By Sanjukta Paul – Where does economic power come from? Does it exist independently of the law?
It seems obvious, even undeniable, that the answer is no. Law creates, defines and enforces property rights. Law enforces private contracts. It charters corporations and shields investors from liability. Law declares illegal certain contracts of economic cooperation between separate individuals – which it calls ‘price-fixing’ – but declares economically equivalent activity legal when it takes place within a business firm or is controlled by one.
Each one of these is a choice made by the law, on behalf of the public as a whole. Each of them creates or maintains someone’s economic power, and often undermines someone else’s. Each also plays a role in maintaining a particular distribution of economic power across society.
Yet generations of lawyers and judges educated at law schools in the United States have been taught to ignore this essential role of law in creating and sustaining economic power.
Instead, we are taught that the social process of economic competition results in certain outcomes that are ‘efficient’ – and that anything the law does to alter those outcomes is its only intervention.
These peculiar presumptions flow from the enormously powerful and influential ‘law and economics’ movement that dominates thinking in most areas of US law considered to be within the ‘economic’ sphere.
Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale University, recently called law and economics the most influential thing in legal education since the founding of Harvard Law School.
The Economics Institute for Federal Judges, founded by the legal scholar Henry Manne, has been a hugely influential training program in the law and economics approach. more>
Posted in Banking, Book review, Broadband, Business, CONGRESS WATCH, Economic development, Economy, Education, History, How to, Net, Technology
Tagged Business improvement, Capital, Congress Watch, Government, Inequality, Internet, Law
Democratic voters actually care about climate change. 2020 candidates are responding.
By Ella Nilsen – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks former Vice President Joe Biden’s $5 trillion climate plan — one of the first major policies his campaign has released — is a “start,” albeit one that needs to be scaled up dramatically.
“I think what that has shown is a dramatic shift in the right direction, but we need to keep pushing for a plan that is at the scale of the problem,” Ocasio-Cortez, progressive superstar and co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, told reporters on Tuesday. (For the record, she thinks the plan that gets closest is Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s, which she called the “gold standard.”)
But the very fact that Biden felt the need to release a climate plan near the start of his policy rollout shows the influence and success of Ocasio-Cortez and her allies in the climate movement.
Five candidates, including Biden, Inslee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and former Reps. Beto O’Rourke and John Delaney have all released massive plans to combat climate change, ranging from $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion in federal investment over a decade. Candidates are factoring in the spur of private investments as well, hence the jump to $5 trillion in Biden’s plan.
“It’s a recognition of where the electorate is,” Monmouth University polling director Patrick Murray told Vox. “This popped out from the very beginning. Climate change and the environment in general was the No. 2 issue after health care for Democratic voters.
“I think it’s just becoming a zeitgeist for Democrats,” Murray added.
Over the past eight months, climate change has shot up as a core Democratic issue in polls. more>
Posted in Business, Economic development, Economy, Education, Energy & emissions, How to, Media, Nature, Net, Science, Technology
Tagged 2020 elections, Business improvement, Climate change, Government, Internet, Technology, United States
By Jamie P. Horsley – As recently as early May, optimism ran high that the United States and China were nearing an agreement to resolve their escalating trade dispute. But talks have hit an impasse, with both sides announcing new rounds of tariffs over the past few days.
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow explained that a key point of contention is U.S. insistence that Chinese commitments be “codified by law in China, not just a State Council announcement.” According to Kudlow, the U.S. seeks “very strong enforcement provisions” to correct past Chinese behavior on trade, which he characterized as unfair, nonreciprocal, and sometimes unlawful.
Various U.S. media reported that the Chinese side was averse to the idea of a foreign country dictating Chinese law. Instead, negotiators from Beijing reportedly offered to codify the agreement through regulatory and administrative actions. The standoff raises an important question: If the other substantive issues can be resolved, would an agreement be enforceable even if it falls short of being codified in national laws?
National laws, local regulations, State Council regulations, and rules are all part of what is collectively called “legislation” (lifa). National laws (falü) are adopted by China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) and the NPC Standing Committee pursuant to formal procedures—including public notice and comment—set forth in the Legislation Law.
Similarly, local regulations (difangxing fagui) are adopted by the people’s congress operating in a particular province or autonomous region. State Council regulations (xingzheng fagui), which are legally binding and enforceable, are also governed by the Legislation Law and subject to public comment and other procedures stipulated in State Council implementing regulations (colloquially, the “Rulemaking Regulations”).
The same applies to rules (guizhang), which are promulgated by central departments and local governments. more>
Posted in Business, Economy, Education, How to, Regulations, Technology
Tagged Business improvement, Capital, China, Government, Law, Law Enforcement, Trade war
By Jochen Steinhilber – We are discussing the digital transformation, which will profoundly change how we live, work and participate in politics and society in the decades to come.
The political and social significance of digital networking, smart factories and big data depends on how technology is used. It can deepen social inequalities and cement domination and profit maximization, or it can improve working and living conditions and facilitate participation. That is why digitalization needs political direction and should be based on social agreements.
But how can this be achieved without, for example, bringing those companies under tighter democratic control that, for many years, have been engaged in secret negotiations on international trade policy to ‘protect’ the digital and services agenda from all state intervention for years to come?
Also, those who will rightly champion the ecological transformation in the coming years and want to pursue it in a maximally inclusive way will have to ask themselves how this can be achieved under the current relations of power between the economy, politics and democracy—especially under lower growth rates that allow less space for redistribution.
Anyone who now claims that, considering the challenges of climate protection, a debate on economic democracy is a diversionary tactic and at best of theoretical rather than political interest, ignores the fact that the important strategic decisions must be taken at the economic level.
Do we really want to leave crucial questions—where can growth continue because it serves the common good? what must be dismantled because it is ecologically and socially harmful? and who pays for the change?—for the most part to the dominant market players?
And finally, the frequently-invoked crisis of democracy at least suggests that we need to rethink how the economy works. more>
Posted in Banking, Business, Economic development, Economy, Education, History, How to, Technology
Tagged Business improvement, Capital, Free market, Government, Internet, Technology
By Katie Bo Williams – More than a year since the new National Defense Strategy refocused the U.S. military away from counterinsurgency and back towards the country’s greatest strategic competitors, some policy and strategy experts say the Pentagon hasn’t yet figured out how to “compete” with Russia and China.
In fact, it hasn’t even settled on a definition for the “competition” in “great power competition.”
The uncertainty has left former officials scratching their heads about how, specifically, the Defense Department plans to counter China and Russia beneath the threshold of armed conflict. It also appears to be pulling the Pentagon’s policy planners beyond their traditional purview of fighting and winning wars.
“The NDS has two pieces to it: it says you have to compete with China and Russia and prepare for conflict with China and Russia,” said Mara Karlin, a former deputy assistant defense secretary for strategy and force development. “Those are different. The way you would manage and develop your force is different depending on which one you are biasing towards.” more>
Posted in Business, Economy, Education, History, Leadership, Media, Net, Science, Technology
Tagged Business improvement, Capital, Government, Leadership, Super regions, Technology, United States