Property Rules and Liability Rules: Another View of the Cathedral

I loved the now-famous 1972 article by Calabresi and Melamed when I first read it. It helped me understand with much greater clarity, the fundementals of the economic analysis of law.



It was with some relief that I read this abstract, indicating that recent criticisms of the C-M article are off the mark.

Keith N. Hylton (2006) “Property Rules and Liability Rules, Once Again”, Review of Law & Economics: Vol. 2: No. 2, Article 1.

ABSTRACT:

In recent years, new articles presenting rigorous analyses of bargaining incentives have overturned some of the fundamental claims made by Calabresi and Melamed in their seminal article on property rules and liability rules published in 1972. In particular, the proposition that property rules are socially preferable to liability rules when transaction costs are low appears to be either no longer valid or severely weakened under the new analyses. This paper reexamines the property rule versus liability rule question in light of the contributions of the recent bargaining theory literature. In contrast to this literature, I find that the fundamental propositions of Calabresi-Melamed remain valid, and I extend the framework to provide a more detailed positive economic theory of common law rules. The key contribution of this paper is pointing out the importance of subjective valuations in the analysis of property and liability rules. This allows for a synthesis of Calabresi-Melamed and the bargaining theory literature within an expanded framework.

Still Another Reason Jimmy Carter Was the Worst President the US Ever Had?

In my economics of sports class, I put a “did you do the reading?” bonus question on the midterm:

When and under what justification did major league baseball receive its U.S. anti-trust exemption?

One student, who likely reads this blog on a regular basis, wrote,

In 1978 because Jimmy Carter was a Mets fan.

So Much For Balanced Reporting;Doesn’t Anyone in the Mainstream Media See Any Problems with the Stern Review?

One of the big complaints my colleagues and I have often had about the media is that they search out crackpots to provide “balanced” opposition to mainstream economics analysis. Media editors have defended this practice saying that they must remain unbiased, and they try to present all sides of a story.

Why don’t they do this when they cover global warming issues?

Here is just one example of the recent coverage of the Stern Review from the United Kingdom. The Stern Review, itself, provides no hint that there are people who question whether global warming is happening. It also provides no idea that there are people who question whether, if it is happening, it is due to the burning of carbon-based fuels. And yet there is considerable and mounting evidence that questions these “facts” as presented by both the Stern Review and GlobalTV News are under substantial attack by reasonable scholars.

Where are the interviews with, say, Chris Essex or Ross McKittrick? What about the sources listed in State of Fear? How has global warming become such an accepted fact when maybe it isn’t?

So much for balanced and unbiased reporting.

Stephen Pollard is also skeptical. And I guess this should not surprise us at all.

.

Let me reiterate: I don’t know that global warming is not happening or is not caused by carbon-based fuels. My major concern is that there are clearly some criticisms of the received doctrine, and these criticisms should receive more coverage by a balanced media.

Update: Typos, etc., corrected. They were my version of spluttering.

So Much For Balanced Reporting;Doesn’t Anyone in the Mainstream Media See Any Problems with the Stern Review?

One of the big complaints my colleagues and I have often had about the media is that they search out crackpots to provide “balanced” opposition to mainstream economics analysis. Media editors have defended this practice saying that they must remain unbiased, and they try to present all sides of a story.

Why don’t they do this when they cover global warming issues?

Here is just one example of the recent coverage of the Stern Review from the United Kingdom. The Stern Review, itself, provides no hint that there are people who question whether global warming is happening. It also provides no idea that there are people who question whether, if it is happening, it is due to the burning of carbon-based fuels. And yet there is considerable and mounting evidence that questions these “facts” as presented by both the Stern Review and GlobalTV News are under substantial attack by reasonable scholars.

Where are the interviews with, say, Chris Essex or Ross McKittrick? What about the sources listed in State of Fear? How has global warming become such an accepted fact when maybe it isn’t?

