Balkinization  

Friday, August 21, 2015

More on the separation of criminal law (and procedure) from "constitutional theory"

Sandy Levinson

I want to elaborate some on Mark Graber's extraordinarily incisive and important post on why "constitutional theorists" are obsessed by, say, Obergefell and have almost literally nothing to say about Ferguson.  With regard to the self-conscious group of "constitutional theorists" in the legal academy, I think it's fair to say that extremely few are in fact interested in issues raised by the criminal justice system, save, of course, for such issues as the validity of criminalizing "hate speech" or abortion, etc. or, on occasion, capital punishment.  TWith regard to "constitutional criminal proceure," I think it's accurate to suggest that only Akhil Reed Amar, among "major constitutional theorists," has written extensively about the subject; his views are typically interesting and idiosyncratic.  Frankly, I have no idea to what extent they have been influential among the "criminal procedure" community.

My impression is that relatively few people who teach "constitutional law" also teach "criminal procedure" (just as relatively few, for that matter, teach copyright as well as First Amendment--largely devoid of copyright--or property law--and, therefore, zoning and eminent domain).  Perhaps the two courses (of "constitutional law" and "constitutional criminal procedure) were once joined together in the days before the explosion of the domain of "constitutional law"--and, for that matter, "constitutional criminal procedure" after "incorporation"--after World War II and, particularly, the heyday of the Warren Court.  It now takes so much time to teach the now-standard subject matters of introductory constitutional law courses that "we" happily cede coverage of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to our colleagues who are interested in them.  They are, obviously, very able people, but relatively few get caught up in the great "methods of interpretation wars" that constitute too much of the subject matter of "constitutional theory."

Constitutional law casebooks--including the one that I co-edit with Jack, Akhil, and Reva Siegel-- give very scant attention to criminal procedure matters.  Substantive criminal law gets more attention insofar as we a significant number of pages on  abortion and certain sexual practices.  But, of course, we don't ever ask about the constitutional implications of criminalizing, say, shoplifting, drinking in public (as distinguished from carrying guns in public), or failing to give the proper signal when one is preparing to turn.   My naive hope, incidentally, is that the justices who were so concerned about "coercing" the defenseless states in the second part of Sibelius will pay more attention to the coercion that underlies the American system of plea bargaining, which begins with the power of the prosecutor to overcharge (in the specific sense that the DA does not have a good faith belief that protecting the public "requires" charging the defendant with X and putting himaway from Y years, but, instead, uses the threat of such a prosecution, and subsequent sentence, as a way of forcing vulnerable defendants, who can't make bail, to plead out to lesser offenses that some of them may in fact be truly innocent of having committed).  


As Charles Epp,  Steven Manard-Moody, and Donald Haider-Markel point out in their essential book Pulled Over:  How Police Stops Define Race and Citizenship, the roots of, say, Sandra Bland's tragedy, lie in part in several quite obscure cases (at least from the perspective of "constitutional theorists."  (I know of these cases only because of having read Pulled Over.  Start with Whren v. US (1996), in which the Court unanimously ruled, to quote Epp et al., "that stops are legitimate if based on any objective violation of the law, no matter how minor, and offficers may now use minor violations as pretexts to seek evidence of more serious criminal wrongdoing."  To be sure, it would be unconstitutional to stop someone if race were the primary cause of the stop, but, as every lawyer knows, to prove "intentional discrimination," in the absence of "smoking gun" written materials or taped conversations, is nearly impossible to prove, especially if we are concerned, as a practical matter, with the behavior of low-visibility, popularly elected judges.  Adam Liptak had a terrific piece in the NY Times earlier this week on the fatuity of believing that Batson has truly eliminated racially-oriented peremptory challenges.  He quites one social scientist who says, altogether accurately, that judges charged with enforcing Batson in effect have said that "stupid" reasons do not in fact run afoul of constitutional limits, and prosecutors have become quite adept in offering stupid reasons that make little sense, other than to the judges who are willing to tolerate them.

Mark could also have noted that the contemporary Supreme Court--i.e., the one that unanimously legitimated the modern regime of "investigative stops" going back to Terry (a Warren Court decision, recall) and then Whren. Knowles v. Iowa (1998), and U.S. v. Arvizu (2002)--has been totally devoid since Thurgood Marshall's retirement of a single justice who has ever represented a criminal defendant criminal in the actual criminal justice system (unless John Roberts ever represented a white color criminal defendant or, perhaps, even took part in a pro bono death penalty case that, whatever its result, is of no relevance to Freddie Gray or any poor wretch (quite literally) who is languishing in a jail because of an inability to make bail (the subject of another excellent Times piece),  It will be interesting to see if Justice Kennedy gets any support regarding his concerns about the "American exceptionalism" that is our system of long-term "solitary confinement," including youngsters of 14.  According to Linda Hirshman's forthcoming joint biography of O'Connor and Ginsburg, Sisters in Law,  then-Judge Ginsburg, when she was on the DC Circuit, took her clerks, every other year, to see the Lorton jail.  Good for her.  I gather that she sees no need to do this for her Supreme Court clerks.  (I'd be interested, incidentally, to know if any clerks arrive at the Supreme Court with experience as public defenders.)  It was literally front-page news when Obama became the first president in our history actually to visit a prison.  I don't know if he actually saw any of the solitary confinement sensory deprivation cages that are part of the "supermax" federal prisons.  (I do wonder, incidentally, if the people incarcerated at Guantanamo would really be better off if sent to such a facility within the US.)   Just as our foreign policies are often made, de facto, by people who are stunningly ignorant of the actualities of the countries they wish to invade, so it is true that our "criminal justice" policies are made in important ways by people who are equally ignorant and are blithely indifferent to the consequences for the victims of their "get tough on crime" posturing.  And, I am afraid, American law schools do relatively little to educate our students, save for those who are self-motivated to learn through, e.g., taking often excellent clinics. 

Bill Clinton has apologized, more or less, for signing really dreadful legislation during the 1990s that directly contributed to our mass incarceration system.  Hillary Clinton is clearly concerned about what she should say, given her apparent collaboration with her husband 20 years ago in such efforts, and Joe Biden (should he actually jump into the race) will have to explain his eagerness to carry the legislative weight to get the legislation passed.  I suspect that hell will freeze over before anyone on the Supreme Court acknowledges their own responsibility for the contemporary reality of "investigative stops" coupled with aggressive policing.  Epp et al. quote from the journal Police Chief:  "Police chiefs and administrators should always hve their officers articulate the dangers they are facing and how those dangers affect their decisions.  Often, that will be the difference bewteen winning and losing a case."  And then Epp et al. go on to add, "In other words, the difference between a legal and illegal stop is not what the officer saw and did but how he or she describes it." (emphasis in original)

Finally, one of my (genuine) hopes for Rand Paul, which so far, at least, is not particularly being realized, is that he would really try to educate the public about the implications of our becoming ever more of a police state, even though most of "us," of course, don't feel this because we're not likely to be the recipients of the kind of police behavior directed at Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, etc., etc., etc., nor are "our" children likely to be shot by police (who will then be defended by their unions and by "expert witnesses" like William Lewinski who will tell us that police are always legitimately worried that people they think are criminals are out to kill them and, therefore, must be killed first).   

Comments:

Sandy:

Criminal law was a proverbial redheaded stepchild at my law school. The only professor on the faculty who had actually practiced law taught the only two courses on the curriculum and these only provided the highlights of constitutional criminal procedure. I learned far more interning at the Tallahassee DA's office one summer and in the bar exam prep course. Sad.

Based on my experience as a prosecutor and then private defense attorney, the Constitution has practical limits in directing day-to-day law enforcement in the real world.

For example, police of all races in all nations routinely use criminal profiles derived from years of experience and those profiles by necessity include race as one element.

During Prohibition, the illegal alcohol trade was run predominantly by Italian, Irish and Jewish gangs. The police who were actually enforcing the Volstead Act (as opposed to looking the other way) unsurprisingly focused their enforcement on the Italians, Irish and Jews.

During our current prohibition of drugs, the illegal drug trade is run predominantly by black and hispanic gangs. Thus, police focus their enforcement on young black and hispanic men.

Back in the 1980s, Florida State Trooper Robert Vogel was stopping drivers who fit his profile of drug couriers using I-95 to move their product up the Atlantic coast. The profile was spot on and he had a very successful arrest record. However, the Supreme Court could not sign off on drug courier profile which targeted young black and hispanic males and found his profile unconstitutional.

The police went on unofficially profiling. When I was prosecuting in Jacksonville, Florida, I was reviewing a state trooper's dashboard video of stops he performed over a week in an attempt to identify a suspect in one of my cases. It did not take very long to see that he was using a variation of Vogel's profile. Those he stopped who did not fit the profile were quickly released with a warning. Those who did fit the profile were detained until the drug dogs arrived.

The courts simply do not have the time to hold hearings on every stop searching for pretexts and profiles. So long as the police have a legal basis for the stop, the court inquiry stops there.

Ditto for the Batson decision concerning using race or gender as a basis for striking jurors. All experienced prosecutors and defense attorneys have profiles of favorable and unfavorable jurors for different categories of crimes and those profiles sometimes include race and gender because the races and genders on average tend to view various crimes differently. All the prosecutor or defense attorney needs to do is offer almost any reason other than race or gender for their strike and they can survive a Batson challenge.

Prosecutors by necessity have a great deal of charging power and some abuse that power. That is why I enjoy my work as a defense attorney. Recently, we had a young felony ADA routinely overcharging cases that had little or no evidentiary basis. I worked very hard to get baseless charges dismissed against three of my clients by first working on the ADA and then quickly setting trial to get them before a jury. The DA collapsed in all three cases and dismissed them. The defense bar started complaining to the elected DA and the young man was transferred out of our county.

