Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM In my previous post, I sketched out some trends in the Law & Economics movement in recent years. Specifically, I’ve focused on the trends towards . . .
In my previous post, I sketched out some trends in the Law & Economics movement in recent years. Specifically, I’ve focused on the trends towards increasing mathematical formality and specialization within economics as a stand alone discipline. The post triggered some thoughtful responses from Larry Solum and Larry Ribstein for which I am grateful. I also received a number of responses in private which asked, rather bluntly, “So what?” The point was that even if everything I claimed about trends in economics and L&E were true, perhaps the result would be L&E scholars being more detached from the legal academy and migrating to economics departments. Again, so what? L&E work would be getting done by somebody somewhere. More than one of these private responses included the observation that maybe L&E types should be in economics departments anyway where there are tougher tenure standards, peer review, and less pay.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM The D.C. Circuit’s opinion is available here. Here is one of the key passages explaining the D.C. Circuit’s logic… Read the full piece here.
The D.C. Circuit’s opinion is available here. Here is one of the key passages explaining the D.C. Circuit’s logic…
TOTM Sunstein and Thaler have a series of posts over at Volokh Consipiracy on their new book Nudge, which expands on their notion of libertarian paternalism . . .
Sunstein and Thaler have a series of posts over at Volokh Consipiracy on their new book Nudge, which expands on their notion of libertarian paternalism (see here, here , here and here). Something in the most recent post caught my eye. In preparing to respond to various objections to libertarian paternalism, Sunstein argues that this sort of paternalism offers the “best of both worlds”…
TOTM The new issue of the Journal of Law & Economics is available online. This is an exciting development for me because the issue includes my . . .
The new issue of the Journal of Law & Economics is available online. This is an exciting development for me because the issue includes my paper with Ben Klein on The Economics of Slotting Contracts (SSRN version available here), and because it has been a very long wait to see the paper in final form (note the new release is of the August 2007 issue of JLE).
TOTM Amit Gandhi, Luke Froeb, Steven Tschantz and Gregory Werden have published “Post-Merger Product Repositioning” in the Journal of Industrial Economics. (HT: Luke). Read the full . . .
Amit Gandhi, Luke Froeb, Steven Tschantz and Gregory Werden have published “Post-Merger Product Repositioning” in the Journal of Industrial Economics. (HT: Luke).
TOTM That is what Judge Posner has to say about Leegin in his new book, How Judges Think. I’m only a few chapters in, but so . . .
That is what Judge Posner has to say about Leegin in his new book, How Judges Think. I’m only a few chapters in, but so far, its a fascinating read. I’ll probably blog some more about parts of the book later. In particular, I’ve been thinking recently about how the complexity of substantive antitrust analysis affects judicial decision-making.
TOTM The Financial Times reported yesterday that an embarrassed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt had to tell GE shareholders that the 10% growth in earnings for 2008 . . .
The Financial Times reported yesterday that an embarrassed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt had to tell GE shareholders that the 10% growth in earnings for 2008 that he had promised analysts in March was not going to be possible. GE missed its quarterly forecasts and halved its 2008 forecast to 5% growth in earnings (as opposed to the 10% growth promised). The Financial Times article mentioned a “sense of shock among the investor community” and noted that one analyst, after Immelt’s downward revision, “compared GE’s promise of long-term improvements to the Chicago Cubs, the US baseball club that hasn’t won a championship in 100 years.”
TOTM On the flight back from my spring break ski trip, I had a chance to read the recent Tenth Circuit opinion reversing the insider trading . . .
On the flight back from my spring break ski trip, I had a chance to read the recent Tenth Circuit opinion reversing the insider trading conviction of former Qwest CEO, Joseph Nacchio. Mr. Nacchio had been convicted of 19 counts of insider trading, sentenced to six years in prison (plus two years’ supervised release), fined $19 million, and ordered to disgorge $52 million more. In a 2-1 decision authored by Judge McConnell, the Tenth Circuit reversed Nacchio’s conviction because of the district court’s exclusion of expert testimony by Dan Fischel (my corporations prof). The court also concluded that retrial will not constitute double jeopardy because a properly instructed jury could have found Nacchio guilty of insider trading. To reach that conclusion, the court had to delve extensively into the law of insider trading and the evidence presented at trial.
TOTM With all of the recent talk of the “optimal regulatory structure” and proposals about regulatory consolidation and reorganization (here is Glom Blogger David Zaring on . . .
With all of the recent talk of the “optimal regulatory structure” and proposals about regulatory consolidation and reorganization (here is Glom Blogger David Zaring on the Big Reorg), I wonder if the discussion might carry over into antitrust and the recurring “dual enforcement” question.
