10.26.2011
40 under 40
While some inexplicable oversight led to a lack of our inclusion, CNN Money nonetheless recently went to press with a list of 'the hottest young stars in business across the globe.' 'Across the globe' might be a bit ambitious considering the US roots and/or domicile of most of the individuals listed. In addition, some might question the decided lack of members of the fairer sex on the list. And, of course, there is the snub of BlawgConomics. Quibbles aside, however, it is nonetheless a very impressive collection. Ladies and gentlemen, the 40 under 40.
Solving Congestion Problems: The Off-Peak Rush Hour
Human settlements have always had congestion problems. From the very first time an individual had to look beyond a communal cave or fortified walls to find sufficient space for the activities of daily living, the areas people inhabit have been overcrowded in one way or another. If the animal kingdom is any indication, it is likely that even prior to the evolution of homo sapiens that human precursors faced overcrowding. Indeed, the search for land with sufficient resources is undoubtedly one of the factors which led to the diaspora of the human race.
The 21st century would be in many ways unrecognizable to the Neanderthals and early human cave-dwellers, but the problem of human overcrowding remains a very pertinent one. Even as populations grow in absolute terms the worst of the Malthusian predictions have been avoided. However, while the global population, unfortunate examples notwithstanding, produces sufficient food resources, is it also true that urban areas in particular have not been able to avoid problems caused by pure space limitations. These problems manifest themselves in living and working space to some extent, but they are all the more prevalent with regard to access of living and working space. In other words, the daily commute.
The very roads which governments created to get people out of cities and into suburbs are now used to get back into cities for the workday. This has led to epic congestion in many of the cities of the world. Urban planners have tried many solutions to this type of problem. Some play around with taxes as a solution, with congestion charging schemes popping up around the world. Such schemes can be based on time of day or by geographic area. Some roads have tolls. Some jurisdictions charge high excise rates on vehicles to discourage purchases. Parking restrictions are initiated and enforced. As a practical matter, some of these are above all revenue generation schemes, but each nonetheless should have a result of getting cars off the road.
The 21st century would be in many ways unrecognizable to the Neanderthals and early human cave-dwellers, but the problem of human overcrowding remains a very pertinent one. Even as populations grow in absolute terms the worst of the Malthusian predictions have been avoided. However, while the global population, unfortunate examples notwithstanding, produces sufficient food resources, is it also true that urban areas in particular have not been able to avoid problems caused by pure space limitations. These problems manifest themselves in living and working space to some extent, but they are all the more prevalent with regard to access of living and working space. In other words, the daily commute.
The very roads which governments created to get people out of cities and into suburbs are now used to get back into cities for the workday. This has led to epic congestion in many of the cities of the world. Urban planners have tried many solutions to this type of problem. Some play around with taxes as a solution, with congestion charging schemes popping up around the world. Such schemes can be based on time of day or by geographic area. Some roads have tolls. Some jurisdictions charge high excise rates on vehicles to discourage purchases. Parking restrictions are initiated and enforced. As a practical matter, some of these are above all revenue generation schemes, but each nonetheless should have a result of getting cars off the road.
The Future of Law and Economics
At BlawgConomics, we have always considered ourselves to be students of law AND economics rather than Law and Economics. In other words, we are more interested in discussing stories and ideas with economic and legal angles than analyzing everything purely through the lens of that discipline most notably championed by Judge Richard A. Posner. The distinction might be subtle, but it isn't insignificant, if for no other reason that it allows us a little more flexibility with the stories we bring to our readers.
However, just because all of our analysis doesn't fall rigidly within a Law and Economics framework doesn't mean that we don't keep tabs on the discipline's proponents. As those with an interest in the field will know, many of these individuals inhabit the University of Chicago. Some of them, including the aforementioned Posner, recently wrote about the future of their field in essays available on the University of Chicago Law's Alumni website here. For those with a surplus of curiosity but a deficit of time, blogger Josh Wright has more digestible summaries here.
However, just because all of our analysis doesn't fall rigidly within a Law and Economics framework doesn't mean that we don't keep tabs on the discipline's proponents. As those with an interest in the field will know, many of these individuals inhabit the University of Chicago. Some of them, including the aforementioned Posner, recently wrote about the future of their field in essays available on the University of Chicago Law's Alumni website here. For those with a surplus of curiosity but a deficit of time, blogger Josh Wright has more digestible summaries here.
10.23.2011
The Legality of the Declaration of Independence
In spite of the fact that it matters not a bit at this point, British and American lawyers met in Philadelphia recently to discuss the legality of the Declaration of Independence. According to the BBC, the arguments presented at the debate can be summarized as follow:
It was legal:
The Declaration is unquestionably "legal". Under basic principles of "Natural Law", government can only be by the consent of the people and there comes a point when allegiance is no longer required in face of tyranny.
The legality of the Declaration and its validity is proven by subsequent independence movements which have been enforced by world opinion as right and just, based on the fundamental principles of equality and self-determination now reflected in the UN Charter.
It was illegal:
The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?
Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.
The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.
Again, recognizing that it doesn't much matter at this point, I would nonetheless tend to side with the British viewpoint. The Texas hypothetical is a very persuasive one in my humble opinion, and I think that it was very clever to bring the venerated Lincoln into the debate the way they did. I also think that there is something to the idea that the grievances of colonists fell short of justifying secession. Though as an American I am happy that things worked out the way they did, it is clear that case for independence was anything but self-evident.
It was legal:
The Declaration is unquestionably "legal". Under basic principles of "Natural Law", government can only be by the consent of the people and there comes a point when allegiance is no longer required in face of tyranny.
The legality of the Declaration and its validity is proven by subsequent independence movements which have been enforced by world opinion as right and just, based on the fundamental principles of equality and self-determination now reflected in the UN Charter.
It was illegal:
The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?
Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.
The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.
Again, recognizing that it doesn't much matter at this point, I would nonetheless tend to side with the British viewpoint. The Texas hypothetical is a very persuasive one in my humble opinion, and I think that it was very clever to bring the venerated Lincoln into the debate the way they did. I also think that there is something to the idea that the grievances of colonists fell short of justifying secession. Though as an American I am happy that things worked out the way they did, it is clear that case for independence was anything but self-evident.
10.21.2011
Income Figures Present a Warning Sign for the Incumbent
If we hosted a poll asking readers to guess which metropolitan area had the highest average income last year, Silicon Valley might rate highly. However, though its well-educated residents work in potentially very lucrative ventures, the area around San Jose only came in second. Perhaps with all of the anger being directed toward Wall St. these days, it is the land of bankers which would top the list. That would be another good guess, but the New York City metro area wasn't in the lead last year either.