General constitutional principles are far easier to apply to written laws than to the day to day activities of a law enforcement system.
 

As I was finishing up reading Sandy's post, after first reading Mark Graber's post, past political "law and order" campaigns came to mind. With so many GOP candidates vying to one up each other on T-RUMP's coattails regarding birth citizenship and immigration, maybe the old "law and order" politics will come to the forefront again.
 

The advocate for Mr. Terry of Terry v. Ohio fame recently died.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/08/louis_stokes_former_congressma.html

A discussion of Judge Ginsburg bringing her clerks to the jail can be found here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG/pdf/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG-2-4-1-4.pdf

And the local mental hospital:

http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=WARG06&DataType=Women&WinType=Free

Clerks usually are right out of law school, but some probably have some defense rights experience in some fashion. One interesting case was an RBG clerk whose bio notes "Before attending law school, Amy worked for 11 years at Minneapolis South High School, where she taught social studies and Russian and coached debate and speech."

http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/amy_bergquist

 

ETA: I checked with a co-author of an upcoming book on RBG via Twitter regarding the visits.

https://twitter.com/irin/status/634859008738902016

Seems such a visit, perhaps to an institution located in the circuit she individually is responsible for, would continue to be useful.
 

Sandy's:

***

Knowles v. Iowa (1998), and U.S. v. Arvizu (2002)--has been totally devoid since Thurgood Marshall's retirement of a single justice who has ever represented a criminal defendant criminal in the actual criminal justice system (unless John Roberts ever represented a white color criminal defendant or, perhaps, even took part in a pro bono death penalty case that, whatever its result, is of no relevance to Freddie Gray or any poor wretch (quite literally) who is languishing in a jail because of an inability to make bail (the subject of another excellent Times piece),

***

is a reminder of the great loss of Justice Marshall who actually was in the trenches to do justice before he became one. Sandy, thanks for the reminder.
 

Spam coming early.

Yes, Roberts was appointed early on to represent a defendant in a white collar crime case: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_1383

Don't know if it counts, but the co-author of the upcoming book (Notorious RBG) flagged Duren v. Missouri, involving a criminal defendant, which is a jury case RBG worked on (women granted automatic exemption).

As Walter Dellinger noted in his recent series of videos over at SCOTUSBlog, the justices are not a very diverse bunch in various ways, including non-judges (other than Kagan) and those who have significant political experience (the average justice on the Warren Court). Sotomayor was a director of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which does some criminal justice work. And, she has shown some concern for criminal defendants. But, she's no Thurgood Marshall.

Still, TM wasn't the norm on his Court either. Great defense minded judges like Douglas or Brennan didn't serve in the trenches like him.
 

Two things: I really appreciate these comments, including those by Mr. DePalma. This certainly reinforces my decision to keep allowing comments in general.

Secondly, I wouldn't go overborad in describing Brennan as a "great defense minded" judge. He actually went along with the awful Swain decision re peremptory challenges back in the '60s, not to mention being the author of the wired informer decisions that said since we're always at risk that our friends will betray us, there's no need for the police to get a warrant before sending in a wired informer. He was very good on capital punishment, but, as I suggested, whatever one's views are on that issues--and, as you would expect, I'm an abolitionist--it's really quite orthogonal to the quotidian realities of the criminal justice system. If someone offered me a trade by which we'd reform our plea bargaining and bail systems in return for allowing capital punishment of a vicious murderer where there is no conceivable doubt as to guilt (i.e., no reliance on eyewitness testimony or testimony of alleged accomplices, as in the crotesesque Glossen case in which someone who may well be innocent will be put to death by Oklahoma), then I'd probably take the trade.

And my thanks to Joe for the information about Notorious RBG. I was unaware of its existence, and I will actually add it to the bibliography in the next edition of Robert McCloskey's The American Supreme Court that I'm finishing up right now.
 

The Warren Court as a whole, I think, can be fairly said to be at least moderately "defense minded" though it often was also motivated by racial concerns.

Brennan was in effect a moderate then. CJ Warren himself, e.g., dissented in Schmerber v. California, regarding the proper procedures for taking blood. Brennan shifted more to the left as years went on. Not just in capital punishment. See, e.g., many opinions regarding the Fourth Amendment. Once the Supreme Court was more conservative, he also was less likely to compromise (like he did in Terry v. Ohio).

So, yes, won't go "overboard," though push come to shove, in later years at least, Brennan and Marshall rarely divided on such issues. Anyway, yes, credit where credit is due for the BP's comment.
 

As a follow up to my 5:14 PM comment on "law and order," note T-RUMP's campaign appearance at a football stadium in Alabama, perhaps a variation of Nixon's Southern Strategy of 1968 that was picked up by Saint Ronnie Reagan in his southern speech as a candidate in 1980, and George H. W. Bush's version in his 1988 campaign against Mike Dukakia.

By the way, "defense minded" and "motivated by racial concerns" have much in common. While the Warren Court was not perfect, it did address individual rights, especially of minorities, in more detail than many Courts before and since, perhaps accounting for the subsequent attacks on the Warren Court by conservatives with their "original intent" in conjunction with the Federalist Society. David Bernstein in his efforts to mouth-to-mouth resuscitate Lochner credits the Lochner Court for its impact on recognition of individual rights presumably impacting the Warren Court (although I don't think Bernstein is fond of the Warren Court). As Jack Balkin has noted, Lochner was wrong when it was decided and still wrong.
 

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a football stadium is just a football stadium. Frankly, I don't know how Republicans could avoid Democrats accusing them of a "Southern strategy", short of just abandoning campaigning in the south. Which I suppose Democrats would appreciate, but that's not enough reason for them to do it.

 

Brett:

Don't fret.

Phrases like "Southern strategy" are political junkie terms without much meaning to average voters.

The heavy majority of Boomers who actually recall the phrase "Southern strategy" could care less and generally vote Republican.
 

Brett's "Freudian blip" ignores the content of what T-RUMP said in the stadium, especially his references to Ferguson, Baltimore, etc, as involving illegals as in T-RRUMP's screeds against Mexicans and his issues with the 14th A on citizens. It was in Alabama and did not require a stadium to get across to 'Bamans T-RUMP's not so subtle racist references to African-Americans in addition to Mexicans. Would T-RUMP try this in Shea Stadium? Perhaps Brett has forgotten that the base of the current Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party of Lincoln, consisting of former Democrats from the former slave states switching after Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954) and the civil rights movement that followed with the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of the mid 1960s. Democrats do not wish to stop Republicans from campaigning in the South as the content of such campaigning can be brought to the attention of the entire nation for what it's worth. (The "cigar" attributed to Freud as a phallic symbol might suggest what of a stadium? Maybe Brett has an answer.)
 

Why should I ignore what he said in the stadium? It's widely popular across the entire country. Trump's only problem as a candidate is the well justified doubt he really means it. What keeps this from being a Trump killer is that anybody who's not a political neophyte has doubt about the rest of the candidates meaning what they say, too.

And spare me your charges of racism. The party of Sharpton has nothing to say on the topic.
 

Our own "rhoiless one's comforting words to Brett:

"Phrases like 'Southern strategy' are political junkie terms without much meaning to average voters."

are well engrained in the less than average voters in the former slave states, witness their objections to lowering the Confederate battle flag.

"The heavy majority of Boomers who actually recall the phrase 'Southern strategy' could care less and generally vote Republican."

are heavy older white males, many of whom reside in former slave states, with some reverse carpetbaggers from northern Michigan. But does our 'rhoidless one have a cite for his claim? He as such a Boomer is surely expressing his own view.

In any event, Brett seems sensitive to the phrase - although he may be pleased with T-RUMP's messages.

 

Shag:

Your average working class voter of any race has no idea to what the "Southern strategy" refers. When you use terms like that, you are talking to a small cadre of fellow political junkies or very often just to yourself.

Boomers (those over 50 years of age) vote predominantly Republican.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/exit-polls

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=USH00p1
 

Note that our own 'rhoidless one does not deny that Republicans have a "Southern Strategy." First he referred to "average voters." Then he referred to "Your average working class voter of any race has no idea to what the 'Southern strategy' refers." But he provides no cite. He seems to be suggesting that Republicans in the former slave states who are some kind of "average" may not be aware of the racism in the screeds of "The Donald" and other GOP candidates following in the latter's footsteps. Is it only the "above average" voters in the former slave states who are hip to and presumably support the "Southern Strategy"? It seems transparent in any event that our 'rhoidless one would like less to be known about the Republicans' "Southern Strategy."
 

Shag:

Take a look at the latest electoral maps. Voters accross the country ( not just the South) have fired over 1,000 Democrats in the largest repudiation of a political party since the voters fired the GOP back during the early 1930s.

The irony of members of the party that has championed government racial discrimination for well over a century and still does attempting to tar the GOP as racist is just too rich for words.
 

The irony of members of the party that has championed government racial discrimination for well over a century and still does attempting to tar the GOP as racist is just too rich for words.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:04 PM


Blankshot, no one has to tar the GOP as racist. The targets of your racism figured it out all on their own.
 

Our own 'rhoidless one compares apples and oranges. His:

" ... the voters fired the GOP back during the early 1930s."

fails to explain the role of the '29 Crash in Republican Hoover's 1st year from which the economy went downhill through the remaining 3+ years of his term, this after 8 years of Republicans Harding and Coolidge and the Roaring Twenties.

As to our own 'rhoidless one's current assessment of the Democratic Party, he ignores gerrymandering as well as the national votes for Democratic Presidents. Also, recent overall votes for Democrats for the House have exceeded those for Republicans, which brings us back to gerrymandering (on which the Court recently spoke 5-4).

