Lessons in the Latest Saints 'Scandal'?

Some time ago, in the aftermath of the New Orleans Saints Bountygate scandal, a new accusation arose against the team and its management. In short, it was claimed that its management had the ability to, and did, spy on visiting teams' communications during games at their stadium. Frequent readers might recall my opinion that this behavior, if true, was on par with, or even worse than, that exposed in the bounty scandal.

Apparently the team has been cleared of any state legal liability stemming out of this accusation by Louisiana law enforcement authorities. This isn't to say that federal authorities or the NFL won't have a different opinion. That said, if the local investigation is where this 'scandal' ends, and there was actually no wrongdoing, I suppose all I can say is mea culpa.

However, I don't want to spend much time discussing whether or not I was wrong for having an opinion on something I granted was merely an accusation. I would rather spend time talking about how I found out about this news. Specifically, it is because I noticed some of my previous posts on the matter trending. It wasn't a headline or a newsflash that tipped me off. It was datamining my own website.

Now, I have been busier lately than I was at the time that the 'Listengate' accusations first came out, but I am still on ESPN.com enough that I probably would have noticed had this been given top billing for a day or two. I guess the lesson is that people being declared innocent is never as sensational as people being accused of things...but is it really a lesson if we all knew that already?

Witch Trials Back in Vogue?

In early 2011, I published what has become a very popular post on the taxes Romanian authorities were levying on the nation's witches. While today's European witches are not finding life so easy, they can at least find some solace in the idea that some of their presumed predecessors have begun to find justice in the German court system. From The Telegraph:

 

"Between 1500 and 1782 at least 25,000 Germans, mostly women but also some men and children, were executed for witchcraft. Many were made scapegoats for natural disasters or faced accusations because of personal vendettas or just because they failed to fit in with the people around them.

 

In one of the most infamous cases, a three-month burst of bloodletting in the small town of Oberkirchen in 1630 claimed the lives of 58, including those of two children, as accusations of witchcraft spread like wildfire.

 

Now across Germany towns and villages are beginning to rehabilitate the names of the executed in an attempt to bring a belated form of justice."

 

While it is difficult to see who, exactly, benefits from this 'rehabilitation' - it typically isn't even heirs or relatives who are bringing these actions - it is, perhaps, in the interests of a trusted justice system to take ex post facto actions like this. So long as it doesn't clog up the court system unduly, I can't see the harm in it. And, at the very least, it allows us to check in on the witches of Europe on occasion...

Checking in on the Non-Aligned

With the Republican National Convention taking up most of the column inches in American newspapers, perhaps it isn't surprising that the Non-Aligned Conference in Tehran has not been getting much attention in the US press. Then again, it probably wouldn't get much attention in the US if it was literally the only conference occurring in the world. That said, there has been some info pushed out on the meeting of those nations who don't necessarily toe the US line on all matters of foreign policy. Anyone looking for info on the conference could do a lot worse than Al Jazeera for analysis.

Thoughts on the Republican National Convention...

A few quick thoughts on the RNC after watching sporadically over the first two (full) days:

1. Although I still believe in some form of an 'incumbent advantage' in American politics, I also think that it is a lot easier to generate enthusiasm for the cause when 'the other guy' is in power. This becomes doubly true when things aren't perceived to be as good as they could be. Barack Obama served up a perfect example in 2008 as Bush-fatigue drove a lot of people to vote for 'anyone but another Republican'. Mitt Romney seems to be benefiting from some of the same this time around.

2. While I criticized the Romney campaign over the weekend for not hitting back harder on the Bain issue, it is clear that last week's Op-Ed in the Journal was merely a well-timed opening salvo. During the course of the convention, he has let the hounds loose on the issue of building wealth through success on too many occasions to mention. Romney is clearly not shying away from the fight on this issue, he was merely waiting for the right time to fight back in force.

3. Anyone looking for a neutral analysis of the proceedings should tune in to PBS. While their coverage seems to wrap right as the networks are taking over (it has been 10:00 pm when the heavy hitters come out) it has been a pleasure to see their panel at work. When they interview people, the questions aren't softballs, but they aren't spiteful. They analyze, criticize and even note positives in speeches without being fawning. In short, they are doing what we used to call reporting, and it has been a breath of fresh air.

4. Cynics might have their own thoughts on this, but the Republicans have done a great job of reminding people that there are some members of their party who aren't 50+ and white. This hasn't always been apparent in the crowd shouts we are treated to ad nauseum, but it has been reflected in a very impressive speaker roster.

5. What will most certainly be called the 'We Built It' convention by future generations has made me very excited to see what the Democrats roll out when it is their turn; if you can't get excited about the election during Convention season, you probably shouldn't bother tuning in to anything else in between now and the election.

Animal Poaching Algorithms, Cash Donations, and a Beyond Perverse Incentive

Over the weekend, the Financial Times' Gillian Tett wrote an enlightening piece on the delightfully named Dr. Thomas Snitch and the brilliant algorithm he has designed to predict the patterns of primate poachers in Africa.