According to Census Bureau figures, even though nearly 11% of the area's residents qualify as 'very poor,' the bragging rights actually go to the Washington, DC area. According to Bloomberg, "Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation’s greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose (ie Silicon Valley)." Overall, the average household in DC makes nearly $85,000. Meanwhile, the national average was just over $50,000.
Sara Kline, a Moody's analyst interviewed for the Bloomberg piece, suggested that it was government spending which has enabled the area around the capital to weather the recession more easily than the rest of the nation. There is, of course, a plausible economic argument that as this government spending has helped the employment rate in DC, it has therefore boosted the national economy. Spending created well-paid jobs for federal employees, and the management of the political process created additional trickle-down jobs in the form of the lobbyists and lawyers. An economist might label this a sort of bureaucratic multiplier effect.
However, economics could also be used to point out that this was done at the expense of increasing the national debt. In addition, as a purely practical matter, it is unlikely that an angry and underemployed public would view the proliferation of highly-compensated federal jobs on the public dime to be a benefit to the economy, regardless of whether statistics could be found to support the notion. On the contrary, such jobs are more likely to be decried as excessive and another example of how government has gotten 'too big.'
It is clear that Wall Street has drawn the bulk of the ire of the American public recently. Indeed, the perception of the nation's banking establishment likely hasn't been this poor since trust busting was in vogue. However even if 'Big Government' has found a reprieve in the Occupy Movement, anger at government spending is never far from the surface. If I were one of President Obama's advisers, I would be trying to figure out a way to deflect criticism over Washington's political class. Indeed, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that populist politics in 2012 could dictate the President disassociating himself from the very spending he has for so long championed.
According to Census Bureau figures, even though nearly 11% of the area's residents qualify as 'very poor,' the bragging rights actually go to the Washington, DC area. According to Bloomberg, "Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation’s greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose (ie Silicon Valley)." Overall, the average household in DC makes nearly $85,000. Meanwhile, the national average was just over $50,000.
Sara Kline, a Moody's analyst interviewed for the Bloomberg piece, suggested that it was government spending which has enabled the area around the capital to weather the recession more easily than the rest of the nation. There is, of course, a plausible economic argument that as this government spending has helped the employment rate in DC, it has therefore boosted the national economy. Spending created well-paid jobs for federal employees, and the management of the political process created additional trickle-down jobs in the form of the lobbyists and lawyers. An economist might label this a sort of bureaucratic multiplier effect.
However, economics could also be used to point out that this was done at the expense of increasing the national debt. In addition, as a purely practical matter, it is unlikely that an angry and underemployed public would view the proliferation of highly-compensated federal jobs on the public dime to be a benefit to the economy, regardless of whether statistics could be found to support the notion. On the contrary, such jobs are more likely to be decried as excessive and another example of how government has gotten 'too big.'
It is clear that Wall Street has drawn the bulk of the ire of the American public recently. Indeed, the perception of the nation's banking establishment likely hasn't been this poor since trust busting was in vogue. However even if 'Big Government' has found a reprieve in the Occupy Movement, anger at government spending is never far from the surface. If I were one of President Obama's advisers, I would be trying to figure out a way to deflect criticism over Washington's political class. Indeed, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that populist politics in 2012 could dictate the President disassociating himself from the very spending he has for so long championed.
The Personal Job Index
A while back, BlawgConomics took at a look at the legal job search from the perspective of those in the know. At the end of that piece, we were able to boil down the thoughts of both erstwhile and current job seekers into a few bullets. We would note that #4 has yielded some positive results for a few friends of the site recently:
1. If you don't have a Biglaw job, offer or summer position currently, it is highly unlikely that you will be getting one. It's probably best to get over it and move on to number 2.
2. Tap into networks. Most people have been helped at some point during their lives; some of them are kind enough to pay it forward.
3. Scan the map. Things might not be much better abroad, and it is often difficult for US-trained lawyers to work abroad. However, this doesn't mean that you can't look outside your current target markets including secondary markets in the US.
4. Consider temp or contract work to get your foot in the door.
5. Above all, stay positive. This final bit of advice is not as purely practical as the others, and runs the risk of seeming almost trite when considering the realities of the current market. However it is hard to overstate how important it can be to send out that one last email or make that one last phone call.
We invited readers to add any thoughts in the comments section. While we could do the same, that would seem to be a waste of the resources that the BlawgConomics platform provides, hence this post. In other words, here is another idea for job seekers.
In this day and age, technology is an almost indispensible tool for the job seeker. Most recent seekers will be familiar with electronic job boards, email alerts, job blasts and all the other seemingly ubiquitous e-tools of their ilk. While there is an obvious potential benefit to applying directly to jobs from these sources and it is something that seekers often feel has to be a tool in their belt, it was also noted by many of the individuals highlighted in the jobs piece we did that direct writes and online applications have a less-than-stellar success rate.
Therefore, why not put the ubiquitous emails and alerts to another good, perhaps even better, use? Use them to make up a personal job index. In other words, use them to take the temperature of what particular industries and practice groups are hiring. Doing so could also help pinpoint particular geographic job markets that are on the upswing. To take a recent example, many people we talk to have been discussing the impact that recent legislation is having on the IP legal market. This anecdotal evidence is reflected in many of today's job boards and email blasts as well. In another example, our 'personal job index' also indicates that real estate firms in NYC are hiring.
Of course once you have this information, you need to do something productive with it. First off, it would be prudent to tailor your resume a bit to highlight any experience with a touchpoint to what we are calling the hot market. Then, as always, networking comes into the equation. Maybe you have a friend in a hot industry, maybe there was a lawyer you spoke to in the past whose firm wasn't hiring at that point, but could be now. Maybe it is just a better way to focus cold calls and direct writes or get your foot in the door with a temp position.
All of these tips might seem to be obvious upon reading them, but some of our readers will also have to admit that they haven't tried this particular type of approach. It might also not help readers out there who will only accept patent law jobs in downtown DC or are convinced they can still get a transactional job in midtown Manhattan. However, in this market, it would be prudent for seekers to try anything and everything that could help them to land a job.
To be completely clear, it is a tough market and 'indexing' job emails is certainly no panacea. However, our approach on BlawgConomics has been to try and help readers think outside the box rather than take the 'woe is me' approach. We hope this is helpful. As always, we invite our readers to add thoughts and additional tips in the comments section.
1. If you don't have a Biglaw job, offer or summer position currently, it is highly unlikely that you will be getting one. It's probably best to get over it and move on to number 2.
2. Tap into networks. Most people have been helped at some point during their lives; some of them are kind enough to pay it forward.
3. Scan the map. Things might not be much better abroad, and it is often difficult for US-trained lawyers to work abroad. However, this doesn't mean that you can't look outside your current target markets including secondary markets in the US.