And it is obvious that our own 'rhoidless one continues to ignore, along with Brett,:

" ... that the base of the current Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party of Lincoln, consisting of former Democrats from the former slave states switching after Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954) and the civil rights movement that followed with the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of the mid 1960s."

The changing demographics are foremost in the minds of the Republican Party today, with T-RUMP a consolidation of most of the other unsweet 16. An item in today's TPM references a white supremacist who wants to establish an all white community in the Dakotas named after T-RUMP. And of course our own 'rhoidless one's mentor in CO, Tom-Tom (anti-immigration) Tancredo has taught him well. Alas, our own 'rhoidless one is too poor for words. We know what you are.
 

OFF TOPIC:

I just read Jamie Holmes' NYTimes Op-Ed "The Case for Teaching Ignorance" that focuses primarily on medicine and science. But it also applies to law. I am now officially into my 86th year (no presents, please!) and as I get older there are more questions than answers. Maybe it's always been than way. But here's a shout-out to our host and posters at this Blog - and some commenters - to keep the questions and even some answers coming. Thanks.
 

Shag:

fails to explain the role of the '29 Crash in Republican Hoover's 1st year from which the economy went downhill through the remaining 3+ years of his term, this after 8 years of Republicans Harding and Coolidge and the Roaring Twenties.

The progressive Fed engaged in one of its monetary expansions in the late 20s, inflating the markets. The market corrected in 1929, much the way it is correcting now.

This did not cause the 1930-1932 recession. That was caused by a perfect storm of progressive policy.

The Smoot Hawley tariff meant to create "fair trade" instead caused a trade war which essentially destroyed our foreign trade.

Businesses (especially agriculture) engaged in foreign trade defaulted on their bank loans.

The progressive Fed was shrinking the money supply to correct its earlier inflation and cut off money to the banks with defaulting loans, causing a mass bank failure.

The progressive Hoover pressured businesses to maintain high wages to maintain demand and economic growth. This caused businesses with falling revenues to lay off millions of workers they could not afford.

Hoover then imposed a millionaire's tax to nearly double federal spending for public works projects to put the unemployed to work. Business investment came to a screeching halt and the economy went into a tail spin with even more bank failures.

" ... that the base of the current Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party of Lincoln, consisting of former Democrats from the former slave states switching

The Old South does not exist any longer. Millions of yankees such as myself moved down and millions more immigrants moved up and remade the place.

In South Carolina, a GOP government led by the daughter of Indian immigrants had no problem taking down the Confederate flag a prior racist Democrat government raised by law. None of them will lose their jobs to "racist" former Democrat voters.
 

Our own 'rhoidless one repeats his misstatements of history and economics on the Great Depression.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], is CO part of the old - or new - South? Where did all the bubbas of the old South go? Aren't they still around with proudly displaying their cConfederate battle flags and AK 47s? Perhaps in time the millions of immigrants will remake the old South, but not yet. The changing demographics may do so in time. As a wise person said: "Demographics are destiny."

As to NC, for some reason our own 'rhoidless one ignores the incident that brought about taking down of the Confederate battle flag from state property. And he also ignores the history of how that flag had been put in place in reaction to the Civil Rights Acts of the mid 1960s, clearly the reaction of the old South.

Our own 'rhoidless one sucks at his revisionism.
 

Shag:

Where did all the bubbas of the old South go?

Most of them were part of your generation and have died off.

Have you actually lived in the South over the past generation? Southie in Boston is more racist.
 

Reading "Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America" by Ari Berman. It is about as expected (author writes for "The Nation" etc.) but still well written and provides both sides of the ongoing battle.

Strom Thurmond is dead, right? I asked a woman from SC about him back in the day and she said that he died c. 1990 but they just propped him up like a mummy at appearances. I think she was kidding though.

I hope Shag got plenty of printer ink for his hobby of printing out articles among his gifts. And, some Madeira wine -- perfect for drinking while reading about originalism since it was a favorite of John Marshall.
 

Have you actually lived in the South over the past generation? Southie in Boston is more racist.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:24 AM


I've got a buddy who moved down to the Jax Beach area. I never heard a racist comment out of him when he lived up north. He's now as racist as his neighbors.
 

BB:

I lived in Jacksonville before moving out to Colorado. Jax beach is a tourist area where you would have to search hard to find a southern accent.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-g34328-Jacksonville_Beach_Florida-Vacations.html

Folks, I can find racists of every race and ethnicity in any American city. Your Democrat Old South no longer exists.
 

I lived in Jacksonville before moving out to Colorado. Jax beach is a tourist area where you would have to search hard to find a southern accent.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:59 AM


Blankshot, I didn't have to search hard at all. His wife is from the south. All the people that he hangs out with are from the south. They all have southern accents.
 

BB:

That is hardly a survey of the 21,000 who live in Jax Beach.
 

Joe, my preference is any Port in the stormy seas of originalism. I've got 14 reams of 8.5 x 14, I am such an optimist, except that I don't stock up on toner (I love Staples next day free delivery + discounts from time to time).

Regarding our own 'rhoidless one's comment on South Boston, it has changed significantly in recent years with gentrification as extensive commercial development is taking place in the waterfront district that had been idle and underdeveloped for many years. Public transportation has been expanded making access more convenient. Yes, the old South Boston has been changing from the anti-bussing days with demographics as destiny. Yes, Boston has had problems over my lifetime but I have seen a lot of progress, making the downtown Freedom Trail more of a reality. My law office was a block away from the Trail on School street and in the course of a day I would cross and walk along portions of the Trail, noting all the visitors following it down to Faneuil Hall Marketplace. [I have fond memories of Durgin Park going back before the redevelopment of the Marketplace.]

Yes, we had problems in Boston. But one could safely enjoy the several jazz clubs and Soul Food restaurants in minority areas.

As to our own 'rhoidless one's claim that most of the bubbas have died off, someone forgot to tell a lot of them openly carrying in TX and other former slave states threatening the lives of others in restaurants, shopping centers, and apparently soon in motion picture theatres.
 

That is hardly a survey of the 21,000 who live in Jax Beach.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:26 AM


It's more people than you surveyed when you declared that "the old South is dead". I've been there a lot in the last 15 years. The "old south" ain't dead.
 

Shag:

Open carry is hardly a racist institution and does not threaten anyone. The West has a long history of open carry without the accompanying Democrat history of racial terrorism.

You really need to get over your hoplophobia.
 

Frankly, I don't know how Republicans could avoid Democrats accusing them of a "Southern strategy", short of just abandoning campaigning in the south.

A lot of us do know, and I suspect Brett does as well.
 

I have no such phobia. Rather, I fear those irrationals, mostly white males, who need a glock in their jock to demonstrate their manliness. Perhaps any phobia I may have relates to 'rhoidless ones and his ilk who believe that the 2nd A is there to protect individuals when they disagree with federal, state or local governments.

As to our own 'rhoidless one's claim about the West and open carry, perhaps he glossed over the history of the wild, wild West. By the Bybee [expletives deleted], what is the history of open carry by slaves, ex-slaves in the slave states and the West?

I note in recent comments by our own 'rhoidless one that he no longer takes the bait on my references to T-RUMP, as compared to earlier in T-RUMP's campaign when he was quick to be critical of T-RUMP, especially when I would connect T-RUMP to the Tea Party. According to a recent Monmouth poll, 50% of the Tea Party support T-RUMP. Perhaps our own 'rhoidless one is now hedging as T-RUMP gains momentum to retain his Tea Party credentials.

Further by the Bybee, I watched a rerun of Charlie Rose featuring the author of a The New Yorker article on T-RUMP coming out today. It was quite interesting, especially on what steps T-RUMP supporters might take if T-RUMP doesn't get the nomination. I immediately thought of the comments by our own 'rhoidless one several threads back on what might happen when he was in his Chicken Little "The Sky Is Falling!" screed and upset with both parties.
 

Shag:

The so called "Wild West" was created to sell pulp fiction. Crime rates were actually lower in nineteenth century West than in most major cities back East.

You are one never ending series of urban legends requiring correction.
 

Our own 'rhoidless one continues to pull out his claims from his derriere:

"The so called 'Wild West' was created to sell pulp fiction. Crime rates were actually lower in nineteenth century West than in most major cities back East."

Less focus on gun crimes and relate on a per capita basis. We need to know what the gun laws were in the East and in the "Wild, Wild West" and how they were enforced as there were significant differences between major eastern cities and in "Wild, Wild West" communities. There was a "Wild, Wild West" before pulp fiction became popular. How well were gun crime records maintained in the "Wild, Wild West" and the mild, mild west that followed? And territories out West should be looked at with care following establishments of states.

Oh, there's so much more to researching this rather than our own 'rhoidless one relying upon rural legends such as Mr. Bundy.

Boy, our own 'rhoidless one still declines to take the bait even though Chairman Reince has stated that T-RUMP is a positive for the Republican Party.

 

Shag:

Start here re: violence in the not so "Wild West."

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

There is more, but I have to return calls to clients.

If you want to put your retirement to good use. do some of your own research.
 

Here's a URL involving Rick Santorum of interest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/29/rick-santorums-misguided-view-of-gun-control-in-the-wild-west/

I had with our own 'rhoidless one's initial claim of the West Googled "gun laws in the wild west" with many hits pointing out extensive gun controls in various parts of the Wild West. but our own 'rhoidless one's admonition of my doing research confirms that he shoots from the lip and does research, eventually, when he has been challenged. This is his modus operandi as a troll at this Blog: shoot first and research only is questioned.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], if our own 'rhoidless one actually read the 13 pages of the link he provided, I wonder what he has to say about the railroaders of The Gilded Age and violence in the West during the latter half of the 19th century in the form of subsidized U.S. Government violence for the robber barons' railroad expansion out West. I'll use this the next time our own 'rhoidless one lauds The Gilded Age as America's best days.

