Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 138 Results in Corporate Governance
TOTM I’m delighted to report that the Liberty Fund has produced a three-volume collection of my dad’s oeuvre. Fred McChesney edits, Jon Macey writes a new . . .
I’m delighted to report that the Liberty Fund has produced a three-volume collection of my dad’s oeuvre. Fred McChesney edits, Jon Macey writes a new biography and Henry Butler, Steve Bainbridge and Jon Macey write introductions. The collection can be ordered here.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM What is the proper role for judges in deciding how much investment advisers to mutual funds should be compensated? This is the question the Supreme . . .
What is the proper role for judges in deciding how much investment advisers to mutual funds should be compensated? This is the question the Supreme Court will answer in Jones v. Harris Associates, argued last month. At first, the question seems silly: courts don’t get a say in how much I get paid or how much (beyond the minimum wage) I pay our nanny, so why would they have any say here.
TOTM From Larry Ribstein: A few years later, Henry Butler and I wrote a book decrying SOX, and discussing the evidence that was accumulating against it, . . .
From Larry Ribstein:
A few years later, Henry Butler and I wrote a book decrying SOX, and discussing the evidence that was accumulating against it, as well as the SOX suit. Here’s an excerpt from the book abstract…
TOTM Today’s Wall Street Journal includes a terrific article explaining why insider trading should be deregulated. Following up on last week’s high-profile insider trading charges, George . . .
Today’s Wall Street Journal includes a terrific article explaining why insider trading should be deregulated. Following up on last week’s high-profile insider trading charges, George Mason economist Don Boudreaux, whose Cafe Hayek posts are essential reading, succinctly sets forth the deregulatory position (which was first and most famously articulated by Geoff’s dad, Henry Manne).
TOTM Back during the days when socialism was all the rage among the intelligentsia, F.A. Hayek predicted that Soviet-style central planning was destined to fail because . . .
Back during the days when socialism was all the rage among the intelligentsia, F.A. Hayek predicted that Soviet-style central planning was destined to fail because the central planners lacked access to, and couldn’t process, all the information needed to allocate productive resources efficiently. Optimal resource allocation can occur, Hayek contended, only if resources are allocated according to the prices that emerge as millions of people buy and sell on the information to which they alone are privy. Hayek maintained that market prices dictate the highest and best use of resources and that such prices cannot be produced by a single mind (i.e., the Soviet-style central planner) but can emerge only as millions of folks reveal their needs and desires by trading amongst themselves.
TOTM Well, he warned us. But now that it’s here it sounds so incredible. Read the full piece here.
Well, he warned us. But now that it’s here it sounds so incredible.
TOTM Between the various power grabs and dubious regulatory proposals (each more dubious than the last!) from the likes of Geithner, Bernanke, Frank (.pdf), Dodd, etc., . . .
Between the various power grabs and dubious regulatory proposals (each more dubious than the last!) from the likes of Geithner, Bernanke, Frank (.pdf), Dodd, etc., etc. you’d be excused for thinking the financial news from Washington (remember when financial news used to come from New York?) was all bad and growing only worse.
TOTM Professor Birdthistle has a very thoughtful reply to my earlier post over at the Conglomerate on Jones v. Harris and behavioral economics. I thank Professor . . .
Professor Birdthistle has a very thoughtful reply to my earlier post over at the Conglomerate on Jones v. Harris and behavioral economics. I thank Professor Birdthistle for his reply. I’ve learned a great deal about Jones v. Harris from reading his posts at the Conglomerate and have no doubt that I’ll learn more from this exchange. The thrust of my original post was that, in general, my view was that behavioral law and economics has been too quick to rely on findings in the behavioral/ experimental literature demonstrating systematic deviations from rationality to justify paternalistic regulation.
TOTM Much has been made about the importance of Jones v. Harris as a battle in the ongoing war between behavioral economics and rational choice/neoclassical framework . . .
Much has been made about the importance of Jones v. Harris as a battle in the ongoing war between behavioral economics and rational choice/neoclassical framework (see, e.g. the NYT). If the case if to be about the appropriate economic methodology or model for assessing legal questions, it is definitely an interesting turn to have Judge Easterbrook representing the rational choice economists while Judge Posner (who is simultaneously taking some flack for fast and loose and incorrect uses of macroeconomics) defends the behavioral view, considering that the latter wrote an important critique of the behavioral law and economics literature (here is an excellent summary of Posner’s opinion from Professor Birdthistle). Professor Ribstein frames the issue of Jones v. Harris and the New Paternalism nicely with a prediction…