However, despite the clear benefits utilizing such an algorithm could produce, it is unlikely that it will be put into use any time soon. The reason? Among some other possibilities, Snitch suspects that by reducing poaching, he would be reducing urgency around the situation and therefore the ability of NGO's to attract donations. In short, saving animals from extinction efficiently would lead NGO's efficiently to their own extinction.

I am not sure that economics has a good solution to this problem. Perhaps it could be that skipping over the the NGO's and presenting technology directly to park rangers or other law enforcement officials (more efficient resource allocation) could work; however I am assuming there are some hurdles to such an approach since Snitch hasn't yet taken that tack. Is there a solution in the law? Maybe it could be a law forcing NGO's to utilize the best available technology in pursuing their mission. There are very clearly issues with enforcement, however, and in any case many African governments have bigger issues to contend with.

For now, I suppose awareness, which could lead to donor pressure, would be the most effective tool to ensure that some of this technology gets put into use at some point. After all, the raison d'etre of animal rights groups should be animal rights, not making money. There are plenty of other professions I could point them to if that is their goal...

Supply and Demand for Illegal Drugs

What happens when a government makes it illegal to sell a high demand good? Distribution of that good goes underground to black markets, which tend to be defined by secrecy, crime and a lack of control and taxing ability. The Netherlands is providing a great example of this phenomenon currently which drug war proponents in the US and elsewhere should probably pay attention to.

Amsterdam, in particular, has been known as a haven for the European traveler looking for a redlight-drenched good time. One of the vices visitors had grown accustomed to was the coffee shop, essentially locations where marijuana was available. Under this regime, transactions occured in the open, were regulated and taxed and led to tourism revenues. Unfortunately, with these benefits came some crime including traffic violations and vandalism. Therefore, government officials have made it illegal for non-Dutch residents to visit coffee shops.

As a result, underground drug dealers have taken to selling marijuana, not only to tourists, but to residents who don't want to go through the hassle (and visibility) of documentation. Coffee shop revenues are down, tourism is down, and tax revenues have declined. And, while I haven't seen statistics on this yet, it stands to reason that the crime associated with illegal drug sales will take on a slightly different flavor than vandalism and traffic violations.

There are those who are against drug use. Some such individuals can provide very good reasons why drug use is bad, how it can hurt society and why it shouldn't occur. However, as a practical matter, drug use is going to occur; maybe it is best to figure out a way to manage this use without solutions centered upon pushing it into the shadows...

Revised RNC Schedule

For anyone interested, the Republican National Convention schedule can be found in its entirety after the jump. After yesterday's kickoff, things really get interesting during prime time tonight (Scott Walker, Mrs. Ann Romney, Chris Christie), with the roster of speakers naturally exuding more cache as the event rolls toward Thursday's close.

Maybe that Twitter Plan Isn't So Good After All?

From a recent USA Today article:

 

"President Obama's Twitter account has 18.8 million followers -- but more than half of them really don't exist, according to reports.

 

A new Web tool has determined that 70% of Obama's crowd includes "fake followers," The New York Times reports in a story about how Twitter followers can be purchased.

 

"The practice has become so widespread that StatusPeople, a social media management company in London, released a Web tool last month called the Fake Follower Check that it says can ascertain how many fake followers you and your friends have," the Times reports."

The article went on to note that a high percentage of Mitt Romney's (far less lengthy) follower list was also likely comprised of fakes. This phenomenon isn't limited to pols; other celebrities also showed a high percentage of fake followers (up to 71% of Lady Gaga's 'monsters' for example).  It is worth noting that there was no suggestion of any chicanery on the part of the pols.

While StatusPeople was clearly going for a big marketing splash with this announcement, it does also remind one that things are not always as they seem in the brave new world of social media. It also provides yet another example of why Twitter might not be the best medium to mine for polling data...

Is your Legal Counsel Illegal?

One might imagine, and certainly hope, that the answer to the question posited above would generally be no. However, after a non-binding resolution last week, California's illegal immigrants are closer than ever to being able to practice law in the state.

I suppose that at some level, if illegal immigrants are granted a right to do something, it isn't illegal when they do it. As Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, quoted in this article, noted however, "(Lawyers) swear they will abide by each and every federal and state law. So what do they do, are they going to report themselves?"

I typically come out on immigration issues somewhere between the 'deport them all' and 'complete amnesty' crowds as I think both positions taken to their extremes are wrong both morally and pragmatically. And I am sure there is some benefit which could be had from undocumented workers in trouble with the law receiving counsel from individuals they identify with.

However, I can also understand why some people will be up in arms if this resolution is, at some point, reflected in a hard law. I was similarly understanding when people became upset with the Arizona laws on the other end of the immigration question spectrum.

Though such positions might seem incongruous, I think taken together, they simply represent my disappointment with the disjointed, ineffective and often confusing immigration policy regime in the US. It is clearer than ever that illegal immigration is an issue which requires a federal solution. It is equally clear that one will not be forthcoming in an election year.

For the time being, I suppose people of both pro- and anti- illegal immigration persuasions will have to get used to disappointment...