Further by the Bybee, our own 'rhoidless one has time for clients what with his engagement on this thread (and elsewhere)?

The WaPo article I linked to gave Santorum 3+ pinocchios. I'll give our own 'rhoidless one at least 5 + 3 pants on fire.

2nd A absolutists might be disturbed with the extent of gun control in the Wild West.
 

"In South Carolina, a GOP government led by the daughter of Indian immigrants had no problem taking down the Confederate flag a prior racist Democrat government raised by law."

It seems to me that there were twenty state reps who voted against it in the statehouse. To what party did each and every one belong?

Re: the discussion of racial politics in the South and elsewhere, perhaps analysis of voting patterns would be enlightening:

"Obama received less than 30% of the white vote in the Democratic primaries held in ten states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia—all of which are located in the South, as defined by the United States Census Bureau. Meanwhile, of the seven states in which he received more than 50%, only Virginia is located in the South.

Obama performed particularly poorly with white, southern voters. Of the eighteen states in which he received a majority of the white vote in the 2008 general election, none are located in the South. Obama received 10% of the white vote in Alabama, 11% in Mississippi, and 14% in Louisiana.

In each of the five states constituting the Deep South—Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina—he received at least 94% of the black vote but lost the state overall.
In all but five states, Obama received an equal or greater
share of the white vote, compared to Kerry’s 2004 numbers.
The five states in which Obama received less white support were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
The dramatic 6%, 9%, and 10% decreases from 2004 to 2008 in Arkansas, Alabama, and Louisiana, respectively, are particularly striking given the favorable results of the 2008 election for the Democratic Party everywhere else."

http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2014/03/Powers-StatisticalEvidence.pdf

As someone who has live in the South my entire life, I think it would be unwise to use Jacksonville as an indicator of that region. Geographically, Florida is indeed as South as a state can get, but culturally most of us Southerners think of Florida re the South much of what Scalia thinks of California re the West. As to the question being debated here I'd strike a middle ground: the South certainly had a more serious problem with outright racism up until quite recently, and while Bart's point about in and out migration since then certainly matters it would be a bit odd to think Southern culture has just rapidly transformed itself such that none of that is still disproportionately prominent there. Cultures, or one is tempted to say 'heritage,' just don't change that way usually.
 

To take this back to the initial discussion of race, criminal justice and the limits of the Constitution...

"Those he stopped who did not fit the profile were quickly released with a warning. Those who did fit the profile were detained until the drug dogs arrived."

"the illegal drug trade is run predominantly by black and hispanic gangs. Thus, police focus their enforcement on young black and hispanic men."

It's hard not to suspect the possibility of a 'chicken and egg' or 'self-fulfilling prophecy' effect going on here. What would happen if those who did not fit the profile were subjected to as aggressive and thorough investigation as those who did not? The situation described here is one of police assuming they know which groups are engaged in illegal behavior, subjecting those groups to more scrutiny, and, lo and behold, finding more evidence of illegal behavior among that group! Seek, and ye shall find. We know for example that years and years of consistent polling find that whites are as likely if not more likely to use drugs as blacks. Perhaps that's not true for the drug trade as opposed to use, but if we're convinced to only look in one place it's a bit unremarkable that we tend to find it mainly in that one place...

But let's say arguendo that a drug trader is more likely to be black than white. I don't think it can be said that a black person is more likely to be a drug trader than not. And focusing on blacks in general, subjecting them to 'detain[ment' until the drug dogs arrive' hardly strikes one as equal application or protection of the laws. What can be done about it? I think Bart's comments about how police and prosecutors will strive to work around constitutional restrictions are well said and important. But it seems to me the answer is not to throw up our hands to behavior and consequences that are hard to square with equal protection.

It seems to me the answer was, as hinted at in the OP, worked through to some extent in our Second Revolution, the Reconstruction Amendments. Unlike most previous Amendments these Amendments tended to empower Congress with the power to make 'appropriate legislation' to make the promises of the Amendments more real in the face of exactly what Bart is talking about. Apart from judicial restraint reasons, these should be read broadly exactly to empower Congress to fight what Bart is talking about. A good example is the use of disparate outcomes types of analysis that take us past the kind of rigid formalism that is so easily bypassed in the ways Bart describes and empowers federal agencies like the DOJ to bring before the courts overall patterns that cannot be as easily explained away. In other words, our Founders went a long way to providing tools to help here, just not the Founders the Tea Party and such invoke, but the Reconstruction Founders.
 

But Reconstruction failed to remedy the situation on the ground. Yes, the tools were there with the Amendments. So we had sort of a doldrum (I'm intentionally being mild) until Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954) followed by the civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Acts of the mid 1960s. As the Reconstruction Amendments were thwarted by Jim Crow particularly in the former slave states, so was the referenced civil rights movement of almost a century later thwarted by (drum roll) those in the former slave states. There was somewhat of a calming despite the Republican Southern Strategy staring with Dick Nixon in the 1968 campaign and continued by Saint Ronnie Reagan in his 1980 campaign and picked up by George H. W. Bush a tad in his 1988 campaign. The election of Pres. Obama apparently revived the lingering dread of many in the former slave states with his victory in 2008 and re-election in 2012 WITH MAJORITIES. (The fear: Demography is destiny.)

Segue to the current silly season of the the GOP "sweet sixteen + 1" presidential candidates and listen to the racial overtones as the candidates try to one-up each other for attention in a crowded field. What's going on is a reverse political Darwinism. (Jeb! just distinguished Asians from Latinos regarding the pejorative term "anchor baby." Jeb! knows where the most potential votes are.) Repeal the 14th A on birthright citizenship? Look at the polling stats on T-RUMP among Tea Partiers, evangelists, etc, as the #!. Recall T-RUMP birther screeds on Obama that he has not completely dropped.
 

BD: "the illegal drug trade is run predominantly by black and hispanic gangs. Thus, police focus their enforcement on young black and hispanic men."

Mr. W: It's hard not to suspect the possibility of a 'chicken and egg' or 'self-fulfilling prophecy' effect going on here. What would happen if those who did not fit the profile were subjected to as aggressive and thorough investigation as those who did not?


You would get substantially fewer arrests.

This is like stopping a blonde mother of three in a mini-van hoping to find a member of the Italian mafia, a Chinese triad, the Japanese Yakuza or an Islamic jihadi.

But let's say arguendo that a drug trader is more likely to be black than white. I don't think it can be said that a black person is more likely to be a drug trader than not. And focusing on blacks in general...

These profiles are far more than randomly stopping young black and hispanic males. Drug couriers tend to dress in certain ways, use certain vehicles and drive the speed limit when most others are speeding.

This is an area of law enforcement that the Constitution does not address well.

Every successful police office profiles in some manner. However, this runs afoul of the EPC when a particular race or ethnicity dominates an area of crime in that jurisdiction.
 

The tools are there to fix many of the ills including some that Prof. Levinson thinks requires a constitutional amendment. There are some things that cannot be addressed without an amendment (such as the two senator rule) but there are various things that can be done.

One thing that the Reconstruction Amendments can and has done is deal with various type of hard to fight discrimination, including discrimination that might not be blatant enough to by their own force warrant the courts to strike it down (literacy tests is a prime case where the courts upheld something but later Congress held them illegal since they promoted discrimination). This includes disparate impact legislation as noted by Justice Kennedy in the recent fair housing ruling: "unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that
escape easy classification as disparate treatment." And, this includes drawing lines, sometimes inexact and imperfect, that should be left to legislative action.

The breadth of the power is beyond the will of the legislators as seen from Reconstruction on. One other thing is that race and class often overlap. There is not something in blood that makes slums often (lest we forget the many white zones of poverty in this country) disproportionate black. There are various factors including how race overlaps with drugs including the usual sources of many of these drugs and their sale in urban areas. The same applies to poverty and other issues. This also results in certain groups being particularly burdened.

Finally, use of criminal policy to address the drug issue and other matters, at least by policies as strict as on the books now, has been shown by various people to be pragmatically and on principle wrong. Some bipartisan recognition of this issue has arisen as noted over at Sentencing Law and Policy Blog.

---

If Republicans thought long term, they would try to figure a way to formulate an immigration policy. They also would join with the like of Rep. Sessenbrenner, a conservative, and amend the VRA to deal with Shelby. They also would stop with the "voting fraud" stuff, particularly given the lack of evidence it is some major problem. They would do something like offer to compromise on id and suspend putting it in place for a few years & support a major initiative to seek to get free ids (something like the Carter/Baker plan -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03carter.html). They would support early voting and so forth since it doesn't hurt their overall policy concerns. Mix in some Rand Paul like criminal justice reform and appealing to morally conservative minorities, this very well can split the vote.
 

So is our own 'rhoidless one prepared to thank the Warren Court for recognizing problems of criminal defendants in the context of rights to effective counsel? Before the Warren Court, indigent defendants (some minorities) did not get much justice (whether in the North, South, East or West). I took Criminal Law course in the Fall of 1951. It did not address that much ConLaw. But the well seasoned criminal attorne teaching the course would from time to time note that all criminal defendants did not get treated fairly by the system. There was no course in criminal procedure back then. After starting in practice in 1954 I learned of this myself. (I don't plan on getting into detail so as not to interfere with my in retirement research.) [I can hear the applause!] So the Warrn Court started coming down with decisions on individual rights, including those of criminal defendant especially without means to engage effective counsel. This upset conservatives much more openly than did the Warren Court's unanimous Brown v. Bd of Educ., and led to the law and order movement, code for racial biases, spawning the original intent originalism movement as well as the Federalist Society.