4. Consider temp or contract work to get your foot in the door.
5. Above all, stay positive. This final bit of advice is not as purely practical as the others, and runs the risk of seeming almost trite when considering the realities of the current market. However it is hard to overstate how important it can be to send out that one last email or make that one last phone call.
We invited readers to add any thoughts in the comments section. While we could do the same, that would seem to be a waste of the resources that the BlawgConomics platform provides, hence this post. In other words, here is another idea for job seekers.
In this day and age, technology is an almost indispensible tool for the job seeker. Most recent seekers will be familiar with electronic job boards, email alerts, job blasts and all the other seemingly ubiquitous e-tools of their ilk. While there is an obvious potential benefit to applying directly to jobs from these sources and it is something that seekers often feel has to be a tool in their belt, it was also noted by many of the individuals highlighted in the jobs piece we did that direct writes and online applications have a less-than-stellar success rate.
Therefore, why not put the ubiquitous emails and alerts to another good, perhaps even better, use? Use them to make up a personal job index. In other words, use them to take the temperature of what particular industries and practice groups are hiring. Doing so could also help pinpoint particular geographic job markets that are on the upswing. To take a recent example, many people we talk to have been discussing the impact that recent legislation is having on the IP legal market. This anecdotal evidence is reflected in many of today's job boards and email blasts as well. In another example, our 'personal job index' also indicates that real estate firms in NYC are hiring.
Of course once you have this information, you need to do something productive with it. First off, it would be prudent to tailor your resume a bit to highlight any experience with a touchpoint to what we are calling the hot market. Then, as always, networking comes into the equation. Maybe you have a friend in a hot industry, maybe there was a lawyer you spoke to in the past whose firm wasn't hiring at that point, but could be now. Maybe it is just a better way to focus cold calls and direct writes or get your foot in the door with a temp position.
All of these tips might seem to be obvious upon reading them, but some of our readers will also have to admit that they haven't tried this particular type of approach. It might also not help readers out there who will only accept patent law jobs in downtown DC or are convinced they can still get a transactional job in midtown Manhattan. However, in this market, it would be prudent for seekers to try anything and everything that could help them to land a job.
To be completely clear, it is a tough market and 'indexing' job emails is certainly no panacea. However, our approach on BlawgConomics has been to try and help readers think outside the box rather than take the 'woe is me' approach. We hope this is helpful. As always, we invite our readers to add thoughts and additional tips in the comments section.
10.18.2011
Another Perspective
Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post had some interesting thoughts on the 'Occupy' movement in an article published yesterday. Her piece, titled 'What the Occupy protests tell us about the limits of democracy' explores the current situation and what it could mean for the political process if it is to continue without finding 'the point.' Her conclusion:
The emergence of an international protest movement without a coherent program is therefore not an accident: It reflects a deeper crisis, one without an obvious solution. Democracy is based on the rule of law. Democracy works only within distinct borders and among people who feel themselves to be part of the same nation. A “global community” cannot be a national democracy. And a national democracy cannot command the allegiance of a billion-dollar global hedge fund, with its headquarters in a tax haven and its employees scattered around the world.
Unlike the Egyptians in Tahrir Square, to whom the London and New York protesters openly (and ridiculously) compare themselves, we have democratic institutions in the Western world. They are designed to reflect, at least crudely, the desire for political change within a given nation. But they cannot cope with the desire for global political change, nor can they control things that happen outside their borders. Although I still believe in globalization’s economic and spiritual benefits — along with open borders, freedom of movement and free trade — globalization has clearly begun to undermine the legitimacy of Western democracies.
“Global” activists, if they are not careful, will accelerate that decline. Protesters in London shout,“We need to have a process!” Well, they already have a process: It’s called the British political system. And if they don’t figure out how to use it, they’ll simply weaken it further.
While I disagree that the Occupy movement will ever have the momentum or strength to topple Western democracies (Applebaum cannot think this either though she implicitly suggests it; otherwise she wouldn't mock the link to the Arab Spring so forcefully) I do believe that the Occupiers would need to tap into the mainstream political process to accomplish anything of note. As we noted in our Live from Occupy Boston piece, the prevailing ideology in the Occupy camps seem to be a confused amalgamation of socialist and anarchical thought. They seem to be run under a very loose (at best) leadership structure. In other words, it doesn't seem like such formal political outreach is in the cards.
The most likely outcome then would be that the Occupy movement will attract some more celebrities and maybe a shout out or two from a national politician. A continued proliferation of Occupied city centers could keep the movement in the news. However, that type of momentum does not seem to be sustainable and things might unfortunately have to take a violent turn for the protesters to keep themselves in the spotlight. This would surely signal the end of any political hope for the movement; people might support the protesters in polls, but when push comes to shove, Americans don't tolerate violence on their turf.
So what then? Maybe, just maybe the movement will merit a brief mention in the history books when the Obama presidency is discussed or the Great Recession is covered, sort of like a Shay's Rebellion for the Millenial generation. Maybe it will go down as one of a number of protests of the era, linked unintentionally with the Tea Party. However, without real political initiative, real political change appears to be out of reach for the movement for the time being.
The emergence of an international protest movement without a coherent program is therefore not an accident: It reflects a deeper crisis, one without an obvious solution. Democracy is based on the rule of law. Democracy works only within distinct borders and among people who feel themselves to be part of the same nation. A “global community” cannot be a national democracy. And a national democracy cannot command the allegiance of a billion-dollar global hedge fund, with its headquarters in a tax haven and its employees scattered around the world.
Unlike the Egyptians in Tahrir Square, to whom the London and New York protesters openly (and ridiculously) compare themselves, we have democratic institutions in the Western world. They are designed to reflect, at least crudely, the desire for political change within a given nation. But they cannot cope with the desire for global political change, nor can they control things that happen outside their borders. Although I still believe in globalization’s economic and spiritual benefits — along with open borders, freedom of movement and free trade — globalization has clearly begun to undermine the legitimacy of Western democracies.
“Global” activists, if they are not careful, will accelerate that decline. Protesters in London shout,“We need to have a process!” Well, they already have a process: It’s called the British political system. And if they don’t figure out how to use it, they’ll simply weaken it further.
While I disagree that the Occupy movement will ever have the momentum or strength to topple Western democracies (Applebaum cannot think this either though she implicitly suggests it; otherwise she wouldn't mock the link to the Arab Spring so forcefully) I do believe that the Occupiers would need to tap into the mainstream political process to accomplish anything of note. As we noted in our Live from Occupy Boston piece, the prevailing ideology in the Occupy camps seem to be a confused amalgamation of socialist and anarchical thought. They seem to be run under a very loose (at best) leadership structure. In other words, it doesn't seem like such formal political outreach is in the cards.