Online Currencies: Why Electronic Dollars Outnumber Real Ones

A while back, I wrote about a pending academic research project I was embarking upon with Jeremiah Newhall, a good friend of the site. Below you will find a draft version of a section of our paper which discusses why Bitcoin may run afoul of current counterfeiting laws. Part of the reason I am posting this is to solicit feedback, so please feel free to submit your thoughts in the comments section below.

That virtual dollars outnumber real ones is not a product of the Internet but of the banking system, and in fact a currency’s tendency to self-propagate predates the Internet by centuries. Before the magic of ledgers, a dollar (or a British pound, or a Roman aureus), though infinitely reusable, existed in one place at one time. But the banking system changed that; through the magic of ledgers, a dollar deposited in a bank account (as opposed to a dollar deposited in a safe deposit box) is both in the account—it says so right there in the ledger—and not in the account, having been lent out by the bank at interest. The borrower spends the same dollar that the depositor sees in his ledger statement; it is not two dollars but one dollar in two places. The process repeats ad infinitum: The borrower spends the dollar, and the vendor deposits it in a second bank account, where it exists at the same time that it exists in the first depositor’s account, and simultaneously is lent out to a second borrower, who spends it again.

The limitation of this system was the need to cover deposits: To spend the money, the borrower needed to withdraw physical coins, and thus the bank needed to obtain physical money to pay out deposits. The first paper money, commercial paper, originated as a workaround for this problem, and consisted of a sort of swap of ledger balances. The earliest forms of paper money were actually promises to pay “real” money, i.e. coins, kept in an account of the issuer of the paper (today, commercial paper survives as checks and loan obligations). But in transactions for more than a few dollars, rather than actually redeem these slips for coins, the amounts would be credited to the bearer’s account and deducted from the obligor’s account. That convention permitted the depositor to spend the same dollar (by crediting it to the account of another) that the bank had contemporaneously lent to a borrower as physical money. Suddenly, a dollar could be everywhere at once.

The practice continues today—make a large withdrawal, and your bank will issue a cashier’s check, rather than give you cash. The Internet has merely streamlined the process, and the vast majority of transactions are credited electronically to computerized ledgers of deposit accounts. Buying an airline ticket, for example: Your employer pays you via direct deposit, meaning it orders the bank to debit its account and credit yours; you buy airline tickets by ordering your credit card-issuer to debit your card account and credit the airline’s bank account; you then pay your credit card bill with your salary by ordering your depositary bank to debit your checking account and credit the card-issuer’s account. At no point does physical money or Legal Tender change hands, yet everyone has been paid.

That’s a limitation of Bitcoin as a monetary system: it resists banking and credit. The idea of Bitcoin is that the file containing the data confirming your Bitcoin’s existence is stored physically on your hard drive. But the reason electronic dollars work so well is because they are pure abstraction, consisting of merely an adding and deducting from ledgers. When economists talk about “the money supply,” they mean the willingness to extend credit, to allow a dollar to be in two places at once. Bitcoin is designed to be in only one place at a time. That may be an innovation, or it may be a regression. It may also be why Bitcoin constitutes counterfeiting under U.S. law.

If Bitcoin were a purely abstract currency, like electronic dollars, existing only as an amount added and subtracted in ledgers, then it could not run afoul of counterfeiting laws. If you forge an entry in a ledger, or hack a computer to increase the amount of money in your bank account, you “print” money in the same sense as the Federal Reserve, creating money from nothing. But you would not have “printed” money in the sense of the Mint, which makes bills and coins. When you withdrew the cash you fraudulently created from an ATM, they would not be counterfeit dollars that you stuffed in your wallet; they would be real dollars obtained by fraud. If creating dollars—so long as they remain an abstraction—is not counterfeiting, it is hard to see how creating Bitcoin could be counterfeiting dollars, provided Bitcoin is purely an abstract concept.

But Bitcoin has a physical element; the data downloaded onto hard drives. The physicality of Bitcoin is the linchpin of its trustworthiness as a medium of exchange: because each set of bytes in a Bitcoin can be verified as unique, they cannot be duplicated. This physical element of Bitcoin may bring it within the realm of counterfeiting laws.

Jeremiah Newhall is a graduate of The George Washington University Law School and currently serves as a law clerk in Chicago. He can be reached via the miracle of email. Joshua Sturtevant is also a GW Law grad, and currently serves as an in-house legal fellow at a renewable energy financing and development firm.

Semi-Regular Polling Post

I recently ran a post where I linked to presidential polling data at www.rasmussenreports.com showing that Mitt Romney had a slight edge over President Obama in what was statistically just about a dead heat. While numbers on Rasmussen's site are showing that the incumbent has regained a slight edge, I recently came across some very interesting academic research which suggests that Romney might nonetheless win the presidency. From the University of Colorado's website:

"A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

 

The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

 

“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.

 

According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties."

 

While history is no guarantee of future results, such headlines are likely being welcomed by the Romney camp ahead of the convention this week. 

Back in the Game...