Government profiling can readily result in biases. But so can profiling by individuals. The other day I caught a Charlie Rose re-run of an interview of Bryan Stevenson, author of Just Mercy. I haven't read the book but have been aware of it and Mr. Stevenson from an earlier Sixty Minutes segment. Mr. Stevenson, like Thurgood Marshall served justice on the ground. The Warren Court addressed the criminal justice system but that Court was challenged by conservatives and the law and order movement as exceeding the judicial role with its activism. Problems with the criminal justice system continue. Even some conservatives recognize this what with America's #1 incarceration rate, disproportionately of men of color. Perhaps if Reconstruction had succeeded on the ground back in the latter part of the 19th century, we wouldn't have such problems today - or would we?
 

Joe: If Republicans thought long term, they would try to figure a way to formulate an immigration policy.

GOP factions are divided on this issue. Business likes the cheap labor, but the working class dislikes the competition, especially during our current depression with its mass unemployment.

The best way to bridge this divide is to reform our political economy and get back to creating jobs enough for all.


 

Shag: So is our own 'rhoidless one prepared to thank the Warren Court for recognizing problems of criminal defendants in the context of rights to effective counsel? Before the Warren Court, indigent defendants (some minorities) did not get much justice (whether in the North, South, East or West). I took Criminal Law course in the Fall of 1951. It did not address that much ConLaw. But the well seasoned criminal attorne teaching the course would from time to time note that all criminal defendants did not get treated fairly by the system..

You cannot reasonably navigate our legal system without a lawyer. A lay person cannot be expected to know our increasingly complex procedural and evidentiary rules.

Unless we are prepared to try criminal cases like small claims actions with substantially relaxed rules (which we used to do), a defendant cannot get due process without an attorney.
 

Our own 'rhoidless one wisely observes:

" ... a defendant cannot get due process without an attorney."

But what if a defendant cannot afford an attorney, whether competent or not? The Warren Court addressed this but was subjected to criticism by conservatives as I previously noted. Income inequality pervades fairness and justice. We should all know this. But what is the remedy without necessary funding for, hopefully, a good lawyer? This issue extends to the civil side as well. Is America prepared to address inequality? With discovery abuses, a deep pocket client with a well funded and competent attorney can bury the other party in a civil action with expense. One doesn't have to practice law a long time to become aware of this. Not only must a party to litigation, criminal or civil, be ensured due process (however defined) but the process should engender justice and fairness as well.

So I guess in his own way our own 'rhoidless one has provided a silent nod to the Warren Court.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], today's NYTimes has an important OpEd on law schools and lack of legal jobs. I wonder is legal academics at their blogs will address this OpEd, perhaps in defense of law schools.
 

Shag:

If the government is employing the legal system to take your life, freedom or property, then you have a right to due process, including an attorney

The government is not taking anything from you in a civil case between two private parties.
 

Our own 'rhoidless one with this:

"The government is not taking anything from you in a civil case between two private parties."

is apparently all in for inequality on the civil side of the legal systems in American. I know that "collection" attorneys love defaults by defendants, especially when they are part of recirculating credit card and and similar claims that may have been settled with prior attorneys in the chain of transfers of such debt (which often are purchased/sold by such attorneys to each other at bargain prices).

A government's role is not limited to not taking something away from people. Rather, a government is there to be a safety net, especially for the poor, regardless of race or class. A legal system must have a sense of fairness and justice and not just a limited procedural process including in civil cases.

I understand our own 'rhoidless one's perspective as someone who directly benefits as one of CO's outstanding criminal attorneys, in effect voting his own personal pocketbook on the criminal side. So perhaps our own 'rhoidless one at least gives a partial nod to the Warren Court on the criminal side. But it's obvious our own 'rhoidless one does not want a level playing field otherwise.
 

Shag:

The tax payers are not there to pay the legal expenses of their neighbors fighting in court over money.

The average collrction action is a representative from the creditor and the debtor before a judge. Nothing a half intelligent borrower cannot handle. The questions boil down to (1) do you have the right person and (2) do you owe the money?
 

Apparently our own 'rhoidless one is unfamiliar with creditors (banks, credit card companies) selling debt at low prices to some collection law firms; that settlements are made and releases issued and then the law firm resells the paper to another law firm for the balance above the settlement at a low price and the purchasing law firm then asserts a claim for the balance. This takes place via collection law firms throughout the country. Demands are made but law suits are not actually filed. The debtor most likely is not represented by an attorney and being scared "settles" for a fraction of the balance due. Some of these collection law firms have gone into bankruptcy. And then there are the "procedural" matters with foreclosures without the paperwork. But our own 'rhoidless one apparently lives in an insulated community where all the lawyers are above average and good looking too. Many collection matters since the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession are not average as in his simple community.
 

Caveat emptor was part of several law school courses back in my day (1951-54). Things started to change with the UCC that replaced (inter alia) Sales Acts and Negotiable Instruments (Bills & Notes) Laws. At the federal level the Federal Trade Commission addressed cetain consumer issues. States started to adop consumer protection laws, enticing the legal profession by means of treble damages and sometimes legal fees in defending consumers. But at the federal level, the FTC was rendered basically useless under Republican administrations. I recall early in my practice the FTC, within its jurisdiction (per the Commerce Clause) imposed limits on the use of the word "free" in product advertising. But this changed such that "free" is freely used in advertising even though one has to purchase something to get something free. The FTC used to require that "free" be without conditions, suggesting that vendors be more accurate by substituting "at no additional charge" for "free" if conditioned. Finally after much foot-dragging by Republicans in Congress consumer protection was enacted at the federal level. (A big thank you to my Sen.Elizabeth Warren.) The Republicans in Congress continue to rail against this act by limiting funding, ignoring lessons learned from the Bus/Cheney Great Recession of 2007-8. But segments of caveat emptor survive with the political power of deep pocket vendors.

Now let's hear from our libertarians.
 

Shag:

I am well aware of collections law firms and civil settlements.

I use a collections law firm to collect my past due invoices and they take a cut.

If the firm can find them, the debtor usually settles because they owe the damned money, not because they do not have a taxpayer funded lawyer.
 

Perhaps our own 'rhoidless one should upgrade his DUI practice to collections lawyer, a field he has self-interest in and befitting libertarian types. What is obvious is that he is clueless with respect to the collections scenarios I referenced.
 

Shag:

I represent debtors in these actions every so often. There are only a handful of possible defenses and most of them are usually unavailable. Do they have the correct person? Do they owe all the money claimed? Did the creditor fail to follow the collections requirements in the contract? I have yet to meet a debtor that did not owe most or all of the money claimed.

The new federal consumer credit bureaucracy does not change that reality. Instead, they are concentrating on eliminating credit for subprime borrowers.
 

Our own 'rhoidless one continues to avoid the T-RUMP bait even though more Tea Partiers approve of T-RUMP over Ted Cruz (who was anchored in Canada). The situation with the GOP "Sweet 16 +1" [I have not registered this, so feel free to do so.] gets sillier and sillier. Frank Bruni's NYTime column is a delicious take on TRUPMP as well as his supporters, with the title "Trump-ward, Christian Soldiers." And Paul Krugman at his NYTimes blog picks up on Bruni's column with "The Reactionary Soul." And Tom Friedman gets into the act with his NYTimes column "Bonfire of the Assets, with Trump Lighting Matches." Thomas B. Edsell, also of the NYTimes jumps in with his column "The Republican Conception of Conception" on the anti-abortion positions of most of the "Sweet 16 + 1." T-RUMP as numero uno in the GOP polls is obviously a composite of the other 16 (except, to be fair, George Patacki).

[Note to myself: Should I re-read "Bonfire of the Vanities" to see how it might relate to T-RUMP as arsonist of the Republican Party?]
 

Trump is playing to the crowd like Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean before him, and has about as much chance of winning the nomination when is comes to actually casting ballots.

I am glad he keeps you so entertained. I do not give his Democrat counterpart, Bernie Sanders, any thought at all.
 

Trump is playing to the crowd like Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean before him, and has about as much chance of winning the nomination when is comes to actually casting ballots.

I am glad he keeps you so entertained. I do not give his Democrat counterpart, Bernie Sanders, any thought at all.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 12:06 PM


Blankshot, I think you'll find that Trump is doing a lot of damage to the GOP brand. While Bernie is probably helping the Dem brand.
 

BB: I think you'll find that Trump is doing a lot of damage to the GOP brand.

With whom? Hell, Trump is not neck and neck with Clinton in the polls, for whatever little they are worth a year before the election.
 

With whom?
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:34 PM


Hispanics. By the time Trump is done Cruz and Rubio will probably be the only 2 Hispanics not voting for Hillary.
 

BB:

The only data I have seen with Hispanics is a Gallup poll with a small sample of Hispanic adults, over half of whom cannot legally or will not vote in 2016. In that poll, the only one with deep underwater numbers is Trump himself.

When they start polling likely voters, I will start paying attention.
 

When they start polling likely voters, I will start paying attention.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:52 PM


No you won't. You'll start desperately looking for things that will help you deny reality.
 

Oh, our own 'rhoidless one is paying attention all the time. He's personally locked the door on T-RUMP but is fairly tight-lipped about the other 16.

And cue to BB on how Quickdraw McGraw our own 'rhoidless one was with a certain 2008 poll. He pays attention to any favorable blip for a Republican and anything unfavorable reported about Obama. He's a poll-troll when it suits his purpose.

And he's got the personality to be a topnotch collections lawyer.
 

Shag: " but is fairly tight-lipped about the other 16."

The most talented slate of candidates offered by either party in a generation.

FWIW, I have no earthy idea how the GOP nomination process will shake out. The establishment candidate, Jeb Bush, is turning out to be an awful candidate with bad instincts. (Why on Earth is he mud wrestling with Trump?) That means this race is wide open.

I have not decided on a candidate yet because I have a lot of talent to choose from.

