s

• Economists aren’t advocates, most everybody else is

It’s a charming, modest takeaway. But there’s no question that economists are well trained social scientists, with plenty of math and a confident professional ethos. Economists are also good in workshops – and I occasionally think that the old law professor credo of “have a theory about anything and speak in full paragraphs rich with prosody” is less popular in the interdisciplinary seminar rooms of our universities now that economists are coming too, and biting into the confounders and omitted variables.

So maybe economists are totally awesome. I bet Mankiw thinks so. But at least he’s cute about it.  Economists may crush all comers in seminars, Mankiw thinks, because "economics may attract people with a particular set of personality attributes, and perhaps these attributes are not the same set of attributes you might choose for your next dinner party.”

Permalink | Law & Economics | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

With classes beginning tomorrow, I must say goodbye.  I'm off to spend some quality time with Stephen Bainbridge, at al.  Many thanks to Gordon, Christine, Vic, Dave, Lisa & Fred for their kind hospitality during my visit to the Glom, and best of luck to all with the new school year!

As a parting tidbit, I'll leave you the surreal hysteria of this audio sketch by Kasper Hauser called Spicy Pony Head, which I think is one of the funnier things I've ever heard [you may need to press Play once to activate the player and once more to start the clip]:

Permalink | Administrative | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Since Daniel Drezner is Rihanna-blogging, I think it’s worth noting that “Shut Up And Drive” is both my kind of poetry and a somewhat surprising hip hop homage to New Order. The poetry front: metaphors can be confusing. But not Rihanna’s. I think I understood that when she opined about umbrellas, she was talking about a protective form of togetherness. But consider this:

“I'm a fine-tuned supersonic speed machine/With a sunroof top and a gangster lean”

Or this:

“Got all the drive but a whole lot of boom in the back/You look like you can handle what’s under my hood”

I’m pretty sure that in “Shut Up and Drive,” Rihanna is comparing herself to a car, and the rest of the lyrics, I think, vindicate my claim. It has a nice consistency and I rather prefer the directness to sorting through, say, an Ode to a Nightingale:

“I cannot see what flowers are at my feet/Nor what soft incense hangs upon the boughs,/But, in embalmèd darkness, guess each sweet/Wherewith the seasonable month endows”

Give it a read, and you tell me what Keats is alluding to.  I think he’s sad. But that’s me - “the dull brain perplexes and retards,” as even Keats will tell you.

I’m actually not a big Rihanna fan – first time I heard her was on a JetBlue flight from San Francisco (love the cable television in every seat).  “Shut Up And Drive” was on, and I thought: they’re remixing “Blue Monday” and setting it to a bunch of young people dancing in an AutoZone. Cool though that was, I wondered about the intellectual property issues. Are Gordon Summer Bernard Sumner and his aging cronies in New Order profiting from this? Or can they only enjoy the respect they are getting from this particular Carribean songstress?

Whatever the answer, I’ll hope for a May-September tour – perhaps with “Shut Up and Drive” being the showstopper both acts can play – in 2008.

Permalink | Popular Culture | Comments (4) | TrackBack (1) | Bookmark

. . . I was a monkey.  Beck's line sums up much of the mood at this time of year, when aspiring law professors are worrying about the upcoming AALS meat market.  As I recall, the process involves unending attempts to impress appointments committees -- an effort best summarized by a friend who endured the process a few years ago with this motto: "just keep dancing, little monkey."

Beck may also have captured the spirit of the moment for law students returning to school, as well as for professors preparing for new Socratic encounters.  Perhaps we could all do with Kasper Hauser's set of reality-cancelling headphones.

How to cope?  Here's a prescription -- gentle and soothing English comedy:

[Python was always ahead of its time -- decades later, Whole Foods is only now catching up to John Cleese's astounding inventory of cheesy comestibles.]

Permalink | Law Schools/Lawyering | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

We have three vehicles: a Suburban and two small cars. Last week, we registered the vehicles in Utah, got the license plates, and applied for titles.

Titles for the two small cars arrived today, but instead of sending a title for the Suburban, the State of Utah sent us a "Dismantling Permit."

I'm not joking. I have no idea what happened. The state official I spoke with this afternoon couldn't explain it, either. I suspect a rogue employee who despises Suburbans.

Permalink | Miscellany | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

People who have been following the Antigua/US internet gambling case won't find much new in the Times' recent wrap.  Antigua has won the case - its internet gambling sites are barred from the US, but domestic providers of online track wagers and lottery ticket sales are not, and that, the WTO tribunal has concluded, is a violation of the national treatment obligations in the GATS, which requires the US to treat foreign and domestic service providers in the same way.  The question now turns on the remedy, which raises interesting fundamentals of international law and international relations.  Will the US ignore its treaty obligations to tiny Antigua?  Will the WTO dare to impose a remedy that really hurts America?  These questions suggest that the dispute could turn on whether a country strong enough and interested enough to ignore a particular international legal obligation will do so.  And that is the sort of thing that realists - who are skeptical of international law - often think will happen.

But there's much more litigation that needs to occur before these questions are answered.  Still the Times's article is pretty good, not least because it offers Charlie Nesson, a professor who doesn't do much with trade, saying: 

“Think of this from the W.T.O.’s point of view,” said Charles R. Nesson, a professor at Harvard Law School. “They’re this fledgling organization dominated by a huge monster in the United States. People there must be scared out of their wits at the prospects of enforcing a ruling that would instantly galvanize public opinion in the United States against the W.T.O.”

A useful corrective to WTO specialists who like to think of their organization as all but all-powerful.

Permalink | Globalization/Trade | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

As an avid YouTube viewer, I’m distressed to hear of the coming infestation of commercials that will soon be crawling about the bottom of the videos.  The NYT and W$J both report that the honeymoon is over, and now Google is scrounging for a return on its $1.65 billion acquisition.  Thus, we can look forward to a new type of video ad:

I suppose that isn’t horrendous –- it’s certainly vastly superior to the dreaded alternative: the pre-roll. Evidently, pre-rolls are so noxious that, in tests, YouTube viewers abandoned them at a rate of more than 70%.

And, admittedly, if Google can’t find a way for their model to be profitable, they’ll have trouble placating the providers of the most entertaining and professional content, which will then demand that the good stuff (e.g., gaffes by Arsenal goalkeepers) be hunted down and removed.  As the music-downloading wars suggest, commercial hegemony (iTunes) and associated litigation eventually grind down the viability of guerrilla sites (Napster, Kazaa, &c.).

But here is something to look forward to with the new commercials: humorous malapropisms when cheerful and earnest ads are run atop wholly inappropriate videos.  Search engine and context juxtapositions have long been embarrassing:

For instance, a story on LATimes.com about police spying on activists ends with ads for doing public records searches -- basically spying on people. And below an obituary for a rabbi in NYTimes.com is an ad link to humorous Yiddish garb.

I wonder what truly offensive and entertaining pairings the genius of video will bring us.

[In the meantime, here's a combination of entertaining video and advertising all in one.]

Permalink | Current Affairs | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark