Law

Mood affiliation aside, these clauses do not constitute a significant reason to oppose the treaty, in my view.  Gary Hufbauer has a good discussion:

ISDS provisions enable a foreign investor to seek compensation in an amount determined by an impartial panel of arbitrators, if a host government expropriates its property, or regulates its business in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. Such protections have been deemed necessary in agreements going back at least to a Germany-Pakistan accord in 1959, and they have successfully protected US investments overseas in many countries.

Often these ISDS provisions are part of bilateral investment treaties (BITs), of which more than 2,200 are now in force worldwide. The United States has 41 BITs with countries near and far, and is actively negotiating a BIT with China, aimed at strengthening the rights of investors in a country that has not always been fair. Starting with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, the United States has also included ISDS in the investment chapters in nearly all its free trade agreements (FTAs), now numbering 20. Given this rich history, Senator Warren should be able to cite actual examples of the multiple abuses that she claims have occurred. She has not done so, because she cannot. Senator Warren makes a big deal about the hypothetical outcome of the old Methanex case against California’s regulations on gasoline additives, but the case was decided against the Canadian corporation.

The record shows that, far from a record of multinational corporations trampling sovereign states, investors have won fewer than a third of the cases resolved by the ISDS process.1 Arbitration procedures were formalized in 1996, when the World Bank created the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as a neutral forum to handle ISDS claims. Similar fora are based in London, Paris, and Stockholm, but ICSID oversees the vast majority of claims. To date, ICSID has handled almost 500 cases.2 Of these, 36 percent were settled between the parties before going to arbitration. The arbitrators declined to hear 16 percent of claims for want of jurisdiction. They dismissed 19 percent of claims for lack of merit. Only in 29 percent of cases did the arbitrators uphold some or all of the business claims.

The full post is here.

I was going to write a post on how trolls aren’t the fundamental problem with the patent system but Timothy Lee has it covered:

…trolls aren’t the primary problem with the patent system. They’re just the problem Congress is willing to fix. The primary problem with the patent system is, well, the patent system. The system makes it too easy to get broad, vague patents, and the litigation process is tilted too far toward plaintiffs. But because so many big companies make so much money off of this system, few in Congress are willing to consider broader reforms.

A modern example is Microsoft, which has more than 40,000 patents and reportedly earns billions of dollars per year in patent licensing revenues from companies selling Android phones. That’s not because Google was caught copying Microsoft’s Windows Phone software (which has never been very popular with consumers). Rather, it’s because low standards for patents — especially in software — have allowed Microsoft to amass a huge number of patents on routine characteristics of mobile operating systems. Microsoft’s patent arsenal has become so huge that it’s effectively impossible to create a mobile operating system without infringing some of them. And so Microsoft can demand that smaller, more innovative companies pay them off.

… In effect, the patent system is acting as an innovation tax, transferring wealth from companies that are creating successful technologies today to companies that acquired a lot of patents a decade ago.

A more fundamental change would be to offer patents of varying length, say 3, 7, and 20 years with the understanding that 3 year patents will be approved quickly but 20 year patents will be required to leap a high hurdle on non-obviousness, prior art and so forth. See my paper Patent Theory versus Patent Law.

My video on patents is a quick and fun introduction.

Which VPNs are working these days?  What other advice do you have for me, when it comes to accessing the internet?  Is accessing some sites easier with a Mac?  Can GMU email be accessed without a VPN?  WordPress?  MR?  Is there a difference between iPhones and iPads and laptops in these regards?

I thank you all in advance for your assistance.

Not for Greece, that is clear, rather for everyone else.  Given bank recapitalization, the introduction of the European Stability Mechanism, European QE, a more general flood of liquidity to European banks, and a burgeoning European economic recovery — by European standards that is — it seems Grexit stands a good chance of being a non-event at the global or even the European level.  After all, Greece is only a small sliver of EU gdp; a few years ago it was only two percent, now presumably it is less.  On top of that, most of the remaining Greek debt is to public sector institutions, not private banks, which ought to limit contagion effects.  Indeed, as Greek bond yields rise, these days the bond yields of the periphery nations do not rise in tandem; some in fact have been falling.

So what’s the problem?

I think 80-20 that Grexit would not become a major macroeconomic problem for other countries, with the possible exception of small Cyprus.  But where does that 20% come from?