The most likely outcome then would be that the Occupy movement will attract some more celebrities and maybe a shout out or two from a national politician. A continued proliferation of Occupied city centers could keep the movement in the news. However, that type of momentum does not seem to be sustainable and things might unfortunately have to take a violent turn for the protesters to keep themselves in the spotlight. This would surely signal the end of any political hope for the movement; people might support the protesters in polls, but when push comes to shove, Americans don't tolerate violence on their turf.
So what then? Maybe, just maybe the movement will merit a brief mention in the history books when the Obama presidency is discussed or the Great Recession is covered, sort of like a Shay's Rebellion for the Millenial generation. Maybe it will go down as one of a number of protests of the era, linked unintentionally with the Tea Party. However, without real political initiative, real political change appears to be out of reach for the movement for the time being.
10.17.2011
An Age of Austerity or More Smoke and Mirrors?
Many liberals point to budget cuts wrangled for by Republicans as the reason that the economy has not been able to recover from recession territory. Austerity, they claim, is harming growth. Meanwhile, many conservatives, particularly Tea Party-backed Republicans who were elected last year, claim that those same budget cuts have hearkened a new era of financial responsibility and smaller government which will lead the nation back to prosperity. Though it is plain to see that the ends of the political spectrum heartily disagree on what budget cuts mean for Americans, there at least seems to be some agreement that America is in cutting mode.
However maybe even this underlying assumption isn't correct. And, if it isn't, then many of either side's popular talking points would seem to be invalidated. According to Treasury Department data noted by investors.com, it appears that both federal and state spending are actually higher year over year. This, of course, doesn't account for the fact that potential cuts have yet to kick in. However, it does provide a basis to both discount liberal economists' claims that austerity is undercutting growth and ignore conservative politicians' claims that they have accomplished anything of note since the 'Tea Party Revolution.'
Presumably, if the agreements which have been put into place are honored, cuts are coming. They might harm the economy, they might save our government from itself. Maybe history will show that they were a crowning accomplishment for conservatives, maybe they will be viewed in retrospect as a great failure. Depending on one's economic models of choice and political viewpoints guesses can be made either way. However it is impossible to know for sure what will happen until it happens.
In the meantime, it would be nice if everyone involved could at least get on the same page about what cuts are and when they are going to happen. Until then, this confusion and obfuscation can only continue to reduce the level of educated and reasoned political dialog in the US.
However maybe even this underlying assumption isn't correct. And, if it isn't, then many of either side's popular talking points would seem to be invalidated. According to Treasury Department data noted by investors.com, it appears that both federal and state spending are actually higher year over year. This, of course, doesn't account for the fact that potential cuts have yet to kick in. However, it does provide a basis to both discount liberal economists' claims that austerity is undercutting growth and ignore conservative politicians' claims that they have accomplished anything of note since the 'Tea Party Revolution.'
Presumably, if the agreements which have been put into place are honored, cuts are coming. They might harm the economy, they might save our government from itself. Maybe history will show that they were a crowning accomplishment for conservatives, maybe they will be viewed in retrospect as a great failure. Depending on one's economic models of choice and political viewpoints guesses can be made either way. However it is impossible to know for sure what will happen until it happens.
In the meantime, it would be nice if everyone involved could at least get on the same page about what cuts are and when they are going to happen. Until then, this confusion and obfuscation can only continue to reduce the level of educated and reasoned political dialog in the US.
10.14.2011
Live from Occupy Boston
In the shadows of The Federal Reserve building in the morning and the The Fiduciary Trust building in the afternoon lies the home base of Occupy Boston. Much like the Tea Party movement last year, the Occupy movement has sparked dialog in the country, something that I too often find lacking. Though I don't personally agree with the ideals of many of the protesters, I am thrilled to see Americans taking advantage of their right to be heard. I joined the Occupiers for about an hour last night to get a sense of the mood and speak to some of the participants.
There were people of all ages, many of them clearly veterans of various protest campaigns through their respective years. There were students, union members, clergy members, teachers and Iraq veterans all supporting the cause. The sounds were all there, from the beeps of and shouts of commuters and delivery drivers on Atlantic Ave. to the now world famous phenomenon of the 'mic check.' And of course it wouldn't be a proper protest without some acoustic guitars accompanied by kitchen utensil percussion sections.
The expected sights were there too. Tents dotted Dewey Square Park representing every color of the rainbow. Unmatched canvas tarps steeled the Occupiers' temporary homes against that night's forecasted rain storms. Guy Fawkes masks ironically outed members of Anonymous. There was even a blue VW van whose driver double parked so he could drop off some fuel for the participants. There were also the obligatory signs and flyers, dozens, maybe even hundreds of them littering the landscape. Some notables included:
- 'If you can't afford to miss work to be here, you belong here'
- 'Smash Corporate America and Capitalism'
- 'Too many problems to fit on one sign'
- 'War, economic crimes and the fight for socialism'
The protesters weren't the only characters in the story. Police officers, despite the issues and arrests from the night before, seemed far more interested in punching a clock than doing the same to any of the assembled throng. The five o'clock hour's arrival meant nearly fifty Bostonians passed by on their way to the suburbs by way of South Station every time the walk sign flashed on Summer Street. Curious passerby took a few moments to read a sign and ask a question or two, and representatives of various news outlets took turns looking the most awkward.
I wasn't merely there to observe, however. I wanted to get a feel for the voices of the movement. As a writer, however amateur, about legal topics, economic topics and the general zeitgeist, what better place to be, I imagined, than one of the outposts of a movement that has caught the attention of the world. However what I found at Occupy Boston was slightly disappointing.
True, I heard people speak with real passion about their plights. People told me how down and out they were, how much debt they had, and how angry they were with corporate America. I don't want to discount the real pain and passion I saw in some people's eyes. However despite giving participants every opportunity to articulate a strategy or desired outcome, the most I got from many of them were answers like 'restore democracy' and 'stop corporations from ruining our lives.' To the extent that some of the people I spoke to were able to provide more than these types of catch phrases, they spent their time extolling the virtues of strategies such as nationalising banks and implementing socialism. Apparently those who hate the banks also missed what happens to socialism in the hands of those in power.
Like the Tea Party, the Occupy movement is a good thing for our nation. Both of these political/ philosophical movements have gotten the nation talking, and have brought the dialog of common citizens to a level that brings patriotic pride to this humble writer's heart. And, like the Tea Party before it, the Occupy movement has clearly captured the feelings of a great many Americans. However, unlike the Tea Party protesters, the Occupiers don't seem to have any core, attainable goals in mind. As long as the Occupiers remains driven by feelings and an unrealistic desire for failed historical relics of political systems, I am afraid that the recent headline from The Times of London will continue to sum up the movement best: 'Passionate but Pointless.'