I am keeping an eye on Cruz because he is raising a boat load of money, is using it to set up a national campaign, and is drawing really good crowds and reviews at activists meetings. Those are the folks who volunteer for campaigns and go to caucuses. He is also the only one smart enough not to scrum with Trump.

We'll see.

2016 should be great fin for political junkies.
 

The most talented slate of candidates offered by either party in a generation.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:58 PM


I'm not sure that "talented" accurately describes the collection of nitwits currently getting pwned by a tv "reality" show clown.
 

"You would get substantially fewer arrests."

To paraphrase Scalia's opening comment in the Maryland v. King oral arguments, there are many practices that would probably lead to more arrests and perhaps convictions by police but which are forbidden by our Constitution. We've decided that some values trump the potential in that area. Equal protection of the law is one of those.
 

Our own 'rhoidless one's view of the GOP "Sweet 16 + 1":

"The most talented slate of candidates offered by either party in a generation."

may be frequently referenced in the course of the next year as debates, primaries, the convention, etc unfold. It was only a couple of weeks ago that our own 'rhoidless one was in his Chicken Little "The Sky Is Falling!" mode with poxes on both parties. Could be the influence of that recreational stuff in CO.
 

Shag:

Fielding a very good slate of politicians and winning the presidency will not bring the necessary fundamental change because our system of checks and balances blocks democratic reform of the bureaucratic state and any democratic reforms that are enacted will be temporary until the next progressive government comes to power.

Reagan was the most effective president since FDR and his reforms brought us a period of temporary prosperity, but those reforms have largely been reversed and our political economy is in worse shape than when Reagan took office.

We need a second constitutional convention and a reversal of progressive political economy as comprehensive as the first convention's reversal of the original confederacy.
 

Our own 'rhoidless one doubles up with his "Fielding a very good slate of politicians and winning the presidency ... " illusion and unreality by reverting to his Chicken Little mode once again. He wants to take America back to The Gilded Age, America's best days in his opinion, the Robber Barons of which triggered the progressive movement. His is a politically neanderthal view. But he's sticking to it. In the course of the next year we can test our own 'rhoidless one's view of the GOP "sweet 16 + 1." I won't have to cue BB as I'll do it myself (as BB can well do on his own as he has proven in the past-thanks).

Meantime, today's the liberal lunch, with a little progressive. So, anon till late this afternoon.
 

Shag:

What precisely do you find advantageous in a political economy featuring a shrinking percentage of the population at work, stagnant economic growth and the inexorable descent of the government into insolvency?

This is not rhetoric.

This is happening across the developed world in every single progressive political economy.

This is what we are being told is the new normal.
 

This is not rhetoric.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 8:41 AM


No, it's a big steaming pantload. Stacking the game in favor of the wealthy is not the solution to every problem. In fact, it's the cause of many problem. And it is unsustainable.
 

BB:

Progressivism IS stacking the deck in favor of the wealthy.

In progressive political economies that redistribute wealth and direct the economy, big business captures the government to provide itself corporate welfare and exceptions from the regulatory and tax burden weighing on the rest of the economy.

This is how GE pays no taxes because they are offset with government subsidies for its preferred types of energy that consumers are compelled to buy by government mandate.

This is one of the reasons (along with government compensation mandates) why small business creation has cratered and has fallen below the number of business failures for the first time in American history. Under our progressive political economy, the number of businesses is falling and the surviving businesses are larger and older.

Under a limited government leaving a basically free market, this cannot occur.
 

Our own 'rhoidless one's diatribe followed by his "This is not rhetoric." is plain BULLS**T. Perhaps he should build a wall around himself.
 

Under a limited government leaving a basically free market, this cannot occur.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:44 AM


Yet another steaming pantload. The glory of he "free market" is a ridiculous fantasy. The "free market" allows corporations to pollute our environment and exploit people who don't have the power to protect themselves. Dimwits like you want to stack the game even more in favor of the wealthy, and that makes those problems even worse.
 

BB:

"The "free market" allows corporations to pollute our environment and exploit people who don't have the power to protect themselves."

A limited government has to power to keep people from harming one another. It does not have to power to otherwise direct our lives.


 

A limited government has to power to keep people from harming one another. It does not have to power to otherwise direct our lives.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:21 AM


You haven't the slightest interest in protecting the powerless or protecting the environment.


 

"This is happening across the developed world in every single progressive political economy."

Is there a developed country that would not by your criteria be a progressive political economy?
 

I'm always happy to see areas of agreement here such as the agreement about how important having counsel provided (at least in criminal cases) is, and in that vein and turning it back to Sandy's original point, noting the woefully relatively underfunded funds set aside for such things in many jurisdictions, is there anything that our Courts might be empowered to do about this? Much as some courts have ordered certain funding decisions in states that have constitutional language about rights to a public education, could and/or should courts intervene to make the right recognized in Gideon more meaningful? Having better and more representation might be some antidote to the criminal justice inequities we're bemoaning...
 

Is there a developed country that would not by your criteria be a progressive political economy?
# posted by Blogger Mista Whiskas : 1:13 PM


China. It has relatively high growth. Ipso facto, it is not progressive.

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

BD: "This is happening across the developed world in every single progressive political economy."

Mr. W: Is there a developed country that would not by your criteria be a progressive political economy?


No.

Progressivism in the United States was an importation of Bismarckian German "state socialism," which was sold as a third way between socialism and American-style limited government/free markets. Since then, progressives here and overseas have adopted elements of socialism and fascist corporatism into their political economies resulting in what used to be called a "mixed economy." Out of convenience, I call this mixed economy "progressivism" and nearly every OECD nation employs some variation of this political economy.

bb: China. It has relatively high growth. Ipso facto, it is not progressive.

The Chinese liberalized, but did not free their economy. They employ a progressive political economy heavy on corporatism that is similar to the other "Asian tigers."

Before you begin to insert foot in mouth, corporatism does not mean government by corporations, but rather the government organizing society into interest group cartels. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/corporatism.htm

Like the other Asian Tigers, China grew rapidly over the short term from abject poverty to about the per capita GDP of the Dominican Republic. However, corporatism tends to result in economic bubbles which eventually burst. The other Asian Tigers have gone through this over the past generation and it appears that China is going through it now.
 

So there isn't a single non-progressive developed country on the planet, but plenty of undeveloped libertarian disasters (see Afghanistan). I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
 

Lorton has been closed for a decade. Visiting DC prisoners now would involve quite a road trip as they enter the Federal System and are shipped thousands of miles from friends and family.
 

RBG would logically take her clerks to something in the 2nd Circuit, for which she is assigned.
 

Check out Paul Krugman's NYTimes column today (8/28/15) "Crash-Test Dummies as Republican Candidates for President" in connection with, as promised:

"Our own 'rhoidless one's view of the GOP 'Sweet 16 + 1':

'The most talented slate of candidates offered by either party in a generation.'"

reminders. (I didn't think it would be this quickly.)

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

Crash-Test Dummies as Republican Candidates for President

Wow! Krugman came up with a variation on the clown car slur. Those name calling progressive public intellectuals are soooo clever.

Nowhere is there a hint that any of the G.O.P. candidates understand the problem, or the steps that might be needed if the world economy hits another pothole.

You mean the Krugman prescription of more of the same taxing, borrowing, spending and regulating which caused the shrinking workforces, stagnant or recessionary economies, and descent into sovereign insolvency across the OECD?
 

Our own 'rhoidless one's trolls through this feature stress his view of economics that he claims to have minored in. Krugman has educational and experienced economics chops, include his Nobell several years ago. I'm thinking of sponsoring our own 'rhoidless one for an Ig Nobel in economics that might even be considered for a slapstick Ig Nobel.

As to T-RUMP, when asked for his solutions, he responds "management." Exactly what are the "management" skills of the GOP "sweet 16 +1'? TRUMP continues as the pied piper of the GOP "sweet 16 + 1." Now Cruz is teaming up with "The Donald." You can't separate the wheat from the chaff when there is no wheat.
 

Shag:

Krugman received his Nobel for work on international trade. He does no work in macroeconomics apart from NYT op-eds and TV appearances.

The man is a target rich environment for ridicule. Anyone who argues that the solution to Greek sovereign insolvency is to lend their government even more money should be summarily dismissed from any competent university economics department.
 

The man is a target rich environment for ridicule.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:34 PM


This is pretty funny coming from the likes of you.
 

Our own 'rhoidless one must be suffering from second-hand DUI clients fumes in his misdescription of Krugman on the financial situation in Greece. Krugman was suggesting that Greece get out of the Euro. And Krugman has voluntarily left Princeton for a gig in NY. I share in BB's laughter. Query: Do his DUI clients know he is a troll at this Blog?
 

Shag:

Krugman has been calling on the EU to end "austerity" in Greece by forgiving past debt and continue to lend to this failed progressive government. This is the insanity option - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

In the alternative, Krugman wants Greece to leave the Euro, default on its debts (which are owed in Euros) and start printing drachmas to pay their bills. This is the Zimbabwe option.

Pick your economic madness.
 

Bart

If every developed nation is also by your definition a progressive nation, then how do you know the things you lament about them are due to their progressiveness and not their development?

"Krugman received his Nobel for work on international trade. He does no work in macroeconomics"

Work on international trade doesn't fall under macroeconomics? It certainly isn't microeconomics, is it?
 

Is our own 'rhoidless one a macro" or a "micro" troll?
 

Mr. W:

If every developed nation is also by your definition a progressive nation, then how do you know the things you lament about them are due to their progressiveness and not their development?

Two reasons..

First, economic growth slows when the government expands past about a fifth of the economy and sharply slows after expanding past two-fifths of the economy.

Second, there is no level of development which naturally results in an labor, economic and fiscal implosion.

Work on international trade doesn't fall under macroeconomics?

no. Macroeconomics addresses the performance of the economy as a whole, rather than individual markets.
 

