Podcast appearances and mentions of Richard Posner

Send me a DM here (it doesn't let me respond), OR email me: imagineabetterworld2020@gmail.comToday I'm honored to have back on the show for the second time: Judicial Corruption and Court Reform victim, whistleblower and advocate, writer and author, content creator, retired teacher, basketball coach, and a man who is single-handedly - and successfully - taking on the court system: Brian VukadinovichBrian is a retired teacher and basketball coach in Indiana and has served as executive director of The Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se's based in Chicago, Illinois for retired federal court of appeals judge Richard A. Posner. He has successfully represented himself in state and federal court proceedings in Indiana including winning a federal jury verdict against his former public school corporation employer in Indiana in March 2016 for violating his due process rights in a five-day trial where he represented himself against the corporation's team of lawyers.He has received national acclaim for his self-representation ability. According to Speakerpedia Brian is considered to be the leading pro se litigant in the country as he is believed to be the only person to have ever won a federal civil rights jury trial by representing himself without a lawyer. According to Speakerpedia Brian is considered to be the foremost expert in the country in the art of pro se litigation – the ability to represent oneself – and has spoken on the topic in several different forums and interviews including speaking to a Yale Law School class about how he was able to successfully represent himself and win the federal civil rights jury trial against his former public school corporation employer.Brian has written two highly acclaimed books on this topic, “Motion for Justice: I Rest My Case”, and “Rogues in Black Robes” after he discovered from personal experience how corrupted the court is as well as having success in getting around the red tape of lawyers and judges by representing himself. The first time Brian was on, he discussed his testimony in depth and his journey of self-representation in court - along with what he's learned and the wisdom he'd impart to others in similar situations. This time around, Brian is here to fill us in on what's happened since the last time he was on along including discussing the corruption of the magistrate judge in Brian's breach of contract case against former federal court of appeals judge Richard Posner, some media attention his story has been garnering, the truth about impeachment, and so much more. Understanding the court system is a cog in the wheel that doesn't get talked about nearly enough - and most people don't care until they fall victim to these corrupt systems who depend on their ignorance and trust. Brian's testimony and the information he shares illustrate the various ways the courts operate under their own rules and jurisdiction that permeates beyond man's law, and how to prepare and interact with the court's rules of engagement with the confidence of a hero - just as Brian does… and is.WATCH BRIAN'S FIRST EPISODE ON 'THE IMAGINATION'": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqYVE-R4IV4RECOMMENDED READING FROM THIS EPISODE: -Brian's Feature in 'Bold Journey': https://boldjourney.com/meet-brian-vukadinovich/-Kansas City Star Feature: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article290122299.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawFAK3NleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHTSgJf5PJj23ozEasVYLkO9fNytdv8KoRJjJA_fRKbcNZZg1C-j26quyGA_aem_mb1db66K182oLq6jTNSHmg-Law 360 Article: https://www.law360.com/pulse/daily-litigation/articles/1867907/posner-s-ex-staffer-blasts-judicial-thuggery-in-dq-bidSupport the show

Today we discuss Richard Posner's article "The Law & Economics of Intellectual Property" published in Daedalus in 2002. This discusses some of the rational for why we have IP laws and the incentives one needs to be mindful of when constructing them. Full issue: https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/daedalus/downloads/Daedalus_Sp2002_On-Intellectual-Property.pdf Disclaimer: All opinions are our own and don't represent any institution we may or may not be a part of, respectively.

Rebroadcast: this episode was originally released in October 2021.Preventing the apocalypse may sound like an idiosyncratic activity, and it sometimes is justified on exotic grounds, such as the potential for humanity to become a galaxy-spanning civilisation.But the policy of US government agencies is already to spend up to $4 million to save the life of a citizen, making the death of all Americans a $1,300,000,000,000,000 disaster.According to Carl Shulman, research associate at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute, that means you don't need any fancy philosophical arguments about the value or size of the future to justify working to reduce existential risk — it passes a mundane cost-benefit analysis whether or not you place any value on the long-term future.Links to learn more, summary, and full transcript.The key reason to make it a top priority is factual, not philosophical. That is, the risk of a disaster that kills billions of people alive today is alarmingly high, and it can be reduced at a reasonable cost. A back-of-the-envelope version of the argument runs:The US government is willing to pay up to $4 million (depending on the agency) to save the life of an American.So saving all US citizens at any given point in time would be worth $1,300 trillion.If you believe that the risk of human extinction over the next century is something like one in six (as Toby Ord suggests is a reasonable figure in his book The Precipice), then it would be worth the US government spending up to $2.2 trillion to reduce that risk by just 1%, in terms of American lives saved alone.Carl thinks it would cost a lot less than that to achieve a 1% risk reduction if the money were spent intelligently. So it easily passes a government cost-benefit test, with a very big benefit-to-cost ratio — likely over 1000:1 today.This argument helped NASA get funding to scan the sky for any asteroids that might be on a collision course with Earth, and it was directly promoted by famous economists like Richard Posner, Larry Summers, and Cass Sunstein.If the case is clear enough, why hasn't it already motivated a lot more spending or regulations to limit existential risks — enough to drive down what any additional efforts would achieve?Carl thinks that one key barrier is that infrequent disasters are rarely politically salient. Research indicates that extra money is spent on flood defences in the years immediately following a massive flood — but as memories fade, that spending quickly dries up. Of course the annual probability of a disaster was the same the whole time; all that changed is what voters had on their minds.Carl suspects another reason is that it's difficult for the average voter to estimate and understand how large these respective risks are, and what responses would be appropriate rather than self-serving. If the public doesn't know what good performance looks like, politicians can't be given incentives to do the right thing.It's reasonable to assume that if we found out a giant asteroid were going to crash into the Earth one year from now, most of our resources would be quickly diverted into figuring out how to avert catastrophe.But even in the case of COVID-19, an event that massively disrupted the lives of everyone on Earth, we've still seen a substantial lack of investment in vaccine manufacturing capacity and other ways of controlling the spread of the virus, relative to what economists recommended.Carl expects that all the reasons we didn't adequately prepare for or respond to COVID-19 — with excess mortality over 15 million and costs well over $10 trillion — bite even harder when it comes to threats we've never faced before, such as engineered pandemics, risks from advanced artificial intelligence, and so on.Today's episode is in part our way of trying to improve this situation. In today's wide-ranging conversation, Carl and Rob also cover:A few reasons Carl isn't excited by ‘strong longtermism'How x-risk reduction compares to GiveWell recommendationsSolutions for asteroids, comets, supervolcanoes, nuclear war, pandemics, and climate changeThe history of bioweaponsWhether gain-of-function research is justifiableSuccesses and failures around COVID-19The history of existential riskAnd much moreProducer: Keiran HarrisAudio mastering: Ben CordellTranscriptions: Katy Moore

    Slam the Gavel welcomes back Brian Vukadinovich to the podcast. Brian was last on the podcast April 1st, 2023, Season 4, Episode 69. Brian is a retired educator in Indiana and has served as executive director of The Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se's based in Chicago, Illinois for retired federal court of appeals judge Richard A. Posner.       Successfully REPRESENTING himself in state and federal court proceedings in Indiana, Brian Vukadinovich won a FEDERAL JURY verdict against his former public school corporation employer in Indiana in March 2016 for VIOLATING his DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. In a five day trial where he successfully represented himself against the corporation's team of lawyers, he has received national acclaim for his self-representation ability and is believed to be the only person who has ever won a federal CIVIL RIGHTS JURY TRIAL by representing himself WITHOUT a lawyer.       At present time, Brian is litigating a Breach of Contract case against Richard Posner, a former Federal Court of Appeals Judge in the 7th Circuit In Chicago. At one time, Richard Posner had hired Brian as Executive Director of the Posner Center of Justice and had agreed to pay him $120,000.00 per year.  That never happened. Apparently, this former judge used Brian Vukadinovich for his work, but when the time came to PAY for his hard work, Posner used him for his work and then blew him off. Then Posner's wife sent him a letter offering him ONLY $10,000.00. How very lame at best.    We discussed what happens in the Federal Courts and how Pro Se's are treated like trash and what percentage of Pro Se's are successful in the Federal Court System.To Reach Brian Vukadinovich: www.brianvukadinovich.com   and   motionforjustice@yahoo.comThis episode of Slam the Gavel is sponsored by CPSprotect Consulting Services. A Child Protective Services case is one of the most frightening experiences for any parent. Don't face it alone. Face it with confidence! With UrgentAssist by CPSprotect, you can have access to former CPS investigators to make sure you preserve your rights and protect your family. If you're facing CPS involvement and aren't sure where to turn, their child welfare consultants can help you.  Visit cpsprotect.com/subscribe and enter the coupon code: SlamTheGavel for 10% off your first year of UrgentAssist AVAILABLE in ALL 50 STATES.Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

 Slam the Gavel welcomes back Brian Vukadinovich to the podcast. Brian was last on the podcast April 1st, 2023, Season 4, Episode 69. Brian is a retired educator in Indiana and has served as executive director of The Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se's based in Chicago, Illinois for retired federal court of appeals judge Richard A. Posner.       Successfully REPRESENTING himself in state and federal court proceedings in Indiana, Brian Vukadinovich won a FEDERAL JURY verdict against his former public school corporation employer in Indiana in March 2016 for VIOLATING his DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. In a five day trial where he successfully represented himself against the corporation's team of lawyers, he has received national acclaim for his self-representation ability and is believed to be the only person who has ever won a federal CIVIL RIGHTS JURY TRIAL by representing himself WITHOUT a lawyer.       At present time, Brian is litigating a Breach of Contract case against Richard Posner, a former Federal Court of Appeals Judge in the 7th Circuit In Chicago. At one time, Richard Posner had hired Brian as Executive Director of the Posner Center of Justice and had agreed to pay him $120,000.00 per year.  That never happened. Apparently, this former judge used Brian Vukadinovich for his work, but when the time came to PAY for his hard work, Posner used him for his work and then blew him off. Then Posner's wife sent him a letter offering him ONLY $10,000.00. How very lame at best.    We discussed what happens in the Federal Courts and how Pro Se's are treated like trash and what percentage of Pro Se's are successful in the Federal Court System.To Reach Brian Vukadinovich: www.brianvukadinovich.com   and   motionforjustice@yahoo.comThis episode of Slam the Gavel is sponsored by CPSprotect Consulting Services. A Child Protective Services case is one of the most frightening experiences for any parent. Don't face it alone. Face it with confidence! With UrgentAssist by CPSprotect, you can have access to former CPS investigators to make sure you preserve your rights and protect your family. If you're facing CPS involvement and aren't sure where to turn, their child welfare consultants can help you.  Visit cpsprotect.com/subscribe and enter the coupon code: SlamTheGavel for 10% off your first year of UrgentAssist AVAILABLE in ALL 50 STATES.Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri) http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/maryann-petri/support

Podcast: 80,000 Hours Podcast Episode: #112 – Carl Shulman on the common-sense case for existential risk work and its practical implicationsRelease date: 2021-10-05Preventing the apocalypse may sound like an idiosyncratic activity, and it sometimes is justified on exotic grounds, such as the potential for humanity to become a galaxy-spanning civilisation. But the policy of US government agencies is already to spend up to $4 million to save the life of a citizen, making the death of all Americans a $1,300,000,000,000,000 disaster. According to Carl Shulman, research associate at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute, that means you don't need any fancy philosophical arguments about the value or size of the future to justify working to reduce existential risk — it passes a mundane cost-benefit analysis whether or not you place any value on the long-term future. Links to learn more, summary and full transcript. The key reason to make it a top priority is factual, not philosophical. That is, the risk of a disaster that kills billions of people alive today is alarmingly high, and it can be reduced at a reasonable cost. A back-of-the-envelope version of the argument runs: • The US government is willing to pay up to $4 million (depending on the agency) to save the life of an American. • So saving all US citizens at any given point in time would be worth $1,300 trillion. • If you believe that the risk of human extinction over the next century is something like one in six (as Toby Ord suggests is a reasonable figure in his book The Precipice), then it would be worth the US government spending up to $2.2 trillion to reduce that risk by just 1%, in terms of American lives saved alone. • Carl thinks it would cost a lot less than that to achieve a 1% risk reduction if the money were spent intelligently. So it easily passes a government cost-benefit test, with a very big benefit-to-cost ratio — likely over 1000:1 today. This argument helped NASA get funding to scan the sky for any asteroids that might be on a collision course with Earth, and it was directly promoted by famous economists like Richard Posner, Larry Summers, and Cass Sunstein. If the case is clear enough, why hasn't it already motivated a lot more spending or regulations to limit existential risks — enough to drive down what any additional efforts would achieve? Carl thinks that one key barrier is that infrequent disasters are rarely politically salient. Research indicates that extra money is spent on flood defences in the years immediately following a massive flood — but as memories fade, that spending quickly dries up. Of course the annual probability of a disaster was the same the whole time; all that changed is what voters had on their minds. Carl expects that all the reasons we didn't adequately prepare for or respond to COVID-19 — with excess mortality over 15 million and costs well over $10 trillion — bite even harder when it comes to threats we've never faced before, such as engineered pandemics, risks from advanced artificial intelligence, and so on. Today's episode is in part our way of trying to improve this situation. In today's wide-ranging conversation, Carl and Rob also cover: • A few reasons Carl isn't excited by 'strong longtermism' • How x-risk reduction compares to GiveWell recommendations • Solutions for asteroids, comets, supervolcanoes, nuclear war, pandemics, and climate change • The history of bioweapons • Whether gain-of-function research is justifiable • Successes and failures around COVID-19 • The history of existential risk • And much more Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world's most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Producer: Keiran Harris Audio mastering: Ben Cordell Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Podcast: 80,000 Hours Podcast with Rob Wiblin (LS 52 · TOP 0.5% )Episode: #112 – Carl Shulman on the common-sense case for existential risk work and its practical implicationsRelease date: 2021-10-05Preventing the apocalypse may sound like an idiosyncratic activity, and it sometimes is justified on exotic grounds, such as the potential for humanity to become a galaxy-spanning civilisation. But the policy of US government agencies is already to spend up to $4 million to save the life of a citizen, making the death of all Americans a $1,300,000,000,000,000 disaster. According to Carl Shulman, research associate at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute, that means you don't need any fancy philosophical arguments about the value or size of the future to justify working to reduce existential risk — it passes a mundane cost-benefit analysis whether or not you place any value on the long-term future. Links to learn more, summary and full transcript. The key reason to make it a top priority is factual, not philosophical. That is, the risk of a disaster that kills billions of people alive today is alarmingly high, and it can be reduced at a reasonable cost. A back-of-the-envelope version of the argument runs: • The US government is willing to pay up to $4 million (depending on the agency) to save the life of an American. • So saving all US citizens at any given point in time would be worth $1,300 trillion. • If you believe that the risk of human extinction over the next century is something like one in six (as Toby Ord suggests is a reasonable figure in his book The Precipice), then it would be worth the US government spending up to $2.2 trillion to reduce that risk by just 1%, in terms of American lives saved alone. • Carl thinks it would cost a lot less than that to achieve a 1% risk reduction if the money were spent intelligently. So it easily passes a government cost-benefit test, with a very big benefit-to-cost ratio — likely over 1000:1 today. This argument helped NASA get funding to scan the sky for any asteroids that might be on a collision course with Earth, and it was directly promoted by famous economists like Richard Posner, Larry Summers, and Cass Sunstein. If the case is clear enough, why hasn't it already motivated a lot more spending or regulations to limit existential risks — enough to drive down what any additional efforts would achieve? Carl thinks that one key barrier is that infrequent disasters are rarely politically salient. Research indicates that extra money is spent on flood defences in the years immediately following a massive flood — but as memories fade, that spending quickly dries up. Of course the annual probability of a disaster was the same the whole time; all that changed is what voters had on their minds. Carl expects that all the reasons we didn't adequately prepare for or respond to COVID-19 — with excess mortality over 15 million and costs well over $10 trillion — bite even harder when it comes to threats we've never faced before, such as engineered pandemics, risks from advanced artificial intelligence, and so on. Today's episode is in part our way of trying to improve this situation. In today's wide-ranging conversation, Carl and Rob also cover: • A few reasons Carl isn't excited by 'strong longtermism' • How x-risk reduction compares to GiveWell recommendations • Solutions for asteroids, comets, supervolcanoes, nuclear war, pandemics, and climate change • The history of bioweapons • Whether gain-of-function research is justifiable • Successes and failures around COVID-19 • The history of existential risk • And much more Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world's most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Producer: Keiran Harris Audio mastering: Ben Cordell Transcriptions: Katy Moore