So much for balanced and unbiased reporting.

Stephen Pollard is also skeptical. And I guess this should not surprise us at all.

.

Let me reiterate: I don’t know that global warming is not happening or is not caused by carbon-based fuels. My major concern is that there are clearly some criticisms of the received doctrine, and these criticisms should receive more coverage by a balanced media.

Update: Typos, etc., corrected. They were my version of spluttering.

So Much For Balanced Reporting;Doesn’t Anyone in the Mainstream Media See Any Problems with the Stern Review?

One of the big complaints my colleagues and I have often had about the media is that they search out crackpots to provide “balanced” opposition to mainstream economics analysis. Media editors have defended this practice saying that they must remain unbiased, and they try to present all sides of a story.

Why don’t they do this when they cover global warming issues?

Here is just one example of the recent coverage of the Stern Review from the United Kingdom. The Stern Review, itself, provides no hint that there are people who question whether global warming is happening. It also provides no idea that there are people who question whether, if it is happening, it is due to the burning of carbon-based fuels. And yet there is considerable and mounting evidence that questions these “facts” as presented by both the Stern Review and GlobalTV News are under substantial attack by reasonable scholars.

Where are the interviews with, say, Chris Essex or Ross McKittrick? What about the sources listed in State of Fear? How has global warming become such an accepted fact when maybe it isn’t?

So much for balanced and unbiased reporting.

Stephen Pollard is also skeptical. And I guess this should not surprise us at all.

.

Let me reiterate: I don’t know that global warming is not happening or is not caused by carbon-based fuels. My major concern is that there are clearly some criticisms of the received doctrine, and these criticisms should receive more coverage by a balanced media.

Update: Typos, etc., corrected. They were my version of spluttering.

The Carnival of Recipes

The Carnival of Recipes, with many interesting recipes for Hallowe’en, is up here.

The Carnival of Recipes

The Carnival of Recipes, with many interesting recipes for Hallowe’en, is up here.

Canadian Armed Forces Stretched, Reduce Standards for New RecruitsJoin the Army, Not a Gym!”

The Canadian Armed Forces are in a bind. Canada has made a strong commitment to take on quite a bit in Afghanistan, but does not seem to be able to recruit enough soldiers to do the job. And, as happens in all walks of life, the Armed Forces has had to choose whether to offer a more attractive package or to lower its quality threshold. The Forces appear to have chosen the latter.

A minimum level of fitness is no longer required of those who wish to join the Canadian Forces.



A notice posted in the recruiting section of Canada’s military website says that, as of Oct. 1, the regular test to determine physical capabilities that has traditionally been demanded of all new applicants has been eliminated.



It’s a change that comes as the Forces, stretched to the limit with deployment of more than 2,200 soldiers in Afghanistan, tries to increase its ranks by 8,000 members over the next five years even as attrition is depleting them.



After joining the Forces, however, recruits will still be subject to a medical examination — and those who can’t meet the grade physically will be turned over to trainers who will try to get them into the kind of condition required to begin their life in the military, the notice on the website says.

This could turn into a great recruiting tool. Instead of making it look as if they are lowering their standards, the Forces could spin it to look like a sweeter offer to new recruits:

Why pay to join a gym or fitness club, when the Forces will pay you to get in shape?
And you will be serving your country at the same time!

What puzzles me about this shortage of recruits is that there are lots of us old farts wandering around who might be pretty good soldiers for many tasks, but the Forces do not seem interested in us. A lot of us could pass the physical without any preparation (20 situps, 20 pushups, and 2.5kms in 12 minutes), but even if we couldn’t, there are lots of things we could be doing in the Canadian forces.



Last week I sent their recruiting website a simple question, “What is the maximum age for someone to join the forces?” and you know what? They have not bothered to reply. If they are so desperate for new recruits, why don’t they answer their mail? Maybe they could take on old-fart new recruits to do that for them at the very least.