There were people of all ages, many of them clearly veterans of various protest campaigns through their respective years. There were students, union members, clergy members, teachers and Iraq veterans all supporting the cause. The sounds were all there, from the beeps of and shouts of commuters and delivery drivers on Atlantic Ave. to the now world famous phenomenon of the 'mic check.' And of course it wouldn't be a proper protest without some acoustic guitars accompanied by kitchen utensil percussion sections.
The expected sights were there too. Tents dotted Dewey Square Park representing every color of the rainbow. Unmatched canvas tarps steeled the Occupiers' temporary homes against that night's forecasted rain storms. Guy Fawkes masks ironically outed members of Anonymous. There was even a blue VW van whose driver double parked so he could drop off some fuel for the participants. There were also the obligatory signs and flyers, dozens, maybe even hundreds of them littering the landscape. Some notables included:
- 'If you can't afford to miss work to be here, you belong here'
- 'Smash Corporate America and Capitalism'
- 'Too many problems to fit on one sign'
- 'War, economic crimes and the fight for socialism'
The protesters weren't the only characters in the story. Police officers, despite the issues and arrests from the night before, seemed far more interested in punching a clock than doing the same to any of the assembled throng. The five o'clock hour's arrival meant nearly fifty Bostonians passed by on their way to the suburbs by way of South Station every time the walk sign flashed on Summer Street. Curious passerby took a few moments to read a sign and ask a question or two, and representatives of various news outlets took turns looking the most awkward.
I wasn't merely there to observe, however. I wanted to get a feel for the voices of the movement. As a writer, however amateur, about legal topics, economic topics and the general zeitgeist, what better place to be, I imagined, than one of the outposts of a movement that has caught the attention of the world. However what I found at Occupy Boston was slightly disappointing.
True, I heard people speak with real passion about their plights. People told me how down and out they were, how much debt they had, and how angry they were with corporate America. I don't want to discount the real pain and passion I saw in some people's eyes. However despite giving participants every opportunity to articulate a strategy or desired outcome, the most I got from many of them were answers like 'restore democracy' and 'stop corporations from ruining our lives.' To the extent that some of the people I spoke to were able to provide more than these types of catch phrases, they spent their time extolling the virtues of strategies such as nationalising banks and implementing socialism. Apparently those who hate the banks also missed what happens to socialism in the hands of those in power.
Like the Tea Party, the Occupy movement is a good thing for our nation. Both of these political/ philosophical movements have gotten the nation talking, and have brought the dialog of common citizens to a level that brings patriotic pride to this humble writer's heart. And, like the Tea Party before it, the Occupy movement has clearly captured the feelings of a great many Americans. However, unlike the Tea Party protesters, the Occupiers don't seem to have any core, attainable goals in mind. As long as the Occupiers remains driven by feelings and an unrealistic desire for failed historical relics of political systems, I am afraid that the recent headline from The Times of London will continue to sum up the movement best: 'Passionate but Pointless.'
10.13.2011
Revisiting the Double Irish
As of the moment we posted this, Bloomberg's most popular story of the day was titled Google Tax Probe to Focus on Offshore Units. Ladies and gentlemen, there would appear to be no better time than the present to reprint a very popular post from a year ago which explained the Double Irish tax scheme. For those unfamiliar with the Double Irish, it is an asset transfer pricing plan which allows Google and others to book profits offshore until repatriating the cash at a later date. As this allows the companies to avoid US taxes for the time being, such plans are not particularly popular among some circles, especially when the country is desperately in search of new sources of revenue. Without further ado, what follows is an unadulterated copy of last year's posting:
Over the past few weeks the media has been buzzing over a few exotic tax schemes with even more exotic names, the Double Irish and the Dutch Sandwich. Though such strategies have been utilized since the late 90's when a liberalization of tax laws in Ireland facilitated the ability to put them in place, the special attention given to them recently is a result of an article Bloomberg published in which the author threw around some truly eyecatching numbers.
For example, Google, which was used as the centerpiece of the article, has annual global tax savings in the billions of dollars and an effective foreign tax rate of under 3%. To put this in context, one analyst quoted in the Bloomberg piece estimated that keeping its tax rate so low has added as much as $100 to Google's approximate $625 share price. In other words, if true, this would mean that tax strategies alone are responsible for at least 16% of the tech giant's market value.
So, how exactly is Google able to concurrently avoid the IRS and delight shareholders? The actual details are quite complicated and explaining the parts of the tax code that the structure rely on would be neither easy to write nor rewarding to read. However behind the creative names and the seemingly labyrinthine corporate structures are some fairly easy to grasp concepts. Essentially an American company with some form of intellectual property rights (usually tech or pharma based) licenses an offshore entity to co-produce the product. That company is registered in Ireland, but typically located in a slightly sunnier locale. That company then licenses yet another subsidiary, which is both registered and located on the Emerald Isle, to sell the product in overseas markets.
Over the past few weeks the media has been buzzing over a few exotic tax schemes with even more exotic names, the Double Irish and the Dutch Sandwich. Though such strategies have been utilized since the late 90's when a liberalization of tax laws in Ireland facilitated the ability to put them in place, the special attention given to them recently is a result of an article Bloomberg published in which the author threw around some truly eyecatching numbers.
For example, Google, which was used as the centerpiece of the article, has annual global tax savings in the billions of dollars and an effective foreign tax rate of under 3%. To put this in context, one analyst quoted in the Bloomberg piece estimated that keeping its tax rate so low has added as much as $100 to Google's approximate $625 share price. In other words, if true, this would mean that tax strategies alone are responsible for at least 16% of the tech giant's market value.
So, how exactly is Google able to concurrently avoid the IRS and delight shareholders? The actual details are quite complicated and explaining the parts of the tax code that the structure rely on would be neither easy to write nor rewarding to read. However behind the creative names and the seemingly labyrinthine corporate structures are some fairly easy to grasp concepts. Essentially an American company with some form of intellectual property rights (usually tech or pharma based) licenses an offshore entity to co-produce the product. That company is registered in Ireland, but typically located in a slightly sunnier locale. That company then licenses yet another subsidiary, which is both registered and located on the Emerald Isle, to sell the product in overseas markets.
A slightly more traditional Double Irish...
10.12.2011
Common Sense v. Civil Rights
A recent story out of the Boston area has caused quite a bit of a stir in the Bay State this week. It seems that in Beverly, MA this past weekend, police officers scoured neighborhoods looking for unlocked cars with valuables inside. When they found them, they left behind notes for the owners with tips on how to safeguard their property and locked the doors. About 100 notes were left by officers during the initiative, some found by people on their way to work Monday morning whose keys had been locked in their cars.