The Worlds Most Toronto Podcast - VoicesFromTheStaircase Where we don't gather around dinner tables and couches, we meet up in the staircase. That's where we discuss all things that matter from relationships, sports and even politics. Join us every week to hear what VoicesFromTheStaircase have to discuss. Follow us on socials https://www.instagram.com/voicesfromthestaircase/ https://www.tiktok.com/@voicesfromthestaircase?lang=en Snapchat: @VoicesFromTheSC https://twitter.com/VoicesFromTheSC

In legal theory, particularly in law and economics, efficient breach is a voluntary breach of contract and payment of damages by a party who concludes that they would incur greater economic loss by performing under the contract. Development of the theory. The theory of efficient breach seeks to explain the common law's preference for expectation damages for breach of contract, as distinguished from specific performance, reliance damages, or punitive damages. According to Black's Law Dictionary, efficient breach theory is "the view that a party should be allowed to breach a contract and pay damages, if doing so would be more economically efficient than performing under the contract." Expectation damages, according to the theory, give parties an incentive to breach when and only when performance is inefficient. Judicial laws that govern contractual agreements and the damages to be incurred upon the breach of an agreements have existed since the 15th century. The motivating factor for establishing the standards of efficient breach was to ensure that the agreement fell under the enforceable fixing of the damages by the execution. this, therefore, stated that there should be a prior forecast or prediction of the provable injury resulting to the breach, otherwise, the breach will be unenforceable and then and breaching party will be limited to unconventional damage measures liquidated. The common law courts then continued to revisit the provisions of liquidated damage provision from the "breacher" compensating for injury and losses only, to a consideration of cost and damages incurred during the process of breaching the contract, as well as the benefits that breaching the contract may have already experienced from the contract. As such, the non-breacher of the contract is in the same position as if the contract had undertaken its full performance, thus, establishing and maintaining efficiency value of the rule The first statement of the theory of efficient breach appears to have been made in 1970 in a law review article by Robert L. Birmingham in "Breach of Contract, Damage Measures, and Economic Efficiency". The theory was named seven years later by Charles Goetz and Robert Scott. Efficient breach theory is commonly associated with Richard Posner and the Law and Economics school of thought. Posner explains his views in his majority opinion in Lake River Corp. v Carborundum Co. (1985). Simple versions of the efficient breach theory employed arguments from welfare economics, operating on the premise that legal rules should be designed to give parties an incentive to act in ways that maximize aggregate welfare or achieve Pareto efficiency. More sophisticated versions of the theory maintain that parties themselves prefer remedies that incentivize efficient breach, as efficient breach maximizes the gains of trade from transacting. As Richard Posner and Andrew Rosenfeld put the point, "the more efficiently the exchange is structured, the larger is the potential profit of the contract for the parties to divide between them." --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Preventing the apocalypse may sound like an idiosyncratic activity, and it sometimes is justified on exotic grounds, such as the potential for humanity to become a galaxy-spanning civilisation. But the policy of US government agencies is already to spend up to $4 million to save the life of a citizen, making the death of all Americans a $1,300,000,000,000,000 disaster. According to Carl Shulman, research associate at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute, that means you don't need any fancy philosophical arguments about the value or size of the future to justify working to reduce existential risk - it passes a mundane cost-benefit analysis whether or not you place any value on the long-term future. Links to learn more, summary and full transcript. The key reason to make it a top priority is factual, not philosophical. That is, the risk of a disaster that kills billions of people alive today is alarmingly high, and it can be reduced at a reasonable cost. A back-of-the-envelope version of the argument runs: * The US government is willing to pay up to $4 million (depending on the agency) to save the life of an American. * So saving all US citizens at any given point in time would be worth $1,300 trillion. * If you believe that the risk of human extinction over the next century is something like one in six (as Toby Ord suggests is a reasonable figure in his book The Precipice), then it would be worth the US government spending up to $2.2 trillion to reduce that risk by just 1%, in terms of American lives saved alone. * Carl thinks it would cost a lot less than that to achieve a 1% risk reduction if the money were spent intelligently. So it easily passes a government cost-benefit test, with a very big benefit-to-cost ratio - likely over 1000:1 today. This argument helped NASA get funding to scan the sky for any asteroids that might be on a collision course with Earth, and it was directly promoted by famous economists like Richard Posner, Larry Summers, and Cass Sunstein. If the case is clear enough, why hasn't it already motivated a lot more spending or regulations to limit existential risks - enough to drive down what any additional efforts would achieve? Carl thinks that one key barrier is that infrequent disasters are rarely politically salient. Research indicates that extra money is spent on flood defences in the years immediately following a massive flood - but as memories fade, that spending quickly dries up. Of course the annual probability of a disaster was the same the whole time; all that changed is what voters had on their minds. Carl expects that all the reasons we didn't adequately prepare for or respond to COVID-19 - with excess mortality over 15 million and costs well over $10 trillion - bite even harder when it comes to threats we've never faced before, such as engineered pandemics, risks from advanced artificial intelligence, and so on. Today's episode is in part our way of trying to improve this situation. In today's wide-ranging conversation, Carl and Rob also cover: * A few reasons Carl isn't excited by 'strong longtermism' * How x-risk reduction compares to GiveWell recommendations * Solutions for asteroids, comets, supervolcanoes, nuclear war, pandemics, and climate change * The history of bioweapons * Whether gain-of-function research is justifiable * Successes and failures around COVID-19 * The history of existential risk * And much more Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world's most pressing problems and how to solve them: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Producer: Keiran Harris Audio mastering: Ben Cordell Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Intro.(1:32) - Start of interview.(2:10) - Larry's "origin story." He grew up in Wilmington, Delaware ("which explains why I have corporate governance in my blood.") He attended Girard College in Philadelphia, then went to the University of Delaware (BA Economics) and Cardozo School of Law (JD). After graduation he worked as an associate at Cravath for 6 years and then joined academia with Cardozo (10 years) moving later to Boston College Law School. He later switched to George Washington University Law School where he's been for the past 10 years.(6:04) - He is the founding faculty director of GW in NY (now in its 6th year).(8:46) -  His experience serving on boards of directors. Currently with Constellation Software. In the nonprofit sector, he is a Trustee of the Museum of American Finance, a Smithsonian affiliate; Member of the Dean's Council of Lerner College of Business of the University of Delaware; a Member of the Editorial Board of Financial History, the magazine of the Museum of American Finance; and a Member of the Advisory Board of the Ben Graham Centre for Value Investing at the Ivey Business School, University of Western Ontario.(10:42) - How he got started researching Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway: In 1996 he organized a conference at Cardozo Law School on Warren's letters to Berkshire shareholders. This resulted in the publication of The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America (now in it's 5th edition).(15:33) - His article on "Warren Buffett's 10 Commandments for Corporate Directors" (2017):Select an outstanding CEO.Set CEO performance standards.Adopt an owner orientation.Replace managers promptly when needed.Speak up to colleagues.Reach out to shareholders.Adjust social atmosphere of the boardroom.Compensation Committees: Negotiate.Audit Committees: Pry.Choose Well. Warren adds these qualifications that make for high-quality directors: 1) business savvy, 2) a strong interest in the specific company, and 3) an owner-orientation.(32:12) - Origin and scope of the "Quality Shareholder Initiative" focused on long-term concentrated shareholders. Dubbed "high quality shareholders" by Warren Buffett in 1978, the initiative takes its title from that designation.(38:42) - His take on the meme stock phenomenon: "I'm concerned about it, particularly its form of 'grievance capital' (there is a political aspect to it, for some it's not only about money)."(41:34) - His take on ESG. Two different aspects:Why indexers choose ESG: 'they have a systemic business model.' They need a universal set of principles.Quality shareholders have been seeking 'doing good' for ever.(48:12) - His take on dual-class share structures. There is no correlation between dual-class shares on quality shareholders. There is no particular preference for dual class shares one way or another. ["Given the wide variety of approaches to shareholder voting, quality shareholders examine dual class structures on a case-by-case basis. Among companies with dual class structures are a substantial cohort with high quality shareholder density."](52:67) - The books that have greatly influenced his life:Economics, by Paul Samuelson (1948)Economic Analysis of Law, by Richard Posner (1973)(54:14) - His mentors:Originally, his headmaster at Girard College. Particularly on "values of loyalty and honesty."Warren Buffett.Lester Brickman.(55:32) - His favorite quotes:"You can't soar like an eagle if you're surrounded by turkeys" by his father-in-law."Only go into business with people you like, trust and admire" by Warren Buffett.(58:00) - His "unusual habit" that he loves: raking leaves, grass or twigs.(59:04) - The living person he most admires: his wife, Stephanie Cuba.Lawrence A. Cunningham is the Henry St. George Tucker III Research Professor of Law at George Washington University;  Director of C-LEAF and the Founding Faculty Director, GWinNY. You can find him at lacunningham@law.gwu.edu or on Twitter @CunninghamProfIf you like this show, please consider subscribing, leaving a review or sharing this podcast on social media. __ You can follow Evan on social media at:Twitter @evanepsteinSubstack https://evanepstein.substack.com/Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Hablamos con el Diputado y graduado de la Universidad de Chicago Jaime Bellolio, sobre la verdadera influencia de esa escuela en Chile, sobre Miguel Kast y la lucha contra la pobreza; de sus profesores emblemáticos, sobre el legendario blog de Gary Becker y Richard Posner, la importancia del análisis desprejuiciado de los datos y el valor de los "modelos" para explicar dimensiones de la conducta humana; también sobre la elección de Barak Obama y la experiencia personal y reciente de volver a ser papá en medio de la cuarentena.