A lot has changed since I have posted here regularly. Paul Ryan was named as Mitt Romney's running mate. The Olympics wrapped up (bizarrely, at least in the eyes of some; I, of course, didn't see the closing ceremony myself). Neil Armstrong, the first man to step foot on the moon, sadly passed away. The Red Sox and Dodgers pulled off perhaps the biggest trade in baseball history. Of course all of those thing occured in the last week and a half or so. Nonetheless, it feels like a lot longer than that since I put together a decent string of posts.

Of course a week can be a lifetime in social media/blog terms. So thank you to all of our readers who have checked in for new content every few days or so. Unfortunately, I suspect that periods of relative inactivity may be the new normal for the site due to the transition of the blog from 'student-run' to 'the ongoing hobby of an otherwise busy member of the workforce.' That said, I plan to be very active this week, so please stop by frequently as I hope to post the next installment of the online currency series, will take some time to check in on the witches of Europe, and will of course have plenty to say about Election 2012.

Tea-Stained Party Platform Courts Internet Freedom Advocates

Reports have suggested that the Republican Party Platform pending approval at it's convention this week will contain language supporting internet freedom. While such an approach shouldn't be surprising to those who have followed the evolution of the party to a more libertarian-influenced position on internet issues, it is still interesting to see the language being used with respect to the issues, particularly the protection of personal data. According to the Daily Caller, the final draft of the party's platform will including the following:

1. We will remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.

2. We will resist any effort to shift control away from the successful multi-stakeholder approach of Internet governance and toward governance by international or other intergovernmental organizations.

3. We will ensure that personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach and that individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties.

While this is, of course, merely a platform with no weight of law or even promise behind it (not to mention the fact that the legal framework being built around the internet is infamously difficult to line up to real life issues and is, in many cases, unsettled), the Tea Party-influenced approach should be viewed as a positive by individuals across the political spectrum. If nothing else, it signals a welcome departure from the security-at-all-costs approach the party relied upon all too frequently under the influence of its neo-con wing.

Romney Should be Hitting Back Harder on Bain

While I have made no secret of my feeling that Mitt Romney should feel no shame in having started a private equity firm, it is also true that the Obama campaign has done a tremendous job convincing the American public that the opposite is true. Late last week, Mitt Romney made an initial attempt at countering this strategy with an Op-Ed in the Wall St. Journal.

However, and perhaps in response to another serious criticism of him - that he is too stiff - his riposte comes off as a bit too folksy and soft. For someone trying to run a campaign on the economy, he should be hitting back harder on his economic chops. He needs to address layoffs and outsourcing and buying and selling companies head on. Some won't like to hear about such things, but those people also won't fawn over a candidate just because he drops back to school anecdotes in a piece that is supposed to focus on his record.

Instead of trying to be personable (something that makes him seem even more stiff in some ways), Romney should be addressing his business record head on, explaining why his business was run the way it was, and generate enthusiasm among those whom he will depend on for votes this November. Otherwise he is just playing into the well-oiled Obama Campaign Machine's hands.

Introducing an Article on Online Currencies

A while back, I wrote about a pending academic research project I was embarking upon with Jeremiah Newhall, a good friend of the site. Below you will find a draft version of the introduction to our paper which discusses the legal status of online currencies. Part of the reason I am posting this is to solicit feedback, so please feel free to submit your thoughts in the comment section below.

Online currencies have recently become a trending topic of discussion among various interest groups. Very broadly, an internet currency is a means of exchanging value which exists entirely in the virtual world. Though this definition could, to some extent, encompass currencies whose value exists solely in the realm of various online gaming worlds and even the U.S. dollar, whose presence in electronic transactions far outnumbers its presence in actual wallets, this paper will focus on the web-based currencies which many see as an alternative to sovereign-issued and backed paper currencies including Bitcoin.

Though not a new concept (at least not on the internet timeline) online currencies have come increasingly into the spotlight recently in the U.S. as both their efficacy has been shown and as speculation has grown over whether federal authorities will decide that they are an affront to sovereignty. The most likely result of such a determination would be legal action against their creators, their use and possibly their users. Such government action would likely be premised on the concept that online currencies are illegal under U.S. laws which dictate that the federal government has a monopoly on most forms of hard currency issuance.  

Against this backdrop a complex topical alliance of increasingly vocal minority groups who view online currencies as a possible solution to many perceived societal problems has arisen. Included in this motley crew of allies with otherwise disparate ideological interests are gold bugs, libertarians, privacy advocates, anarchists, and those to whom, having grown up in a world where online transactions have begun to outweigh more traditional interactions, online currencies seem a natural corollary. There is also a growing sense among many that mismanagement of the dollar, by abusing both its status as the reserve currency of the world and its strength as a policy tool, has made the U.S. dangerously dependent on foreign interests. These factors and others have made the potential for alternatives increasingly desirable in the eyes of many.

Academic research over the past dozen or so years has created more questions than answers with respect to online currencies. Some have argued that the US Federal Reserve Bank should manage online currencies side-by-side with its management of U.S. dollars. Such a view is reflective of the notion that online currencies fall strictly under the powers of the U.S. government, and would arguably result in a well-structured system in harmony with the existing dollar. However, such a system would certainly lack appeal to many of the interested groups noted above.