We have heard many people sounding off on this topic, and opinions seem divided fairly evenly into two camps:
Pro
1) The police were doing something positive for the community and helping people. The did this with the best of intentions.
2) It was a harmless activity; there was no contraband found or seized. Therefore the activity wasn't unreasonable.
3) Even more resources would be spent on finding criminals if the goods ended up stolen.
4) It is just plain common sense to lock your door in this day and age, having someone point it out is helpful.
Con
1) The whole initiative was a gross violation of the fourth amendment and the police powers.
2) It was a waste of resources to have officers going around pulling door handles.
3) If any normal citizen were caught opening car doors by those same officers, they would undoubtedly have a lot of explaining to do, maybe even in court the following Monday.
4) People should be able to leave their car doors unlocked if they so choose; the state should stay out of their business.
So what do our readers think? Were the police acting as helpful civil servants in this situation? Or were they instead violating citizens' rights? We would love to hear from you in the comments section below.
We have heard many people sounding off on this topic, and opinions seem divided fairly evenly into two camps:
Pro
1) The police were doing something positive for the community and helping people. The did this with the best of intentions.
2) It was a harmless activity; there was no contraband found or seized. Therefore the activity wasn't unreasonable.
3) Even more resources would be spent on finding criminals if the goods ended up stolen.
4) It is just plain common sense to lock your door in this day and age, having someone point it out is helpful.
Con
1) The whole initiative was a gross violation of the fourth amendment and the police powers.
2) It was a waste of resources to have officers going around pulling door handles.
3) If any normal citizen were caught opening car doors by those same officers, they would undoubtedly have a lot of explaining to do, maybe even in court the following Monday.
4) People should be able to leave their car doors unlocked if they so choose; the state should stay out of their business.
So what do our readers think? Were the police acting as helpful civil servants in this situation? Or were they instead violating citizens' rights? We would love to hear from you in the comments section below.
Quip of the Day
Technology has made all of our lives twice as easy. However life becomes twice again as hard when you have become dependent on technology and the power goes out.
Today's Quip of the Day was brought to you by Research In Motion.
Today's Quip of the Day was brought to you by Research In Motion.
What Does ATL Tell Us About the Use of Technology in the Legal Profession?
Something bothers me about the fact that Above the Law is consistently the top-rated blawg on the web. Don't get me wrong, ATL is fun. I personally visit the site a few times a week, and I have even formed ideas for posts from their headlines and stories. However, and the site itself is very clear about this fact, ATL is a legal tabloid. True, topics of substance are covered, but typically as a foundation for the respective author to make pithy quips about them. For those who haven't visited the site, or think that I am brushing off its serious chops too easily, they run a legal blind dating service; this is not exactly Holmesian material.
Yet it is by far the top-rated legal blog in existence. I can't help but think that there is a lesson in that fact. Maybe first years don't have enough work to do, and spend all their time trolling each other and browbeating the site's authors. Maybe more 'highbrow' legal blogs are not written particularly well, or are too niche for large readerships. Maybe it is just a broader reflection of a society that is more interested in US Weekly than the New York Times. Maybe I am just making too big a deal of people trying to have a little fun at the expense of others. All of these factors are likely true to some extent, but it is probably also true that most lawyers don't see blawgs as a valid source of legal information.
To be clear, this applies to the blogosphere only, not technology in general. It is not technology lawyers are afraid of. Westlaw and Lexis are proof of this. Client management, document review, docketing; almost all the tools of the trade are linked to servers, the web, or the cloud at this point. Based on anecdotal evidence even the older generation has adopted ever-changing technologies with aplomb. It is just the information on blogs which seems to be underutilized.
Which brings us back to the earlier point. It is apparent that lawyers don't trust their fellow lawyers to provide useful, timely and correct information on the web. What could change this? Maybe things would change if more top schools hosted web-based journals in a blog format. Maybe more publishing of quality articles directly to the internet would have an impact. Maybe it will be a Supreme Court justice who takes the initiative and starts a running dialog with the legal community that will signal that blogs are a valid resource. Such uses of technology would undoubtedly benefit the entire legal community. Until then, I guess I will be seeing you in the ATL comments section.
Yet it is by far the top-rated legal blog in existence. I can't help but think that there is a lesson in that fact. Maybe first years don't have enough work to do, and spend all their time trolling each other and browbeating the site's authors. Maybe more 'highbrow' legal blogs are not written particularly well, or are too niche for large readerships. Maybe it is just a broader reflection of a society that is more interested in US Weekly than the New York Times. Maybe I am just making too big a deal of people trying to have a little fun at the expense of others. All of these factors are likely true to some extent, but it is probably also true that most lawyers don't see blawgs as a valid source of legal information.
To be clear, this applies to the blogosphere only, not technology in general. It is not technology lawyers are afraid of. Westlaw and Lexis are proof of this. Client management, document review, docketing; almost all the tools of the trade are linked to servers, the web, or the cloud at this point. Based on anecdotal evidence even the older generation has adopted ever-changing technologies with aplomb. It is just the information on blogs which seems to be underutilized.
Which brings us back to the earlier point. It is apparent that lawyers don't trust their fellow lawyers to provide useful, timely and correct information on the web. What could change this? Maybe things would change if more top schools hosted web-based journals in a blog format. Maybe more publishing of quality articles directly to the internet would have an impact. Maybe it will be a Supreme Court justice who takes the initiative and starts a running dialog with the legal community that will signal that blogs are a valid resource. Such uses of technology would undoubtedly benefit the entire legal community. Until then, I guess I will be seeing you in the ATL comments section.
10.11.2011
Recent Developments Fail to Bring Closure to Immigration Debate
As a matter of neutral analysis, illegal immigration is a tremendous problem facing America. However, the topic of illegal immigration in the US is so fraught with emotion that it is difficult to get the respective sides of the debate to even agree on what the 'problem' is. Is it a problem with the rule of law? Is it a labor supply and demand problem? Is it a pure and simple compassion problem? Some people don't even believe that the problem, whatever it might be, requires addressing. However the fact of the matter is that wherever one stands on illegal immigration, the current state of affairs is unsustainable in the long run.
Every potential solution on the continuum from mass deportation to immediate amnesty has costs and benefits associated with it. Illegals utilize resources and some percentage of illegals, however small, are responsible for crimes and social problems. One the other hand, they are also critical to the functioning of the economy as we know it. By definition they are lawbreakers. They are also human beings often fleeing from horrific situations and circumstances. These are not statements of judgment, they are statements of fact. And they are the facts of life Americans deal with daily under the current, uncertain regime of federal immigration enforcement.