Today’s podcast is a conversation originally recorded in 1994 about the teaching of sexual legal issues in law schools around the United States. Richard Posner, former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals, Larry Lessig, former Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, and Tom Smith, former Director-General of the Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago consider the long-term implications of the subject. Originally Recorded: 1994

Today’s podcast features former United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner, and former Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker. The two use their time to discuss the challenges confronting those who apply market analysis to social questions. Using examples like drug use, sexually transmitted diseases, and addiction, they discuss the possibilities of using economics to solve these problems while thinking about the government’s role in dealing with them. Originally Recorded: 1994

Is the common law efficient? Richard Posner, among many others, has argued that it is, perhaps even without judges ever themselves focusing on that goal. Daniel Sokol joins us to discuss how understanding law as a platform, like modular and open-source software platforms, helps to see how some areas of the law might indeed become more efficient over time while others might not. Daniel Sokol's faculty profile (https://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/d-daniel-sokol) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=362604) Daniel Sokol, Rethinking the Efficiency of the Common Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3328025) Special Guest: Daniel Sokol.

I denne episoden av Lørn.Tech snakker Silvija Seres med Glen Weyl om konstruktive forslag til hvordan samfunnet vårt kan bli bedre, som ikke er basert på utopisk sosialisme eller utopisk liberalisme. Weyl og hans medforfatter Richard Posner står bak boken, «Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a just society», går tilbake til sosialliberaleren Henry George og nobelprisvinneren William Vickrey, og utvikler en ny sosialliberal politikk på en rekke områder. Hør han diskutere med Silvija om hans radikale ideer om å gjøre kapitalismen mer effektiv og mer egalitær.Møtet var i regi av Polyteknisk Forening, Aksel Braanen Sterri og Lørn.TechBli med og #Lørn du også— abonner på podkasten vår!Følg oss gjerne i sosiale medier

One of the University of Chicago Law School's best known ideas or outputs over the last fifty years is that the common law (made by judges and often passed down and adapted over many years) is efficient. It was an idea advanced by Richard Posner, with respect to tort law, in his time as a professor here, but it is also reflected in his and other judicial opinions which students across the country meet in almost every non-constitutional course. What does this idea really mean, and is it plausible or even correct? If yes, why did the common law decline in influence? Statutes and regulations have far more impact on our present-day lives than does the common law. Judges are now known and evaluated for their constitutional decisions rather than for what they do in contracts and torts and other areas that are often described as common-law subjects. Could the common law solve our current concerns about climate change and autonomous vehicles? Saul Levmore is the William B. Graham Distinguished Service Professor of Law. This Chicago's Best Ideas lecture was presented on October 15, 2018.

One of the University of Chicago Law School's best known ideas or outputs over the last fifty years is that the common law (made by judges and often passed down and adapted over many years) is efficient. It was an idea advanced by Richard Posner, with respect to tort law, in his time as a professor here, but it is also reflected in his and other judicial opinions which students across the country meet in almost every non-constitutional course. What does this idea really mean, and is it plausible or even correct? If yes, why did the common law decline in influence? Statutes and regulations have far more impact on our present-day lives than does the common law. Judges are now known and evaluated for their constitutional decisions rather than for what they do in contracts and torts and other areas that are often described as common-law subjects. Could the common law solve our current concerns about climate change and autonomous vehicles? Saul Levmore is the William B. Graham Distinguished Service Professor of Law. This Chicago's Best Ideas lecture was presented on October 15, 2018.

