Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM We know that people respond to incentives, and that behavior will adjust in response to relative changes in price. But I think it’s commonly assumed . . .
We know that people respond to incentives, and that behavior will adjust in response to relative changes in price. But I think it’s commonly assumed that the only relevant price change attributable to disclosure regulations is the nominal change in direct costs of compliance. Sure, we all understand that if shareholder or regulatory pressure is brought to bear on corporate actors as a consequence of disclosure, that pressure can change behavior. But for some reason we’re unduly optimistic about this change; we just assume it will be for the better (you know, because “sunlight is a good disinfectant.” Brandeis said so).
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Christine blogs about the Whirlpool-Maytag merger and its antitrust problems. Law Blog has the story, as well. Both mention the American Antitrust Institute which opposes . . .
Christine blogs about the Whirlpool-Maytag merger and its antitrust problems. Law Blog has the story, as well. Both mention the American Antitrust Institute which opposes (vehemently) the merger.
TOTM Prof. B. writes with pronounced skepticism of and hostility to Hamas’ recent Palestinian parliamentary victory here. He sees this as a “decisive victory by a . . .
Prof. B. writes with pronounced skepticism of and hostility to Hamas’ recent Palestinian parliamentary victory here. He sees this as a “decisive victory by a terrorist organization hostile to both the US and Israel,” and asks why anyone thinks this would be a good thing. Well, he’s right as a banal descriptive matter (Hamas is, in fact, “a terrorist organization hostile to both the US and Israel”), but here’s a couple of reasons to be optimistic.
TOTM An article in today’s W$J reports on former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio’s planned defense in a criminal insider trading action brought by the SEC. The . . .
An article in today’s W$J reports on former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio’s planned defense in a criminal insider trading action brought by the SEC. The defense is perplexing.
TOTM Apologies for my relative absence of late: my day job, and all. I know my 3 loyal readers out there (hi Mom!) were wondering about . . .
Apologies for my relative absence of late: my day job, and all. I know my 3 loyal readers out there (hi Mom!) were wondering about me. Soon, I’ll post more of substance. Meantime, here’s a little chestnut for your bedtime reading pleasure, culled from an article in the Economist.
TOTM In yesterday’s New York Times Magazine, an anonymous reader posed the following question to The Ethicist… Read the full piece here.
In yesterday’s New York Times Magazine, an anonymous reader posed the following question to The Ethicist…
TOTM For those of you who are not familiar with work of the Antitrust Modernization Committee, and I suspect that this includes most of our readers, . . .
For those of you who are not familiar with work of the Antitrust Modernization Committee, and I suspect that this includes most of our readers, the AMC was created by the Antitrust Modernization Committee Act of 2002, and is charged with the following tasks:
TOTM The government subpoenas Google’s records, and also Yahoo!’s and Microsoft’s. MSFT and YHOO cave: Their stocks are down a little over and a little under . . .
The government subpoenas Google’s records, and also Yahoo!’s and Microsoft’s. MSFT and YHOO cave: Their stocks are down a little over and a little under 2%, respectively. Google resists. Its stock drops almost 9%. And yet a headline for an article by MSNBC’s chief economics correspondent–with the relevant stock prices immediately alongside–notes, “Google stand could be good for business.” Maybe he’s talking about Microsoft’s business?
TOTM Via the WSJblog, I see that Google and the government are tangling again over the government’s effort to obtain search records (this time relating to . . .
Via the WSJblog, I see that Google and the government are tangling again over the government’s effort to obtain search records (this time relating to porn-viewing-by-children enforcement efforts) (I guess that should read anti-porn-viewing-by-children enforcement efforts). It reminds me of a post of Dan’s on Concurring Opinions from a while back that I wanted to comment on, but, well, I didn’t have a blog then. I do now.