Others have argued, based on somewhat tortured readings of  existing federal statutes, that online currencies do not fall strictly under the purview of the U.S. government currently. While such a position would have appeal to some advocates, investing time and effort into a system resting on a foundation of semantic acrobatics in a world where federal officials have a history of protecting their interests seems risky at best and foolhardy at worst. The type of healthy and thriving system many envision is dependent on greater assurances than that.

There are, of course, more issues than whether or not current U.S. laws govern or even contemplate online currencies. As the internet knows no geographic borders, it could be argued that they are not currencies as defined by U.S. law at all. Those responsible for the issuance of such currencies may not even be located within the jurisdictional authority of U.S. officials. In-force currency laws were written to combat the proliferation of private currencies which threatened the sovereignty of a young federal government; the internet was 200 years from existence when many of them were written, and their authors surely didn’t have such technology in mind. On top of these questions, such varied areas of the law as securities regulation, international law and banking law are implicated by online currencies making analysis of their use particularly challenging.

In this paper, we assume arguendo that online currencies are not exempt from government regulation if for no other reason than pragmatism; the government could, even in a losing judicial action, eliminate or at least seriously curtail their use. Inherent in this is an acceptance that federal laws would either have to change or be interpreted differently than they thus far have in order for the legal status of online currencies to become clear. We explore both options and conclude with our recommendation for a productive approach.

Jeremiah Newhall is a graduate of The George Washington University Law School and currently serves as a law clerk in Chicago. He can be reached via the miracle of email. Joshua Sturtevant is also a GW Law grad, and currently serves as an in-house legal fellow at a renewable energy financing and development firm.

Understanding Apple v. Samsung

What better way to head into the weekend than checking out a Conan O'Brien-flavored take on the Apple/Samsung litigation? Those interested can check out the video below.

In case anyone is curious, I lifted a page out of the Samsung playbook and ripped off the idea for this post from the Wall St. Journal's Law Blog.

What, too soon?

Semi-Regular Polling Post

I had a little fun earlier this morning at Twitter's expense after its announcement that it had created a candidate favorability rating based on what people were writing on its platform. The fact of the matter is, the TwIndex may have just as much value as any other poll, down to and including the lowest value on the scale. In other words, polls are not foolproof; it is impossible to know what is going to happen in an election until it happens, and sometimes not even until some time after (see Bush v. Gore). Polls have innumerable problems based on methodology and human error and it is telling that none of the major polls ever seem to be in conformity. 

That said, polling has an established roll in the political world, and it would seem silly for election watchers and would-be politicos to ignore them, if for no other reason than everyone else is doing it. With that in mind, I want to introduce the first of what I think will be at least a half a dozen posts on poll results in the run-up to the election this fall. Since Scott Rasmussen's polls are updated daily*, his site is as good a place as any to start. Rasmussen currently has Romney up 47% to 43%, a statistical close call with a listed margin of error of =/- 3%.


*His polls also happen to be pretty good; he has received endorsements from the pollsters for both Presidents Clinton and Carter for his methods and integrity and he boasts a solid track record in the past few big elections.

A Law of Intended Consequences?

From CBS news in San Francisco: 

Smoking anything other than medically-prescribed marijuana at San Francisco street fairs, festivals and other outdoor events held on city property would be banned under new legislation before the Board of Supervisors.

Supervisor Eric Mar said he introduced the proposal because of the health impacts of secondhand smoke when people light up in public.

I seem to recall a story I heard from this guy I knew about a guy he knew in college who used to disguise his indulgence in marijuana by carefully repurposing Marlboro cigarette papers.

I never thought at that time that less than ten years later people might have to do the exact opposite; I wonder when the first person will be busted for hiding tobacco use by pretending it was pot...

I Like Twitter, But Can't We Agree That It Has Limitations?

From The National Journal website:

Twitter says it has developed a way to measure how its users feel about the presidential candidates, drawing on the nearly 2 million weekly posts on the micro-blogging site about President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

The company joined forces with the data analysis firm Topsy and two campaign pollsters--Democrat Mark Mellman and Republican Jon McHenry--to launch the new Twitter Political Index, which it says "evaluates and weighs the sentiment of tweets mentioning Obama or Romney relative to the more than 400 million tweets sent on all other topics" each day.

The effort is designed to supplement conventional ways of measuring public opinion, Twitter says, and is not a replacement. But as the political survey research industry is confronting unprecedented challenges, many are looking to non-survey approaches to fill the gaps.

As a starting point, I would like to state that I am a big fan of Twitter. I utilize it to promote this site, and it serves as one of my preferred sources of breaking news. And I appreciate the bi-partisan nature of this effort. 

However, with all of the snark, innuendo, text speak, the age and political leanings of its typical users and the 're-tweeting does not equal endorsements' as well as the 140-character compression that defines the site, I have a hard time seeing the value in this gauge. That doesn't mean that I won't quote TwIndex numbers as November approaches. Mea culpa...

France, Meet Le Fisc...

To the many, many Americans among our readers who are fed up with the nation's tax system: I'm afraid I can't offer solutions, but I can tell you that it could be worse...