Today I'm kicking off a new series tentatively called the Not Unreasonable Book club to be co-hosted with Steve Mildenhall (who is running for the board of the Casualty Actuarial Society, so vote for him!). Steve is an assistant professor at St John's University's school of risk management and former head of Analytics at Aon Re. Steve's an all-around smart dude and I'm looking forward to learning from him and hopefully disagreeing once in a while! Books and papers discussed in today's show: On Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society by Richard Posner and Eric Glen Weyl Capitalism without Capital: The Rise of the Intangible Economy by Jonathan Haskell and Stian Westlake The Theory of Risk Bearing: Small and Great Risks by Ken Arrow The Nature of the Firm by Ronald Coase

Just Joe and Christian, coming to you after a terrible week. We talk guns, ex-Judge Posner's book and humility, the right rules for disabled stoplights, the closing of a coffeehouse, and airplane seat reclining behavior. This show’s links: Oral Argument 101: Tug of War (http://oralargument.org/101) Richard Posner, Reforming the Federal Judiciary (https://www.amazon.com/Reforming-Federal-Judiciary-Televising-Arguments/dp/1976014794) Steven Lubet, Richard Posner, Unedited (Part One) (http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2017/10/richard-posner-unedited.html) Zoran Tasic, Reforming Richard Posner (https://medium.com/@ztasic/reforming-richard-posner-a25ce8fddece) Oral Argument 32: Go Figure (http://oralargument.org/32) (on Judge Posner's gay marriage opinion in Baskin) and Oral Argument 131: Because of Sex (http://oralargument.org/131) (featuring discussion with Anthony Kreis about Judge Posner's Hively opinion) WINIR (http://winir.org) How do you pronounce Utrecht? (https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-pronounce-Utrecht) The Perfect Cappuccino (http://cappuccinomovie.com) Two Story's Last Day in Five Points (http://www.redandblack.com/multimedia/photos-two-story-s-last-day-in-five-points/collection_5a4052c2-a21f-11e7-bd12-5391199be363.html) (including a photo of Christian with the shop's last cap) Christian Turner, The Cost of Foregone Biergartens (https://www.hydratext.com/blog/2013/3/8/the-cost-of-foregone-biergartens.html) Oral Argument 31: Knee Defender (http://oralargument.org/31) (and see episode 32, above, for more knee defender discussion) Christopher Buccafusco and Christopher Jon Sprigman, How to Resolve Fights over Reclining Airplane Seats: Use Behavioral Economics (http://evonomics.com/resolve-fights-reclining-airplane-seats-use-behavioral-economics/)

This story comes from the second season of Radiolab's spin-off podcast, More Perfect. To hear more, subscribe here. What happens when the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, seems to get it wrong? Korematsu v. United States is a case that’s been widely denounced and discredited, but it still remains on the books. This is the case that upheld President Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens during World War II based solely on their Japanese heritage, for the sake of national security. In this episode, we follow Fred Korematsu’s path to the Supreme Court, and we ask the question: if you can’t get justice in the Supreme Court, can you find it someplace else?  The key voices: Fred Korematsu, plaintiff in Korematsu v. United States who resisted evacuation orders during World War II. Karen Korematsu, Fred’s daughter, Founder & Executive Director of Fred T. Korematsu Institute Ernest Besig, ACLU lawyer who helped Fred Korematsu bring his case Lorraine Bannai, Professor at Seattle University School of Law and friend of Fred's family Richard Posner, recently retired Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit  The key cases: 1944: Korematsu v. United States  The key links: Fred T. Korematsu Institute Densho Archives Additional music for this episode by The Flamingos, Lulu, Paul Lansky and Austin Vaughn.  Special thanks to the Densho Archives for use of archival tape of Fred Korematsu and Ernest Besig.  Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

What happens when the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, seems to get it wrong? Korematsu v. United States is a case that’s been widely denounced and discredited, but it still remains on the books. This is the case that upheld President Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens during World War II based solely on their Japanese heritage, for the sake of national security. In this episode, we follow Fred Korematsu’s path to the Supreme Court, and we ask the question: if you can’t get justice in the Supreme Court, can you find it someplace else? Fred Korematsu, c. 1940s (Courtesy of the Fred T. Korematsu Institute)   Fred Korematsu, second from the right, is pictured with his family in the family flower nursery in Oakland, CA, 1939. (Courtesy of the family of Fred T. Korematsu, Wikimedia Commons)  The key voices: Fred Korematsu, plaintiff in Korematsu v. United States who resisted evacuation orders during World War II. Karen Korematsu, Fred’s daughter, Founder & Executive Director of Fred T. Korematsu Institute Ernest Besig, ACLU lawyer who helped Fred Korematsu bring his case to the Supreme Court Lorraine Bannai, Professor at Seattle University School of Law and Director of the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality  Richard Posner, retired Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit The key cases: 1944: Korematsu v. United States The key links: Fred T. Korematsu Institute Densho Archives Additional music for this episode by The Flamingos, Lulu, Paul Lansky, and Austin Vaughn. Special thanks to the Densho Archives for use of archival tape of Fred Korematsu and Ernest Besig.  Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

By listening to this podcast YOU AGREE to arbitrate all disputes in Florida and to forego class actions and consequential damages. This week: Jim Gibson on boilerplate terms in contracts. What to do with contract terms that aren’t read? This show’s links: Jim Gibson’s faculty profile (http://law.richmond.edu/faculty/jgibson/) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=354288) James Gibson, Boilerplate's False Dichotomy (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2947328) Lucian Bebchuk and Richard Posner, One-Sided Contracts in Competitive Consumer Markets (http://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol104/iss5/1/) Karl Llewellyn, Review: The Standardization of Commercial Contracts in English and Continental Law by O. Prausnitz (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1334280?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) ProCD v. Zeidenberg (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11811009805458694240) Margaret Jane Radin, Boilerplate: The Fine Print, Vanishing Rights, and the Rule of Law (https://books.google.com/books/about/Boilerplate.html?id=txurzpvKQJoC) Boilerplate: Foundations of Market Contracts (http://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol104/iss5/), a Michigan Law Review symposium that includes writing by Omri Ben-Shahar, Margaret Jane Radin, Todd Rakoff, Henry Smith, and many others Special Guest: Jim Gibson.