Here's a link to an article on the difference between micro and macro economics:

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/110.asp

Mr. W up 1!

Our own 'rhoidless one errs again, digging an even deeper hole for his idiocy.
 

Here's another link:

https://www.stchas.edu/faculty/gbowling/survey/MicroeconomicsVsMacroeconomics-Macro.html

to an Econ 100 Microeconomics vs. Macroeconomics course.
 

Shag:

Did you read the definitions to which you linked?

Macroeconomics covers the entire economy, microeconomics covers individuals and international trade is an individual market which falls between the two ends of economic studies.

FWIW, Nobel never created a prize for economics. The so called "Nobel prize for economics" is actually offered by a Swedish bank. Its official name is the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/

Hayek won this prize for his work in macroeconomics explaining how knowledge, prices and business cycles work (Austrian School) and Friedman won this prize for his work in macroeconomics explaining how money supply affects the economy (Monetarism). In contrast, Krugman won his prize "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity"

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2008/krugman-facts.html

Krugman's opinions about macroeconomics are college textbook Keynesianism and are not derived from any work he performed.

Nearly every recipient of Sveriges Riksbank Prize has rejected the Keynesian economics which Krugman champions.

http://ipa.org.au/publications/1700/does-fiscal-stimulus-work-what-nobel-price-winners-say
 

Our own macro 'rhoidless one digs his hole of ignorance deeper and deeper. He attempts to come up with something in between micro and macro, whereas international trade is clearly part of macro; in his jaded view he would limit macro to the economy of only the whole world, which is ridiculous on its face. Micro is individuals and businesses, the latter differing from INTERNATIONAL TRADE, an area in which Krugman has been prominent.

And to his "revelation" on no formal Nobel prize for economics, this has been well known and repeated just about every year when that "Nobel" is announced. It's accepted shorthand to refer to the Nobel prize in economics, just as our own macro 'rhoidless one has referred numerous times to Kayek [God bless you] as winning the Nobel prize in economics.

Krugman is a co-author of one of, perhaps the most popular and best selling, texts on economics in use today. Did our own macro 'rhoidless one actually read his text in making his claim that Krugman's views have not contributed to Keynesianism?

As to the last link provided by our own macro 'rhoidless one, a reader might note this line following the close of the article:

"Edmund Kirkcaldy is the nom de plume of an economist."

Could that be our own macro 'rhoidless one, who in any event deserves a "NO BALLS" prized for his idiocy. Perhaps our own macro 'rhoidless one might compare the record of Krugman and other Keynesians on their economic views following the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession with the views of non-Keybesian fresh water economists who, like our own macro 'rhoidless one, are fellow Chicken Littles with their "The Sky Is Falling!"
 

Shag: "whereas international trade is clearly part of macro."

You are tap-dancing now. Once again for the willfully ignorant, macroeconomics is the aggregate workings of the entire economy. Foreign trade in goods no more covers the entire economy than retail or finance.

Krugman is a co-author of one of, perhaps the most popular and best selling, texts on economics in use today.

If you are talking about the Essentials of Economics, it is a Keynesian comic book propagandizing progressivism.

https://books.google.com/books?id=VXpyNs5EaHEC&pg=PA293&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false




 

Our own MRO (macro 'rhoidless one) conguses an international business with INTERNATIONAL TRADE! Check out this link:

http://www.investopedia.com/university/macroeconomics/macroeconomics11.asp

for Macroeconomics: International Trade

Perhaps an international business firm such as GE focuses on micro economics in the conduct of its business. But INTERNATIONAL TRADE involves nations of the world and this involves macro economics even if all of the nations of the world are not involved.

As to comic books, our own MRO should look in the mirror.
 

In the interlude, Brian Christopher Jones' article "Disparaging the Supreme Court: Is SCOTUS in Serious Trouble?" is an interesting short (8 pages) read. An abstract and link are available at Larry Solum's Legal Theory Blog. The article includes disparaging within the Court itself particularly in recent years.

Then I read Richard M. Re's "The New Holy Trinity," which is even more interesting as it reflects upon statutory interpretation in the Roberts Court in several recent cases that stray fro Justice Scalia' "New Textualism," giving rise to the title of this article. The author discusses how this may expand into constitutional interpretation/construction (but without mentioning originalism). This artlice in a short 10 pages. Larry Solum provides a link and gives it his "Highly recommended," and adds an interesting editorial note. The abstract and some excerpts were quite intriguing. [Note: The title has no connection to the fact of the religious dominance of the current Court.]

I eagerly await responses by legal academics especially on Re's article.
 

Shag:

:::heh:::

How long did it take you to find someone on the web who included international trade with macro-economics? In any case, the author is a certified financial planner, not an economist.

Macroeconomics: The field of economics that studies the behavior of the aggregate economy. Macroeconomics examines economy-wide phenomena such as changes in unemployment, national income, rate of growth, gross domestic product, inflation and price levels.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/macroeconomics.asp#ixzz3kFcOIuY3

Look, some texts and articles which use the term "macroeconomics" are basically surveys of general economics and cover many subcategories of a national economy rather concentrating on macroeconomics alone. Foreign trade involves less than a third of our GDP.

Krugman is commenting on macroeconomics when he addresses government taxation, borrowing, spending, and currency as well as GDP and unemployment, which are all economy wide phenomenon.
 

Shag: Perhaps our own macro 'rhoidless one might compare the record of Krugman and other Keynesians on their economic views following the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession"

Feel free to offer any Krugman or administration prediction you like.

Shredding Krugman claims in the NY Times comments section is one of my favorite hobbies.
 

In his own mind our own MRO (macro 'rhoidless one) may think he's similarly effective with his screeds at this Blog. Alas, our own MRO personally has nothing left that can be shredded, especially wisdom and reputation. It's obvious he doesn't understand macro economics. Now he inserts U.S. foreign trade relative to GDP. INTERNATIONAL TRADE involves more than that, which macro economists address.

At least our own MRO now accepts that macro economics is not limited to world-wide examinations of economies of all nations.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], our own MRO inquires how long it took me to find a certain cite/link. About as long as it took our own MRO to come up with his subsequent link from the same Investopedia. As usual our own MRO makes claims and researches only when challenged and then adjusts his positions somewhat, in the manner of "law office economics."
 

Regarding my earlier reference to Richard M. Re's "The New Holy Trinity," Larry Solum has designated the article as his "Download of the Week." But he does not repeat his editorial comment, so scroll down to earlier in the week when he first posted on the article for his editorial comment.
 

Before the Sunday political shows start here at 9:00 AM, I plan to read a few book reviews, including Jeffrey Rosen's "'Give Us the Ballot,' by Ari Berman" in Sunday's NYTimes.
 

I generally don't read the comments to Paul Krugman's NYTimes blog primarily because it is so time consumeing and oten much blather. I have never commented at his blog. This morning, on a lark, to test our own MRO's (macro 'rhoidles one') :

"Shredding Krugman claims in the NY Times comments section is one of my favorite hobbies."

At the time I checked, there were 81 comments and our own MRO's name was not included. (I did not read the comments.) Perhaps he adopts a nom de plume in such shredding. But with all his "shredding" at this Blog and at Krugman's blog and wherever, one wonders how he has time to maintain his top dog status as DUI legal specialist in his small mountain top community. Multitasking or macro-tasking?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

I do not follow Krugman's blog or the NY Times in general. When my favorite Keynesian pops up on a Real Clear Politics or Huff Post link, I will check him out.

Krugman's most recent blog post to which you refer addresses one of his most fundamental errors - claiming that the Fed printing several trillion dollars in fiat money since 2008 has not created inflation and thus the Fed should double down on QE.

The reality is that the banks have been borowing this money at nearly zero interest to meet their reserve requirements and then using those reserves as collateral to borrow money to invest in the world's stock markets, which has created a massive monetary inflation of stock prices. This effect is compounded when the Fed and other central banks buy up government debt and displace that private capital into the markets.

This is the main reason why the markets rise and fall on Fed comments and rumors. Have you ever wondered why the markets often rise on bad economic news? It is because they expect the Fed to keep printing the fiat money which is driving the increase in stock prices.
 

Bart,

You're distinguishing between macroeconomics and international trade as two distinct things doesn't make sense to me. It's as if you said that someone who studies the movement of planets is not doing astronomy because planets only make up a third of heavenly bodies. A macroeconomics that ignored government expenditure, for example, because it 'only' makes up a third of GDP would be quite silly. Likewise, to ignore international trade which 'only' makes up a third of GDP, would also be.

As an empirical matter, many Macroeconomics textbooks include section on International Trade. See Barro's Macroeconomics: A Modern Approach (Part VII) or Macpherson's Macroeconomics: Private and Public Choice (Part IV), for examples. (Barro is a fellow with the Hoover Institution, fwiw).
 

Mr. W:

My reasoning is that macroeconomics is defined as the study of the aggregate economy and economy-wide phenomena. Foreign trade is not an economy wide phenomena, it is one fractional part of a modern economy like say energy or agriculture.

Some "macroeconomics" texts are really surveys of major areas of economics and include a section on foreign trade.

If you disagree, that is fine. I am not going to get wrapped up in labels.

My original point was that Krugman's op-eds discussing macroeconomic subjects like government taxing, borrowing, spending and creating currency along with GDP, prices and inflation have nothing to do with his work on foreign trade. That point stands.
 

But this again doesn't make much sense. Wholes are made of their parts, and changes in the parts make for changes in the whole. Almost 25% of our GDP is imports and exports. If they were to plummet or skyrocket it would affect the total economy, including unemployment, investment, etc.,. That's 'economy wide' I should think.