The New York Times (along with many other outlets) has been reporting on new French President Francois Hollande's proposal to bump up the top tax bracket in that nation to 75%, a strategy he believes would help the nation get back on its economic feet. However, due to the relative paucity of high-income earners in the country, many analysts believe that the move will provide the president more in the way of political capital than actual cash.

Despite popularity, it would seem that such a legislative change could backfire with respect to those it will likely appeal to at first blush; the Times article suggests that some business owners are considering shutting down operation in France. Others are apparently deciding to forgo starting operations in the first place. Even putting aside the snickers of those who disagree with the concepts of trickle-down economics, such developments, were they to continue, would surely impact workers.

I suppose from the government's perspective (assuming this isn't just an appeasement bill in Hollande's mind), the hope is that the new tax revenue collecting on les riches will be enough to cover current deficits and new unemployment benefits for those impacted by fleeing business interests. For their sake, I hope they are correct; the French certainly have a history of not taking too kindly to government policies that leave them behind.

The Parliament is set to address this issue in September. Until then, France's 'uncomfortable relationship with money' seems set to continue.

Fixing America - A Proposed Five Party Approach Part III

As discussed yesterday, I believe that a broader assortment of more highly-focused political parties could be a fix to the political gridlock issues plaguing American today. Just how? Today I will run down some of today's hot issues and what I believe would be likely results and will wrap up the short series with some concluding remarks. On the issues:

Abortion: Libertarians, Greens and Democrats would likely form an alliance on this issue, pushing for pro-choice policies.

Gun control: Libertarians, Social Conservatives, and perhaps Republicans and some rural Greens would push for a continuance of loose gun control policy.

Taxes on big business: It is likely that Greens and Democrats would push hard for higher taxes on large corporations; other support would likely depend on just what‘big’ was defined as.

Taxes on small business: Republicans would likely lead a coalition of many of the others on low taxes for small business, particularly inftaxes on big business rose.

Taxes on individuals: It is likely that individual taxes would remain low on most individuals on broad-based support. However, I could imagine taxes on dividends and high-income earners rising on strength of a Democrat/Green/Social Conservative coalition.

Privacy: The privacy of individuals would likely be strengthened with Democrats, Libertarians and perhaps Social Conservatives joining forces.

Gay rights: I believe that gay rights would be strengthened due to Libertarian/Green/Democrat support of the issue.

Business regulation: Would likely fall somewhere between the de-regulation Republicans and some Libertarians would strongly push for and a more is better approach which Greens and Democrats would support. In short, financial institutions would be watched for bad behavior, thus (hopefully) avoiding socially and fiscally costly crashes and bubbles while not stifling business.

To be clear, not all of the above results are optimal in my opinion. However, on the whole, that is an America I could be very happy living in. I think a majority of Americans, once the current ideological anchors to one-party-or-the-other-but-nothing-else disappeared, might agree. Put another way, many of these issues remain unsettled now despite majority agreement simply because people are so quick to refute an idea just because the ‘other party’ supports it. However under a multi-party approach, such prima facie objections would be alleviated and real work could get done.

The concepts I put forward in this three-parter are certainly open to objections and criticism, including by those who may agree in theory but disagree that they are possible as a practical matter. However, even with the air-tight grip the Big Two parties have on the system, recent times have shown us that different voices can make themselves heard.

Though the Occupiers didn't ever quite get things together on the execution front, they were able to give voice to many who felt let down by the system. Even better evidence is provided by the Tea Partiers, who, albeit through integration with the establishment, were able to go a step further than merely voicing their concerns. I think a multi-party approach would be embraced by most Americans, and is closer to reality than it has been in some time based on this evidence.

Other may disagree with the conclusions I made on how the issues would turn out, or what the parties might actually be. Those criticisms are less important to me as I believe those issues would come out in the wash. Indeed in my mind, less important than the results, or names of the parties, is the idea that more majority opinions would be represented.

In any case, I would really appreciate some thoughts and opinions on this concept, and welcome them in the comments section below. Please feel free to comment on feasibility, how you believe issues might be resolved and any problems you could imagine arising.

CA's Facebook Problem

It seems that California counted its chickens, or maybe more appropriately its millionaires, before they hatched. From www.businessinsider.com:

According to Bloomberg's John Erlichman, California is now saying its "tax revenue is at risk" because it assumed it would get $1.9 billion from newly enriched Facebook employees.

But now those Facebook employees are only going to get about half as rich as they would have if the stock were still trading at the IPO price.

And that means that California--and the Federal government--are likely to collect only about half as much Facebook-related tax revenue as they thought.

Maybe officials in California should make more of an effort to keep up with BlawgConomics?

Fixing America - A Proposed Five-Party Approach Part II

Yesterday I wrote briefly  (but not for the first time) about the problems I believe have arisen under the current two-party system in America. I am hardly the first to recognize that incredible problems exist, however solutions are harder to come by than complaints. Below, I will describe what parties I believe would emerge to represent the more focused interests of Americans in the event that the stranglehold Republicans and Democrats have on the system were ever loosened.