(This appeared in Rick Lazio's Ignite Blog back in July of 2011 . . . I reread it and liked it, so I thought I would repost it.) MATHLESSNESS - AMERICA’S FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM by Frazer Rice. Modern Americans are largely innumerate. They are, to borrow Richard Posner’s felicitous phrase, “mathless”- most can’t use or judge the effects of numbers. Such ignorance would be of little concern, except that math permeates everything and ignorance of it imperils both America and Americans. For example, mathless Americans can’t understand or interpret statistics popularly discussed in the media, thereby disabling their ability critically to assess what’s reported. Nor can they comprehend the scale of the numerical problems addressed in government budgets, leaving them to the not-so-tender mercies of craven politicians funding government programs through deficit spending. Most importantly, mathless Americans lack the quantitative tools to prosper financially and avoid bad investments, critical skills of self-reliance in a non-welfare state. If you want to see this in action, watch a lawyer try to equitably divide the bill and calculate a tip at a nice restaurant. It takes twenty minutes and they usually have to consult an accountant … by phone. Consider the millions of people who bought houses they couldn’t afford. Cautionary tales abound about people making $50k/year who were living in $400K houses that are now in foreclosure. The analysis exposing such folly isn’t rigorous: Assume (optimistically) after-tax income of $37,000, or $3,125 per month, that the buyer paid 10% of the purchase price ($400,000) at closing, which leaves $360,000 remaining. With an interest-only mortgage of 5% (historically low, but a reasonable figure), the buyer pays at least $1,500 in monthly interest, which is nearly half his or her take-home pay (you do get to deduct the interest, but you don’t see that until the following year). The above scenario is unmercifully tight, especially if income taxes or the cost of living increases and/or income declines. Financial common sense bristles at such a position. Unfortunately, most Americans lack such common sense. And that is the core of the problem: math can help lead logical decision-making by spelling out future realities that predatory lenders’ hawking teaser rates don’t want you to consider. Lotteries, casinos and the investment banks thrive in part because Americans can’t or don’t want to think about math. As Homer Simpson put it when told that having mayonnaise and whiskey at the same time was a bad idea, “That’s a problem for Future Homer.” Obviously, one can’t prepare for every eventuality, but more mathematical common sense could have prevented people from committing what amounted to financial suicide. The ability to see the immediate snapshot of a mathematical situation isn’t the glaring problem for America. Intuition and the advice of others tend to get most past square one. The real issue is getting people to conceptualize the numbers governing their lives in such a way that they can anticipate future consequences of financial decisions. For that task they are ill equipped. Mathless Americans are also increasingly outstripped by foreign competitors. There are 98.8 color televisions for every 100 U.S. households. Television is the most important thing in America! There used to be over 70 US TV manufacturers. However, in 1995, Zenith sold to LG. That brought the number of U.S. TV manufacturers to zero. Only tiny startup Olevia assembles Asian TV parts in this country. In the business world, being deficient in math is going to be like running a race with no legs. According to Time Warner Cable’s Connect a Million Minds program, eighty percent of jobs created in the next decade will require math and science skills. Furthermore, the American education system isn’t up to the task. According to the Programme for International Student Assessment,

(This appeared in Rick Lazio's Ignite Blog back in July of 2011 . . . I reread it and liked it, so I thought I would repost it.) MATHLESSNESS - AMERICA’S FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM by Frazer Rice. Modern Americans are largely innumerate. They are, to borrow Richard Posner’s felicitous phrase, “mathless”- most can’t use or judge the effects of numbers. Such ignorance would be of little concern, except that math permeates everything and ignorance of it imperils both America and Americans. For example, mathless Americans can’t understand or interpret statistics popularly discussed in the media, thereby disabling their ability critically to assess what’s reported. Nor can they comprehend the scale of the numerical problems addressed in government budgets, leaving them to the not-so-tender mercies of craven politicians funding government programs through deficit spending. Most importantly, mathless Americans lack the quantitative tools to prosper financially and avoid bad investments, critical skills of self-reliance in a non-welfare state. If you want to see this in action, watch a lawyer try to equitably divide the bill and calculate a tip at a nice restaurant. It takes twenty minutes and they usually have to consult an accountant … by phone. Consider the millions of people who bought houses they couldn’t afford. Cautionary tales abound about people making $50k/year who were living in $400K houses that are now in foreclosure. The analysis exposing such folly isn’t rigorous: Assume (optimistically) after-tax income of $37,000, or $3,125 per month, that the buyer paid 10% of the purchase price ($400,000) at closing, which leaves $360,000 remaining. With an interest-only mortgage of 5% (historically low, but a reasonable figure), the buyer pays at least $1,500 in monthly interest, which is nearly half his or her take-home pay (you do get to deduct the interest, but you don’t see that until the following year). The above scenario is unmercifully tight, especially if income taxes or the cost of living increases and/or income declines. Financial common sense bristles at such a position. Unfortunately, most Americans lack such common sense. And that is the core of the problem: math can help lead logical decision-making by spelling out future realities that predatory lenders’ hawking teaser rates don’t want you to consider. Lotteries, casinos and the investment banks thrive in part because Americans can’t or don’t want to think about math. As Homer Simpson put it when told that having mayonnaise and whiskey at the same time was a bad idea, “That’s a problem for Future Homer.” Obviously, one can’t prepare for every eventuality, but more mathematical common sense could have prevented people from committing what amounted to financial suicide. The ability to see the immediate snapshot of a mathematical situation isn’t the glaring problem for America. Intuition and the advice of others tend to get most past square one. The real issue is getting people to conceptualize the numbers governing their lives in such a way that they can anticipate future consequences of financial decisions. For that task they are ill equipped. Mathless Americans are also increasingly outstripped by foreign competitors. There are 98.8 color televisions for every 100 U.S. households. Television is the most important thing in America! There used to be over 70 US TV manufacturers. However, in 1995, Zenith sold to LG. That brought the number of U.S. TV manufacturers to zero. Only tiny startup Olevia assembles Asian TV parts in this country. In the business world, being deficient in math is going to be like running a race with no legs. According to Time Warner Cable’s Connect a Million Minds program, eighty percent of jobs created in the next decade will require math and science skills. Furthermore, the American education system isn’t up to the task. According to the Programme for International Student Assessment,

Columbia law professor Tim Wu makes me feel boring and underaccomplished. He’s been a Supreme Court clerk, a Silicon Valley startup employee, a bestselling author, and a star academic. He coined the term "network neutrality," wrote the superb book The Master Switch, and was dubbed "Genius Wu" by Richard Posner — a man many consider to be our smartest living judge. And this is to say nothing of Wu's award-winning side-gig as a — yes — travel writer.Anyway, screw that guy. Wu's new book is The Attention Merchants, and it's a history of how the advertising business has shaped the information we consume, the products we crave, and the way we think. We talk about that book, but we also talk about Wu's approach to life. He explains why his great strength is his ability to ignore inconsistency, how Larry Lessig shaped his career and his marriage, why working in Silicon Valley left him skeptical of markets, and Marshall McLuhan and Timothy Leary’s advertising jingle for acid (really).We also go deep into antitrust law, the inner workings of the Supreme Court, whether Google and Facebook are monopolies, and what a world without advertising in media might look like. So this conversation covers a lot of ground. Enjoy! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A Peel court justice threw out a DUI case after hearing testimony from a former government scientist calling a breathalyzer test faulty and the process in Ontario flawed. The lawyer who successfully had the road-side test thrown out, Richard Posner, joined us to discuss the case, as did Patrick Metzler, a noted DUI defense lawyer.