Perhaps the supercharged nature of the public debate on immigration is the reason why some national politicians seem to avoid the topic like the plague. Others may pay lip service to changes, but in all cases, things never seem to progress much further than that. On the other hand, though the federal legislature clearly doesn't have such a result in mind when it avoids illegal immigration, it is clear that its inaction has led to local governments giving various strategies a chance. Many of these strategies are in themselves controversial. However, they also reflect the experiences and desires of the states where they have been passed.
On one end of the spectrum would be tough stances on illegal immigration, probably most notoriously exhibited by Arizona. The border state, finally tired of being used as a highway for drug smugglers, decided to tighten the borders with or, as it turned out, without, the help of the federal government. Though Arizona lawmakers received serious pushback from both the federal government and immigration advocates around the country, their anti-illegal immigration legislation was well-received by locals. It is also worth noting that the language of the legislation itself did not make anything illegal that wasn't already illegal under US federal law. However, under immense political pressure the law was nonetheless defanged by way of a court injunction.
Every potential solution on the continuum from mass deportation to immediate amnesty has costs and benefits associated with it. Illegals utilize resources and some percentage of illegals, however small, are responsible for crimes and social problems. One the other hand, they are also critical to the functioning of the economy as we know it. By definition they are lawbreakers. They are also human beings often fleeing from horrific situations and circumstances. These are not statements of judgment, they are statements of fact. And they are the facts of life Americans deal with daily under the current, uncertain regime of federal immigration enforcement.
Perhaps the supercharged nature of the public debate on immigration is the reason why some national politicians seem to avoid the topic like the plague. Others may pay lip service to changes, but in all cases, things never seem to progress much further than that. On the other hand, though the federal legislature clearly doesn't have such a result in mind when it avoids illegal immigration, it is clear that its inaction has led to local governments giving various strategies a chance. Many of these strategies are in themselves controversial. However, they also reflect the experiences and desires of the states where they have been passed.
On one end of the spectrum would be tough stances on illegal immigration, probably most notoriously exhibited by Arizona. The border state, finally tired of being used as a highway for drug smugglers, decided to tighten the borders with or, as it turned out, without, the help of the federal government. Though Arizona lawmakers received serious pushback from both the federal government and immigration advocates around the country, their anti-illegal immigration legislation was well-received by locals. It is also worth noting that the language of the legislation itself did not make anything illegal that wasn't already illegal under US federal law. However, under immense political pressure the law was nonetheless defanged by way of a court injunction.
Quip of the Day
Contracting may be time consuming, labor intensive and inefficient. However, it is hardly ever more time consuming, labor intensive or inefficient than litigation...
10.10.2011
Why Did Sargent and Sims Win the Nobel?
Before we get to the meat of the post today, we felt like there would be no better time than the present to echo the words of one of our more fastidious (and slightly curmudgeonly) past professors by saying that there is no Nobel Prize in economics. There is rather a Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel which was established by Sweden's central bank in the late sixties. This differs from the Nobel Prizes in chemistry and physics which were established and funded by Alfred Nobel in his will in the late 1800's. Nonetheless, as the honor is awarded by the same body, is typically referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics by everyone from your grandmother to the awarding committee, has the name 'Nobel' in the official name and is, like the others, incredibly prestigious, public confusion can be forgiven.
For those who haven't been following news today, the stimulus for that short anecdote is that the winners of the 'not' Nobel (in the words of the aforementioned professor) were announced today. Thomas J. Sargent of NYU and Christopher A. Sims of Princeton were the recipients of the honor this year for their work on how shocks and more systematic changes impact macroeconomic variables in both the short and the long run. For those who would like more than this one-liner, we have taken the liberty of taking some select passages from today's public press release to help our readers understand the basics on Sargent and Sims' research:
For those who haven't been following news today, the stimulus for that short anecdote is that the winners of the 'not' Nobel (in the words of the aforementioned professor) were announced today. Thomas J. Sargent of NYU and Christopher A. Sims of Princeton were the recipients of the honor this year for their work on how shocks and more systematic changes impact macroeconomic variables in both the short and the long run. For those who would like more than this one-liner, we have taken the liberty of taking some select passages from today's public press release to help our readers understand the basics on Sargent and Sims' research:
The economy is constantly affected by unanticipated events. The price of oil rises unexpectedly, the central bank sets an interest rate unforeseen by borrowers and lenders, or household consumption suddenly declines. Such unexpected occurrences are usually called shocks. The economy is also affected by more long-run changes, such as a shift in monetary policy towards stricter disinflationary measures or fiscal policy with more stringent budget rules. One of the main tasks of macroeconomic research is to comprehend how both shocks and systematic policy shifts affect macroeconomic variables in the short and long run. Sargent’s and Sims’s awarded research contributions have been indispensable to this work. Sargent has primarily helped us understand the effects of systematic policy shifts, while Sims has focused on how shocks spread throughout the economy.
10.09.2011
Thoughts on the Ongoing Occupation, Etc.
In the middle of last week I spent a little time thinking and writing about the Occupy Wall St. movement (meant there and here to refer to regional offshoots as well) and how a lack of focus within the movement would likely spell its demise. Since then, it has gained far more momentum and press attention, and has even led to responses from the nation's leaders. I highly doubt that anyone among the protesters read my humble suggestion, but the media has since regularly decided to sum up the wishes of the throng in the simple phrase 'end corporate greed.' Though it was likely unwittingly, it seems that the protesters have had their focus sharpened for them.
In any case, it is interesting to note just how dynamic this situation is. From a few bedraggled twenty-somethings to the current network of protests nationwide, the movement has grown exponentially. Whether or not one agrees with the message or the methods, one has to recognize that Occupy Wall St. is not going away. Indeed, though I personally discounted this association as a bit presumptuous considering what the individuals who participated in the Arab Spring were up against and ultimately accomplished, it does have a bit of that type of feel to it. I am sure many of the participants of the current movement believe that there are more similarities than the dynamism of the two movements; like the folks in the Middle East were battling against tyrannical rulers, that they are battling against the tyranny of corporate America.
I personally don't feel that the banks of the US are single-handedly liable for the current economic malaise, or that corporations are entirely to blame for every ill of the American society. As a matter of personal philosophy I place the blame for the current financial situation in the US on all of us, from those who took on mortgages inappropriately to anyone who has charged something even once that they couldn't afford, yours truly included. Nonetheless it is also certainly true that the blind drive for short-term profits is a part, even a big part, of this puzzle. It is also true that the current political backdrop enables this to happen. As it seems that politicians will be unable to effect change to this system without a little push, maybe some help from the citizenry will get them moving in the right direction.