It is one thing to complain about perceived inadequacies; it is another entirely to create viable alternatives. So what might I propose? I believe that a robust multi-party system might do the trick. If there were five or six parties, they could each represent core ideals rather than the current scenario of Two Big Tents where the mixing of strange bedfellows (think Big Business and the Religious Right) lead to internecine horse-trading to appease numerous interests to the point where almost nothing can be accomplished even before issues get to Congress.

How would a multi-party system change this? Well, for one, people could choose representatives who very closely follow their core beliefs rather than a Republican from the religious right just because one happens to be a small businessman or a Democrat who is for high taxes just because one's number one priority is diversity issues.

Greens could be green. Christians could choose representatives who espoused their core beliefs. There could be parties that emphasized progressive social values, business interests, gun rights and anything else at issue. Yet, of course, this analysis still doesn’t explain how actual work would get done. To that point, I believe that gridlock would be loosened under such a system, and that parties would form coalitions representing the values and beliefs of a majority of Americans on most issues.

Some might rightly say that sounds a lot like a parliamentary system. In some ways it does. However, very critically, and unlike most parliaments, having multiple parties would not foreclose certain entrenched American approaches to issues like political committees, checks and balances and staggered elections.

I think one critical thing to do would be to outline just what I think party lines would look like if most Americans had their druthers. I think there would be a Libertarian party dedicated to reducing government and government’s role in the economy and people’s lives. I think there would be a Green party dedicated to the environment and alternative energy. I think a remaining Republican party could be just as good as any other at representing business interests. I think Democrats could be the party of social progressivity. And finally, there could be a party whose platform would focus on social conservatism (loosely representing what is now the religious right).

Maybe there would be others regionally and time and circumstances would certainly facilitate changes. In any case, the point is that these would be very focused groups with very focused interests who would well serve constituents sharing their core platform beliefs. For more on what results these battle lines could result in, check in again as I plan to post on just that topic over the next few days.

Missing Government-Funded Equipment? Play the Name Shame Game!

From a recent story on www.cnsnews.com:

An audit conducted by the Energy Department’s Office of Inspector General was "unable to locate" $500,000 worth of equipment purchased with stimulus money by a recipient of funds distributed through the department's “Advanced Batteries and Hybrid Components Program,” according to an audit report published by the OIG.

The DOE said it would not be "appropriate" to release the name of stimulus-money recipient where the $500,000 worth of equipment could not be located.

I, as a taxpayer, strongly question just why not. It seems to me that the best tool to safeguard against such 'accidents' in the future would be shame. Maybe the company responsible would lose business, or credibility, or even its ability to continue as a going concern if it were outed. However, I would bet that they and other like companies might work a little harder to protect taxpayer-funded assets in the future as a result.

Fixing America - A Proposed Five Party Approach Part I

I have often written about my belief that America’s two-party system is broken. I believe that the interests of democracy are not best served when two parties are left to battle amongst each other in partisan struggle. Whatever you think of my intellect and moral right to complain about the system, it is hard to argue with the Father of the Nation. In his 1796 Farewell Address, taking the form of a letter to his fellow Americans, George Washington wrote the following words:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion…

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.”

Less eloquently stated, Washington's Farewell Address is a call to the nation to avoid partisan politics as his belief was that creating factions would create rifts in the fabric of the nation. It is the wise man indeed whose prescient wisdom is relevant (if not followed) many generations after he has passed. However, despite Washington's forewarnings, America has indeed slipped into just the state of partisan struggle he advocated against.

My solution? Make it easier for alternatives to emerge. I think we have crossed the Rubicon with respect to having parties, but ease the stranglehold the current two parties in power have over just about everything - including their ability decide their own fates. Over the next few days, I plan to publish a few posts on this issue, covering one potential, workable structure tomorrow and what I believe would result from it the next day. As always, I appreciate feedback and thoughts in the comments section below.

Should We Pay Kids to Go to School?

From the Washington Examiner:

The District is paying 305 students with poor academic and behavioral records to attend summer school, The Washington Examiner has learned.

The rising ninth-graders are earning $5.25 an hour to participate in the "Summer Bridge" program, which targets students identified by D.C. Public Schools as less likely than their peers to graduate high school within four years.

The 95 students who voluntarily signed up for the summer school program will receive half of an elective credit. But to fill the 400-student session with at-risk students, DCPS reached out to the Department of Employment Services. More than 300 students flagged by DCPS and who had signed up for the Summer Youth Employment Program were told that school would be their jobs this summer.

There are clearly very valid arguments in favor of and against this type of program. However to the extent that funds were already set aside for the Summer Bridge program, it makes sense to use them to try to get kids through school. The dividends will almost always be far higher for them, and society as a whole, if they graduate rather then get some work experience (though I am typically strongly in favor of teens working in the summer).

That said, the visceral reaction some people have to this scheme is quite understandable as it seems a bit off at the first reading. While I can fully comprehend this view (and go back and forth between agreeing with it and agreeing with the view noted above) I also believe that this is a particular set of circumstances in a particular urban area where a creative solution is warranted.

We will bring you more on this plan, and any others like it, it anything comes across my desktop. In the meantime, any thoughts from our readers would be appreciated in the comments section.