Canadian Armed Forces Stretched, Reduce Standards for New RecruitsJoin the Army, Not a Gym!”

The Canadian Armed Forces are in a bind. Canada has made a strong commitment to take on quite a bit in Afghanistan, but does not seem to be able to recruit enough soldiers to do the job. And, as happens in all walks of life, the Armed Forces has had to choose whether to offer a more attractive package or to lower its quality threshold. The Forces appear to have chosen the latter.

A minimum level of fitness is no longer required of those who wish to join the Canadian Forces.



A notice posted in the recruiting section of Canada’s military website says that, as of Oct. 1, the regular test to determine physical capabilities that has traditionally been demanded of all new applicants has been eliminated.



It’s a change that comes as the Forces, stretched to the limit with deployment of more than 2,200 soldiers in Afghanistan, tries to increase its ranks by 8,000 members over the next five years even as attrition is depleting them.



After joining the Forces, however, recruits will still be subject to a medical examination — and those who can’t meet the grade physically will be turned over to trainers who will try to get them into the kind of condition required to begin their life in the military, the notice on the website says.

This could turn into a great recruiting tool. Instead of making it look as if they are lowering their standards, the Forces could spin it to look like a sweeter offer to new recruits:

Why pay to join a gym or fitness club, when the Forces will pay you to get in shape?
And you will be serving your country at the same time!

What puzzles me about this shortage of recruits is that there are lots of us old farts wandering around who might be pretty good soldiers for many tasks, but the Forces do not seem interested in us. A lot of us could pass the physical without any preparation (20 situps, 20 pushups, and 2.5kms in 12 minutes), but even if we couldn’t, there are lots of things we could be doing in the Canadian forces.



Last week I sent their recruiting website a simple question, “What is the maximum age for someone to join the forces?” and you know what? They have not bothered to reply. If they are so desperate for new recruits, why don’t they answer their mail? Maybe they could take on old-fart new recruits to do that for them at the very least.

Canadian Armed Forces Stretched, Reduce Standards for New RecruitsJoin the Army, Not a Gym!”

The Canadian Armed Forces are in a bind. Canada has made a strong commitment to take on quite a bit in Afghanistan, but does not seem to be able to recruit enough soldiers to do the job. And, as happens in all walks of life, the Armed Forces has had to choose whether to offer a more attractive package or to lower its quality threshold. The Forces appear to have chosen the latter.

A minimum level of fitness is no longer required of those who wish to join the Canadian Forces.



A notice posted in the recruiting section of Canada’s military website says that, as of Oct. 1, the regular test to determine physical capabilities that has traditionally been demanded of all new applicants has been eliminated.



It’s a change that comes as the Forces, stretched to the limit with deployment of more than 2,200 soldiers in Afghanistan, tries to increase its ranks by 8,000 members over the next five years even as attrition is depleting them.



After joining the Forces, however, recruits will still be subject to a medical examination — and those who can’t meet the grade physically will be turned over to trainers who will try to get them into the kind of condition required to begin their life in the military, the notice on the website says.

This could turn into a great recruiting tool. Instead of making it look as if they are lowering their standards, the Forces could spin it to look like a sweeter offer to new recruits:

Why pay to join a gym or fitness club, when the Forces will pay you to get in shape?
And you will be serving your country at the same time!

What puzzles me about this shortage of recruits is that there are lots of us old farts wandering around who might be pretty good soldiers for many tasks, but the Forces do not seem interested in us. A lot of us could pass the physical without any preparation (20 situps, 20 pushups, and 2.5kms in 12 minutes), but even if we couldn’t, there are lots of things we could be doing in the Canadian forces.



Last week I sent their recruiting website a simple question, “What is the maximum age for someone to join the forces?” and you know what? They have not bothered to reply. If they are so desperate for new recruits, why don’t they answer their mail? Maybe they could take on old-fart new recruits to do that for them at the very least.