In any case, it is interesting to note just how dynamic this situation is. From a few bedraggled twenty-somethings to the current network of protests nationwide, the movement has grown exponentially. Whether or not one agrees with the message or the methods, one has to recognize that Occupy Wall St. is not going away. Indeed, though I personally discounted this association as a bit presumptuous considering what the individuals who participated in the Arab Spring were up against and ultimately accomplished, it does have a bit of that type of feel to it. I am sure many of the participants of the current movement believe that there are more similarities than the dynamism of the two movements; like the folks in the Middle East were battling against tyrannical rulers, that they are battling against the tyranny of corporate America.
I personally don't feel that the banks of the US are single-handedly liable for the current economic malaise, or that corporations are entirely to blame for every ill of the American society. As a matter of personal philosophy I place the blame for the current financial situation in the US on all of us, from those who took on mortgages inappropriately to anyone who has charged something even once that they couldn't afford, yours truly included. Nonetheless it is also certainly true that the blind drive for short-term profits is a part, even a big part, of this puzzle. It is also true that the current political backdrop enables this to happen. As it seems that politicians will be unable to effect change to this system without a little push, maybe some help from the citizenry will get them moving in the right direction.
10.05.2011
Thoughts on Jobs
I didn't have the pleasure of knowing Steve Jobs. Therefore I don't have any anecdotes or personalized thoughts to share in the wake of his untimely passing. However, I believe that there might be no more fitting tribute to Apple's co-founder than to simply reflect on how much he has helped to change the world we live in over the past decade or so.
From the iPod to the iPhone to the iPad or MacBook you might be reading this posting on right now, the Apple way has shaped how we listen to music, keep in touch and obtain information. I don't think it would be overstating it to say that Apple's recent innovations under Jobs' direction have changed the very way that many Americans live their lives.
So often we get caught up in share prices and financials of companies rather than how they impact the world around them. Jobs certainly delivered on the financial fronts...in style no less. However the fact that he was able to do so while making people's lives a little better made the meteoric rise of Apple all the more noteworthy...and Jobs' life all the more memorable.
From the iPod to the iPhone to the iPad or MacBook you might be reading this posting on right now, the Apple way has shaped how we listen to music, keep in touch and obtain information. I don't think it would be overstating it to say that Apple's recent innovations under Jobs' direction have changed the very way that many Americans live their lives.
So often we get caught up in share prices and financials of companies rather than how they impact the world around them. Jobs certainly delivered on the financial fronts...in style no less. However the fact that he was able to do so while making people's lives a little better made the meteoric rise of Apple all the more noteworthy...and Jobs' life all the more memorable.
10.04.2011
2011: The Birth of a Libertarian Utopia?
It is highly unlikely in any scenario that this writer could envision that the 'unemployed angry white men' of the Tea Party movement would align themselves with the 'angry, dirty kids' of the Occupy Wall St. movement. Indeed, so different are their participants, it seems more likely that you could get a Republican politician to admit something was in his book than get the two movements to combine forces. However, it is interesting to note that they could, by working individually toward their respective goals, inadvertently create something of a libertarian utopia.
We already wrote earlier today that Occupy Wall St. lacks focus. However assume arguendo that the movement's core goal is ending favorable treatment of banks and corporations. At the core of the Tea Party was/is an aversion to Big Government. Boiled down to their cores, if both group's goals are met, their collective impact would be a small-government, bailout-free country. Just a thought, but that sounds like something approaching a libertarian-friendly sink-or-swim version of capitalism to me...
We already wrote earlier today that Occupy Wall St. lacks focus. However assume arguendo that the movement's core goal is ending favorable treatment of banks and corporations. At the core of the Tea Party was/is an aversion to Big Government. Boiled down to their cores, if both group's goals are met, their collective impact would be a small-government, bailout-free country. Just a thought, but that sounds like something approaching a libertarian-friendly sink-or-swim version of capitalism to me...
'Focus on One Thing,' or: Why Occupy Wall St. is Likely to Crash and Burn
I recently posted a brief query on the Twitter feed about the ongoing Occupy Wall St. movement, questioning the lack of press it had been receiving. In the meantime, the assorted members of the social media-driven protest have pressed the issue, increased their ranks, and have made it much more difficult for the media to ignore them. The movement has also caught geographic momentum, with this writer personally witnessing a few demonstrations in Boston over the past few days. Other branches have sprung up across the nation. So where is this protest movement headed? Will the protesters have any impact on business as usual in the US?
I am a huge fan of peaceful protests. Whether or not I agree with the particular cause du jour, protest movements are a good way (maybe even the best way) for citizens to participate in the representative political process. The power of protest cannot be overstated; this year's events in the Middle East are great proof of this. Closer to home, some of the greatest social changes in US history were stimulated by protests.
Recently, the financial crisis has led to the rise of the financial system as a subject of interest to various protest movements. Our readers will no doubt be familiar with crisis-related riots in Greece (though these did take an unfortunate violent turn at times). Last fall, I witnessed a few protests in Munich, Germany that had a sign or two referencing bailouts. Similar movements have sprung up all over Europe at times since. In the US, protest movements against Wall St. seem have taken longer to materialize for some reason. Maybe the collective youth of the US is just too busy playing video games. Maybe it is hopelessness over the odds of success that has kept angry citizens at home.
The former barrier is only slightly tongue-in-cheek, while the latter is a more relevant concern. The truth of the matter is that since perhaps the Vietnam era protests in the US have been overwhemingly underwhelming in the results they produce. Even during Vietnam, it took years or protests before US troops left Southeast Asia, and I am sure that any military historians in the crowd today would debate the impact that the various marches on Washington actually had on the policy decisions of that town's occupants.
I am a huge fan of peaceful protests. Whether or not I agree with the particular cause du jour, protest movements are a good way (maybe even the best way) for citizens to participate in the representative political process. The power of protest cannot be overstated; this year's events in the Middle East are great proof of this. Closer to home, some of the greatest social changes in US history were stimulated by protests.
Recently, the financial crisis has led to the rise of the financial system as a subject of interest to various protest movements. Our readers will no doubt be familiar with crisis-related riots in Greece (though these did take an unfortunate violent turn at times). Last fall, I witnessed a few protests in Munich, Germany that had a sign or two referencing bailouts. Similar movements have sprung up all over Europe at times since. In the US, protest movements against Wall St. seem have taken longer to materialize for some reason. Maybe the collective youth of the US is just too busy playing video games. Maybe it is hopelessness over the odds of success that has kept angry citizens at home.
The former barrier is only slightly tongue-in-cheek, while the latter is a more relevant concern. The truth of the matter is that since perhaps the Vietnam era protests in the US have been overwhemingly underwhelming in the results they produce. Even during Vietnam, it took years or protests before US troops left Southeast Asia, and I am sure that any military historians in the crowd today would debate the impact that the various marches on Washington actually had on the policy decisions of that town's occupants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)