The Decline of the Student Law Blog?

I recently read a blog post by T. Greg Doucette, a law student blogger who maintains a fairly robust blog roll of other student bloggers on his site www.lawdevnull.com (thanks to Mr. Doucette for adding me to the roll recently). In the post, he discussed his perception that law student blogs were on the decline, ie many on his roll had been inactive for some time and he hadn’t noted many others coming on line. Assuming he is correct and that he isn’t just behind the times (I have no reason to believe he isn’t; I have noted a lack of new student blogs on Justia’s blog roll as well), it begs the question of why this decline is occurring.

Before attempting to answer that question, it is worth considering just why students blog. As a former student (and still current) blogger I might suggest a few: a means of getting one’s name noticed, vanity, a fun release, a ready made (though more or less readily accepted depending on the company) excuse for skipping journal competition and the joys of collaboration are certainly all reasons I began, and continued to, blog. I believe they drive a lot of other bloggers, both student and otherwise, as well. Have any of those stimuli disappeared over the past three or four years? I don’t believe so.

In his article, Mr. Doucette didn't really present any theories. I might suggest a flight to microblogs like Twitter. Maybe students take themselves more seriously these days, or don’t feel a need to differentiate themselves. Maybe the job market and post-graduation prospects have just beaten people down so much that they don’t take joy in activities like blogging. I am just not sure I can say. Whatever it is, however, I hope it changes back at some point for the sake of erstwhile and would-be bloggers; running BlawgConomics has been a great source of joy for me, and serving both as a writer and an editor have been activities I would highly recommend for anyone with a serious interest.

Snippets: A Very Drone-ish Edition

Welcome to our latest edition of Snippets, our semi-regular attempt at covering a lot of items in a little time. Some would call this lazy; economists prefer the term 'efficient.' Today I would like to focus on issues and stories related to drone use in the US.

I should forewarn readers that I am going to drift a bit more into editorial-style writing here than I normally do in a Snippets column. For the record, this editorial approach will reflect the fact that I am strongly against the unfettered use of drones domestically. This should be no surprise to regular readers as I have noted my aversion to their current, unregulated use both domestically and abroad more or less subtly in several columns in the past.

Whether or not one agrees with my editorial stance on drone use, it cannot be denied that drones will be a big topic of discussion moving forward. Indeed, I would anticipate that drone use is a topic that will make its way up to the Supreme Court within a year or two.

On The Olympics, Cable and the Danger of Duopolies

Those who follow the blog regularly might be surprised that I haven't written anything about the Olympics, arguably the biggest event in the world right now. The truth is, I haven't written anything about the Olympics because I haven't watched even a minute of the games. And, while I don't always let a lack of firsthand knowledge stop me from writing about a topic (often with very...interesting... results), I do at least need to at least have some thoughts about something before I write about it. Not having watched any of the games, I haven't felt the need to write about them.

Why haven't I watched any of the Olympics? I place the blame squarely at the feet of the big cable providers in DC, Comcast and Verizon.

Comcast has given the following excuses for why I don't have cable or internet currently (many thanks to the far more accommodating local Safeway for use of their connection): We need a week to schedule an installer; Verizon cut our wires; we need to get into every apartment above and below you to fix the wires; you didn't pick up on the first ring, so we couldn't confirm we should come; our office doesn't talk to that other internal office, so you will need to call them and tell them to call us.

Once I became so fed up with Comcast that I gave up trying to resolve the situation with them, I tried to get bundled service through their main (only?) competitor. While Verizon doesn't share the same blame as far as installation goes, its faults actually appeared even further upstream during the initial sales process. When dealing with them, I uncovered, using sleuthing more than reading skills (as it is never actually stated anwhere on their webpage) that the contract for the service I had selected is for 2 years, whether or not I end up staying in my current apartment the entire time. This is despite the fact that their website didn't so much as note a two year commitment and even though no paperwork to that effect would have been signed.

Though this wasn't a deal breaker as I have no intent to move anytime soon, the rate I would have received, and the only rate I was shown all the way up to the checkout screen, was only for one year. After that, in year two of Verizon's unsigned and undiscussed, but very unbreakable contract, prices jump by about 35%.

An online sales rep had the gall to assure me that the price increase was only on the cable portion, and that it didn't impact the internet or phone service. On a bundled package. That can't be unbundled. Twice. Needless to say, I am still without cable and have an inclination to continue on that way.

While it would be easy to dismiss the above as the gripings of a sour customer, there is an important economics lesson; the less competition there is in a marketplace, the more consumers will suffer. By almost any definition, most cable providers act as duopolists or monopolists depending on the market they are in, and even what building you live in (sometimes local providers fail to service certain buildings). When there is no competition, and indeed when there is apparent price fixing occurring for a good that many people treat as more or less inelastic these days, producers will always win.

In a zero sum world, that means that, more often than not, consumers lose.

The New Lawyer?

I will go ahead and let this very self-explanatory infographic do its own talking this morning. It comes courtesy of www.telassistant.com (though I could not find it on their site) via the WSJ's Law Blog after the jump as it is about a yard long...