Christian, Joe, and frequent co-host Sonja West dig into the mail and tweet bags and discuss nonsense, sense, and antisense. Topics include: Judge John Hodgman’s weighing in on speed trap law, podcast listening speeds, the Slate Supreme Court Breakfast Table, the insurable liability approach to the gun crisis, Joe sings (yes) a line from “The Externality Song” and (relatedly, obv) Hamilton vs. Upstream Color, price matching and the morality quiz, footnoting and in-text citation and madness, an argument over Guantanamo and rights, more on the culturally polarized gun debate and on rights generally, Posner’s skepticism of academia, and how things change and get better. This show’s links: Sonja West’s faculty profile and writing Oral Argument 1: Send Joe to Prison (guest Sonja West) Judge John Hodgman on flashing lights to warn of speed traps Slate: The Supreme Court Breakfast Table Oral Argument 101: Tug of War Oral Argument 100: A Few Minutes in the Rear-View Mirror Oral Argument 96: Students as Means Kedar Bhatia, Footnotes in Supreme Court Opinions David Foster Wallace, Tense Present (an earlier version of Authority and American Usage in Consider the Lobster and Other Essays) The brief Christian helped with in Rasul v. Bush, making the Mathews v. Eldridge argument the Court wound up adopting in the simultaneously decided Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (see pp. 17-21) Sonja West, The Second Amendment Is Not Absolute The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that confers immunity on gun manufacturers for most gun deaths; see also the wiki article on the act Oral Argument 102: Precautionary Federalism (guest Sarah Light) Dissent from denial of cert. in Stormans v. Wiesman Mark Graber, Alito (Religion) v. Alito (Abortion) Richard Posner, Entry 9: The Academy Is out of Its Depth Akhil Amar, Entry 10: Who Judges the Judges Richard Posner, Entry 11: The Immigration Decision Won’t Do Much Dawn Johnsen, Entry 12: How can a judge dismiss the importance of the Constitution? Richard Posner, Entry 27: Broad Interpretations Special Guest: Sonja West.

This week was a very busy news week. We saw the passing of Pat Summitt, a federal judge said that there is "no value" in studying the U.S. Constitution, the SCOTUS made a ruling about gun rights. The Benghazi report was released and the A.G. has a not so secret meeting with Bill Clinton. That and more as time allows.

This week was a very busy news week. We saw the passing of Pat Summitt, a federal judge said that there is "no value" in studying the U.S. Constitution, the SCOTUS made a ruling about gun rights. The Benghazi report was released and the A.G. has a not so secret meeting with Bill Clinton. That and more as time allows.

In honor of our base 10 number system, we revert to type and have recorded a long, self-indulgent episode. We reflect on our show, respond to feedback, and wonder about law and legal academia. Also Joe’s travels and nonsense. Feedback includes the other side of the expedite problem, a morality quiz for Joe, the proper playback speed for this show, political processes in arrest and indictment, professionalism norms and racism, SSRN’s purchase by Elsevier, more on the Bluebook and its connection with the problems of legal knowledge creation, and what our jobs are and whether we should keep doing this show. This show’s links: Christian Turner, Podcasts Oral Argument 0: Who Is Your Hero? Flyover Country Oral Argument 96: Students as Means Alvin Roth, Who Gets What - And Why Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS; Klor’s v. Broadway-Hale Stores Oral Argument 99: Power (guest Lisa Heinzerling); Richard Posner, The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia On the bar exam: Oral Argument 61: Minimum Competence (guest Derek Muller); Oral Argument 62: Viewer Mail; Virginia Bar, Mandatory Dress Code Oral Argument 98: T3 Jedi (guests Jeremy Kessler and David Pozen) Michael Jensen's announcement of the sale of SSRN to Elsevier John Dupuis, Elsevier Buys SSRN: Another Sideshow or the Main Event? Paul Gowder, SSRN Has Been Captured by the Enemy of Open Knowledge Zenodo About arXiv Oral Argument 91: Baby Blue (guest Chris Sprigman) Oral Argument 12: Heart of Darkness

Joe is at the airport for a special pre-roll segment. Then we say hello to Lisa Heinzerling, administrative law expert (5:23). After a substantive and goofy discussion of legislation and regulation courses (6:29), we discuss the development of what Lisa calls “the power canons” resulting from recent decisions of the Supreme Court (10:39). If you’re Congress, how do you write a statute meant to solve problems that might evolve in type or degree? Do you have the power to do so, or are you limited to speaking to the here and now? Does the Supreme Court have the power to limit legislative and regulatory power in this way? This show’s links: Lisa Heinzerling’s faculty profile (including links to all her scholarship) Lisa Heinzerling and Mark Tushnet, The Regulatory and Administrative State (a legislation and regulation casebook) Lisa Heinzerling, The Power Canons Oral Argument 23: Rex Sunstein? (guest Ethan Leib) City of Arlington v. FCC (C.J. Roberts in dissent: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”) NCTA v. Brand X Richard Posner, The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA King v. Burwell Michigan v. EPA Lisa Heinzerling, Inside EPA: A Former Insider's Reflections on the Relationship Between the Obama EPA and the Obama White House Oral Argument 28: A Wonderful Catastrophe (our Erie show) Special Guest: Lisa Heinzerling.

Our main topic is fair use, the engine of so much cultural reuse and advancement. We’re joined by one of the doctrine’s most interesting scholars, Mike Madison. But the conversation spans: Joe’s telecomm cursing issues (0:00:36), FBiPhones and the Apple-FBI imbroglio (0:09:26), and fair use (0:28:27), including discussion of Mike’s Big Idea of social practices (0:53:03), reverse engineering, parody, video tapes, and much more. This show’s links: Mike Madison’s website, writing, and blog FCC v. Pacifica Foundation FCC v. Fox (Fox II) (containing a link to Fox I) This American Life 267: Propriety (It’s all good, but the discussion of the legal issue in Fox is at about 19:15.) Amy Davidson, The Dangerous All Writs Act Precedent in the Apple Encryption Case John Gruber, The Next Step in iPhone Impregnability Oral Argument 80: We’ll Do It LIVE! Oral Argument 42: Shotgun Aphasia (guest Orin Kerr) Orin Kerr, An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment Apple’s motion to vacate the order to assist the FBI Riley v. California (and see Orin Kerr’s post about the case shortly after it was decided About Fair Use Week Ty v. Publications Int’l (Judge Posner, giving an explanation of market substitution and fair use); see also Richard Posner, When Is Parody Fair Use? Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. Key, lower-court cases deciding whether university course packets qualify for fair use protection: Basic Books Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corp., Princeton Univ. v. Michigan Document Services, and, most recently, Cambridge University Press v. Patton David Fagundes, Market Harm, Market Help, and Fair Use Kickstarter page for Star Trek: Axanar, an independent Star Trek film (includes the twenty-minute video Prelude to Axanar) Ryan Reed, Crowdfunded 'Star Trek' Movie Facing Copyright Infringement Lawsuit; Eriq Gardner, 'Star Trek' Fans Want Paramount, CBS to Do Better Job Explaining Franchise to Court See also the unrelated and rather amazing Star Trek New Voyages, a nonprofit web series; and Paul Post, A ‘Star Trek’ Dream, Spread From Upstate New York A googol Statement of the Librarian of Congress Relating to Section 1201 Rulemaking; about anti-circumvention exemptions Electronic Frontier Foundation, Victory for Users: Librarian of Congress Renews and Expands Protections for Fair Uses Michael Madison, A Pattern-Oriented Approach to Fair Use Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios Joel Hruska, How Sony’s Betamax Made YouTube and Twitch Possible Sega v. Accolade Frank Pasquale, Toward an Ecology of Intellectual Property: Lessons from Environmental Ecology for Valuing Copyright’s Commons Randy Picker, Closing the Xbox Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp. MGM v. Grokster Jonathan Zittrain, The Generative Internet Horace Dediu, Seeing What’s Next (featuring a wonderful graph showing the adoption rates of various technologies, including the VCR); see also Derek Thompson, The 100-Year March of Technology in One Graph Eduardo Peñalver and Sonia Katyal, Property Outlaws: How Squatters, Pirates, and Protesters Improve the Law of Ownership (see also this article-length treatment) Eben Moglen, Freeing the Mind: Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture (“It is wrong to ask, ‘What is the incentive for people to create?’ It's an emergent property of connected human minds that they do create.”) Jennifer Rothman, The Questionable Use of Custom in Intellectual Property Michael Madison, Madisonian Fair Use Special Guest: Mike Madison.