Government expenditure isn't 'economy wide' in the narrow sense you're applying to international trade. It's a fraction of the economy, a fraction of the economy about equal to that involved with foreign trade. But a macroeconomics that doesn't look at government expenditure strikes me as odd. We can talk about the percent of the GDP that is government expenditure and how increases/decreases in government expenditure effects other macroeconomic variables. Likewise, we can talk about the % of the GDP that is international trade and how increases/decreases in that percent effects other macroeconomic variables.


 

Mr. W: But this again doesn't make much sense. Wholes are made of their parts, and changes in the parts make for changes in the whole.

Under that reasoning, everything falls under macroeconomics, including the microeconomic decisions of individual producers and consumers.

Government taxing, borrowing, spending, regulating and currency management affect every part of the economy. Foreign trade does not. Foreign trade consists almost entirely of the exchange of certain types of goods and commodities and is a minuscule part of the service sector making up a majority of our economy.
 

Here's what our own MRO (macro 'rhoidless one) said at 8:10 PM last night:

"Shredding Krugman claims in the NY Times comments section is one of my favorite hobbies."

In response to my observation on this, our MRO says:

"I do not follow Krugman's blog or the NY Times in general. When my favorite Keynesian pops up on a Real Clear Politics or Huff Post link, I will check him out."

So apparently our own MRO is only a part-time Krugman shredder. Perhaps he needs a new hobby.

The Krugman blog post I referenced was posted yesterday with the title ""Artificial Unintelligence," which might be an appropriate title for our own MRO's autobiography.

Our own MRO perhaps unknowingly concedes that Krugman is a macro economist with this from his response to Mr. W:

"My original point was that Krugman's op-eds discussing macroeconomic subjects like government taxing, borrowing, spending and creating currency along with GDP, prices and inflation have nothing to do with his work on foreign trade. That point stands."

But our own MRO confuses "foreign trade" with "International Trade" the latter also being a book title he co-authoried that is clearly macro economics.

Scorecard update:

Mr. W: 2!

Our own MRO: In even deeper doo-doo (a variation of voodoo) economics. [Note: For someone who is "not going to get wrapped up in labels" keep in mind that he challenged Krugman's well recognized label as a macro economist.]




 

"Foreign trade in goods no more covers the entire economy than retail or finance."

This is an incredible statement from someone whom we've heard so many times here making the usual Austrian claim that the most significant macroeconomic event of the past 100 years-the Great Depression-was caused by policy/practices in borrowing/lending/credit (finance) and the Smoot-Hawley tariff (international trade)!

To repeat, I can't think of an analogous effect on the economy as a whole that international trade doesn't have that government expenditure does. Changes in both change patterns of consumption and production, the labor force, pricing, etc. International trade isn't really a 'sector,' it's an activity that occurs with varying frequency across sectors. International trade occurs in stocks and bonds, in manufactures, in services, etc.
 

BD: "Foreign trade in goods no more covers the entire economy than retail or finance."

Mr. W: This is an incredible statement from someone whom we've heard so many times here making the usual Austrian claim that the most significant macroeconomic event of the past 100 years-the Great Depression-was caused by policy/practices in borrowing/lending/credit (finance) and the Smoot-Hawley tariff (international trade)!


The fact that different parts of the economy are dependent upon one another does not make the study of one part of the economy macroeconomics.

For example, eliminating retail or finance would cause as much or more damage to the overall economy than would eliminating foreign trade. However, no one thinks that the study of retail or finance on their own is macroeconomics.
 

To repeat myself, it's not just interdependence; importing/exporting, like, say, investment, is an activity which occurs across sectors such as manufacturing, agriculture, finance, etc.

Also again, it's incredible that you chose finance as your example of something that's not part of macroeconomics given the stress your chosen school, the Austrian school, places on how practices in finance determine things central to macroeconomics, like the business cycle. As an empirical matter, major macroeconomic textbooks often include sections on finance specifically (see, for example, Mankiw, Principles of Macroeconomics 6th ed. chapters 13-4).

Lastly, I see no reason why everything you say in your last paragraph wouldn't apply with equal force to government expenditure, yet the study of it is clearly part of macroeconomics.
 

I mean, think about what you're arguing here Bart.

On the one hand you concede that proper topics of macroeconomics are things like GDP and unemployment, while on the other hand you hold to theories which state that major changes in GDP and unemployment, the stuff of macroeconomics according to you, can be attributed to things that happened in finance and international trade. Then you say that study of finance or foreign trade are not proper topics of macroeconomics! Your own theories you regularly tout here are that practices in finance and trade caused the greatest macroeconomic upheaval in the past century, then you say that practices in finance and trade have no proper place in the study of macroeconomics. It's nonsensical.
 

Mr. W: Also again, it's incredible that you chose finance as your example of something that's not part of macroeconomics given the stress your chosen school, the Austrian school, places on how practices in finance determine things central to macroeconomics, like the business cycle.

You are correct. I erred in using the term "finance," which covers a very broad range of things and does affect the entire economy. I was thinking of a subset of that topic like domestic consumer loans. In any case, it was a poor example and I stand corrected.

Better comparisons would be to commodities, manufacturing, distribution, retail, and service, which are sectors of the overall economy studied in macroeconomics.
 

Before the Sunday political shows start here at 9:00 AM, I plan to read a few book reviews, including Jeffrey Rosen's "'Give Us the Ballot,' by Ari Berman" in Sunday's NYTimes. http://www.kumpulanpromo.com/

 

The Fat Lady has sung. FINAL SCORE!

Mr. W 3!

Our own MRO zero to the ultimate degree!

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], for a semi-tutorial on foreign trade, check out Paul Krugman's blog today (9/1/15) under the title "Gravity." And note the reference to INTERNATIONAL TRADE in the closing paragraph.
 

AgaricPro merupakan Obat Stroke produk BestAgaric, AgaricPro berguna sebagai Obat Darah Tinggi, obat maag, Obat Hernia, Obat Stroke, Obat Darah Tinggi, AgariPro merupakan Obat Herbal sebagai Solusi Masalah Kesehatan Anda, AgaricPro Obat Herbal Alami Paling Ampuh healthylife indonesia seperti Penyakit Wanita, Obat Keputihan Crystal X, Trica Jus, Nes V semuanya dapat didapatkan di Tasik Store
 

Cara Alami Tradisional, website so interesting and very helpful at all? thank you we will wait for the post who subsequent.

 

Kosmetik Bagus - As I was finishing up reading Sandy's post, after first reading Mark Graber's post, past political "law and order" campaigns came to mind. With so many GOP candidates vying to one up each other on T-RUMP's coattails regarding birth citizenship and immigration, maybe the old "law and order" politics will come to the forefront again.
 

My reasoning is that macroeconomics is defined as the study of the aggregate economy and economy-wide phenomena. Foreign trade is not an economy wide phenomena, it is one fractional part of a modern economy like say energy or agriculture.

Some "macroeconomics" texts are really surveys of major areas of economics and include a section on foreign trade.

Cara Alami Tradisional - If you disagree, that is fine. I am not going to get wrapped up in labels.

My original point was that Krugman's op-eds discussing macroeconomic subjects like government taxing, borrowing, spending and creating currency along with GDP, prices and inflation have nothing to do with his work on foreign trade. That point stands.
 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE in the closing paragraph.tutik post
 

Gambar Rumah Minimalis Terbaru - When they start polling likely voters, I will start paying attention.
 

I don’t mind what Congress does, as long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
 

My reasoning is that macroeconomics is defined as the study of the aggregate economy and economy-wide phenomena. Foreign trade is not an economy wide phenomena, it is one fractional part of a modern economy like say energy or agriculture.
GadoGadoMen.com
 

This is a fantastic website and I can not recommend you guys enough. Full of useful resource and great layout very easy on the eyes. Please do keep up this great work...
Mamipoker.com
www.mamipoker.com
Poker Indonesia
Mamipoker.com
www.mamipoker.com
 

A Guide to minimize personal discomfort of moving
Humans are emotional creatures. No matter how strong we portray ourselves to be, we always end up in a puddle of tears, when we are forced to leave behind something or someone who happened to be very close. However, as life would have it, often due to academic or professional commitments we are forced to leave a familiar town, city, country and at times even the continent.

There is nothing wrong about feeling homesick. From Hollywood actors to dare devil sportspeople, everyone at some point of time has suffered from this problem. So next time when you feel like crying when you come across something that reminds you of Mumbai don’t blame yourself for it, instead learn to deal with it.
Here are some tips that shall help you to get ready for a new life in a new city.
Accept All Type of Invitation
Once your movers and packers from Mumbai delivers your goods to your new home, do not shut your door and remain isolated. Instead make an effort to know your neighbors. Accept all kind of invitations that you come across. Join a new club or indulge in a new hobby and soon you shall make new friends. If you have small kids, the support system at their school can be very helpful.
Do Not Visit Your Old Home Too Soon
Homesickness kicks in a few weeks or months after you have settled in your new place. Once the initial business of settling down is over, theadreline high of moving to a new place wears off. That is when things start to get gloomy. Do not give into your desire of visiting your old place too soon. Instead focus on your new home. If you happen to miss your extended family and friends you can ask them to come and spend some time with you.
Stay Busy
Staying busy perhaps is the best medicine for almost all types of emotional problem. Understand the fact that you have to function in your new environment and feeling depressed would only add to your problems. Focus your attention on your work and make use of modern age technology to like Skype to stay connected with your friends. Spend time in cooking your local delicacy, once your packers and movers from Mumbai deliver all the kitchen supplies.
Feeling down is a common symptom after moving to a new space. Give yourself some time and develop a support system. Gradually as your heart settles in the new place, you shall discover that you have created a new home in a new city that once used to be a foreign place.

movers and packers from Mumbai

 

You should take part in a contest for one of the best blogs on the web. I will recommend this site! Webpage Webpage Webpage
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home