What kind of privacy do we want to have? What makes others’ knowledge about us turn from everyday acceptable to weird and creepy? Woody Hartzog talks with us about the difficulties of maintaining privacy, whatever it should be, online and in social networks. We’re used to the cheap obscurity and fleetingness of our physical lives, but it’s cheap and tempting to know more about others online than they’d like. Can we design platforms to deliver the individual obscurity we’ve enjoyed in the past? Conversation ranges between celebrities and privacy, searchability, giving up on hiding that we’re all gross and weird, our many identities, the problem of dumb teenagers, protected Twitter accounts, internet bad guys, and naked, dancing Buddhist monks. This show’s links: Woody Hartzog’s faculty profile and writing Philosophy Bites, Shaun Nichols on Death and the Self Woodrow Hartzog, Chain-Link Confidentiality Joshua Fairfield, BitProperty About security through obscurity Woodrow Hartzog and Frederic Stutzman, Obscurity by Design Daniel Solve, A Taxonomy of Privacy David Brin, The Transparent Society Cass Sunstein, Republic.com About the narcissism of small differences Richard Posner, The Right of Privacy Neil Richards, Intellectual Privacy (the article) and Intellectual Privacy (the book) Library of Congress, Update on the Twitter Archive at the Library of Congress Twitter, About Public and Protected Tweets; see also Greg Kumparak, Twitter Bug Allowed Some Protected Accounts to Be Read by Unapproved Followers About Yik Yak Mike Isaac, A Look Behind the Snapchat Photo Leak Claims In the Matter of Red Zone Investment Group, Inc., an FTC case involving, among other things, a fake windows registration window Woodrow Hartzog, Website Design as Contract About the Whisper app About the Sears Holdings Management Corp. case before the FTC Special Guest: Woodrow Hartzog.

Richard A. Posner, Senior Lecturer in Law and a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, devoted a lunchtime keynote to discussing how judges might receive and view empirical research. Richard A. Posner is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Following his graduation from Harvard Law School, Judge Posner clerked for Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. From 1963 to 1965, he was assistant to Commissioner Philip Elman of the Federal Trade Commission. For the next two years, he was assistant to the solicitor general of the United States. Prior to going to Stanford Law School in 1968 as Associate Professor, Judge Posner served as general counsel of the President's Task Force on Communications Policy. He first came to the University of Chicago Law School in 1969, and was Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law prior to his appointment in 1981 as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He was the chief judge of the court from 1993 to 2000. This talk was recorded on October 23, 2014.

Richard A. Posner, Senior Lecturer in Law and a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, devoted a lunchtime keynote to discussing how judges might receive and view empirical research. Richard A. Posner is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Following his graduation from Harvard Law School, Judge Posner clerked for Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. From 1963 to 1965, he was assistant to Commissioner Philip Elman of the Federal Trade Commission. For the next two years, he was assistant to the solicitor general of the United States. Prior to going to Stanford Law School in 1968 as Associate Professor, Judge Posner served as general counsel of the President's Task Force on Communications Policy. He first came to the University of Chicago Law School in 1969, and was Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law prior to his appointment in 1981 as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He was the chief judge of the court from 1993 to 2000. This talk was recorded on October 23, 2014.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Psst, do you want to buy a kidney? How about a human egg, or a baby? We talk about taboo markets and tragic choice with Kim Krawiec. Topics range from egg “donation” to kidney transplants, altruism, reference transactions, military service, sex, and more. How do we allocate scarce goods when enough of us just don’t believe the goods should be traded like loaves of bread? Program note: We failed to ask Kim whether Joe is monstrous on account of his views on speed trap norms. Our apologies to the listeners and to Kim. This show’s links: Kim Krawiec’s faculty profile and writing Oral Argument Episode 14: The Astronaut’s Hair, with Lisa Milot The Faculty Lounge blog Taxing Eggs, a mini-symposium on the Faculty Lounge blog Viviana A. Rotman Zelizer, Morals and Markets: The Development of Life Insurance in the United States Viviana A. Zelizer, Pricing the Priceless Child Viviana A. Zelizer, The Price and Value of Children: The Case of Children’s Insurance Kimberly Krawiec, Price and Pretense in the Baby Market Kimberly Krawiec, A Woman’s Worth Margaret Jane Radin, Contested Commodities Richard Posner, The Regulation of the Market in Adoptions Kimberly Krawiec, Kamakahi v. ASRM: The Egg Donor Price Fixing Litigation Philip Cook and Kimberly Krawiec, A Primer on Kidney Transplantation: Anatomy of the Shortage Wikipedia on the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 Kieran Healy and Kimberly Krawiec, Custom, Contract, and Kidney Exchange Show Me the Money: Making Markets in Forbidden Exchange, an issue of Law and Contemporary Problems Kimberly Krawiec, Foreword to Show Me the Money: Making Markets in Forbidden Exchange Guido Calabresi and Philip Bobbitt, Tragic Choices Special Guest: Kimberly Krawiec.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 109. This is the audio for episode 005 of Liberty Talk, a weekly-ish Google hangout-based podcast with Jeffrey Tucker and me (Google Plus page; Youtube Channel). Though it's been a month since our last one. Hey, it happens. Today: we discuss Adam Kokesh and his recent brush with the "law" (see FDR2561), Liberty.me, 3D Printing, libertarian activism, nonscarce goods, intellectual property, The Mises Seminar Australia, trade secrets, and more. Next week: we discuss Richard Posner, Richard Epstein, and the Chicago school, and their argument for IP.

Richard Posner, federal judge and prolific author, discusses the financial crisis with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Posner (despite the title of his recent book on the crisis, A Failure of Capitalism) places most of the blame for the crisis on the Federal Reserve, inattentive regulators and the subsidization of risk. He also criticizes economists for complacency in the face of impending disaster. A recent convert of sorts to Keynesianism, Posner confesses some disillusion with the implementation of the stimulus plan and the expanding role of the Federal government.

Richard Posner, federal judge and prolific author, discusses the financial crisis with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Posner (despite the title of his recent book on the crisis, A Failure of Capitalism) places most of the blame for the crisis on the Federal Reserve, inattentive regulators and the subsidization of risk. He also criticizes economists for complacency in the face of impending disaster. A recent convert of sorts to Keynesianism, Posner confesses some disillusion with the implementation of the stimulus plan and the expanding role of the Federal government.

Richard Posner, federal judge and prolific author, discusses the financial crisis with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Posner (despite the title of his recent book on the crisis, A Failure of Capitalism) places most of the blame for the crisis on the Federal Reserve, inattentive regulators and the subsidization of risk. He also criticizes economists for complacency in the face of impending disaster. A recent convert of sorts to Keynesianism, Posner confesses some disillusion with the implementation of the stimulus plan and the expanding role of the Federal government.

When is inspiration actually plagiarism? Richard Posner guides us through the world of copyright. Find out more about Richard, and ethics, at www.open2.net/ethicsbites.

Transcript -- When is inspiration actually plagiarism? Richard Posner guides us through the world of copyright. Find out more about Richard, and ethics, at www.open2.net/ethicsbites.