If Greek deposit flight forces a form of Grexit, whether whole or partial (capital controls plus scrip?), there is a good chance that markets will in essence “ask” the ECB again just how firmly it stands behind the other troubled eurozone member nations, such as Portugal.  The danger is that the current “creative ambiguity” cannot be disturbed in a useful way.  It might be hard for the ECB to announce that it stands fully behind the other eurozone nations, and in effect promise to monetize any pending default.  The incentive for moral hazard would be too destructive, and besides governments such as that of Spain don’t want to encourage the anti-austerity opposition.  The ECB is therefore likely to make a public commitment less extreme than that.

But neither will “we don’t really stand behind these governments at all” do the trick.  That probably would induce contagion along some other parts of the periphery, maybe more.

The ECB therefore must choose some intermediate point to signal — “we are committed, but member nations still bear fiscal risk.”  In part that is why they have rearranged the ex ante guarantees to fall so firmly upon national central banks, a move which some have compared to turning the euro into a currency board system.  Ex post, of course, the ECB or EU still has the discretionary option of bailing out those central banks, if and when it chooses to do so.  And, following Grexit, they could credibly say “The EU would have bailed out Greece, had an agreement on structural adjustment been reached and previous commitments honored.”  That’s basically a repeat of previous messages and maybe it is good enough.  That is where the 80% comes from.

So which ingredients will shape the new (old) message?: an intelligent but constrained ECB with a highly restrictive charter, a Europe-dedicated and wishing to atone for Grexit but electorally cautious Germany, a bunch of periphery nations which basically want any and all guarantees reserved for themselves and not for opposition parties, and lots of other voices, all mixed into a more or less unprecedented shock surprise in modern financial history.

So will the ECB get the signal right? Did I say 80-20?  Can I change that to…um…70-30?

In a specifically Vietnamese context, there is good evidence that more trade with Vietnam will bring more FDI.  A more general political science study shows the same, namely that joining trade agreements boosts FDI and also growth.

Here is an argument (circa 2005) that Vietnam still has too much trade protection.  Here is a good general piece that trade boosts poverty reduction in poorer nations.  Here is supporting evidence specifically on rural Vietnam.

Those are just a few follow-ups on my earlier post on TPP and Vietnam.  By the way, here is Greg Mankiw showing that TPP is in fact a trade agreement.

I have read and heard many times that TPP will bring harsher intellectual property law than is appropriate for the poorer Asian countries, noting that over time we can expect more of them to join the agreement.  In general poorer countries often benefit from weaker IP enforcement, more copying, and lower prices.  This is standard stuff.

It is less commonly recognized by the critics, however, that tougher IP protection may induce more foreign direct investment.  Why for instance invest in a country which might subject your patents and copyrights to an undesired form of compulsory licensing?  Trade agreements are likely to rule out or restrict such risks.  There will be more cross-border licensing activity as well, if there is tougher IP enforcement.  A company might even set up an R&D facility in a upper-tier developing country.

Carsten Fink and Kwith E. Maskus have an entire volume on these questions, Intellectual Property and Development.  Here is one sample bit from their introduction (pdf):

IPRs are quite important for multinational firms making location decisions among middle-income countries with strong abilities to absorb and learn technology.

You will note however that the effect is not there for poorer countries.  But in general:

…stronger IPRs have a significantly positive effect on total trade.

And this:

The study’s findings support a positive role for IPRs in stimulating enterprise development and innovation in developing countries.

I would say the volume, and the surrounding literature, as a whole provides some positive support for how IP rights may boost economic development, though not overwhelming or unambiguous support.  And the literature does not support a “one size fits all” approach to IP law; in this sense TPP is far from ideal.  But still, the literature does find some very real development benefits when a country moves to tougher IP rights.

But here’s the thing: TPP opponents simply tell us that bad and too tight IP law will be foisted upon the world’s economies.  I see talk of Aaron Schwartz and Mickey Mouse extensions, but I don’t see enough of the critics weighing the costs and benefits, or for that matter even mentioning the possible benefits of extending IP regimes.  I think the benefits of this IP extension may well outweigh the costs, when it comes to the developing nations involved in TPP.  At the very least it seems to me up for grabs.  And I certainly don’t think that voting down TPP this time around is going to lead to a more favorable redo of the agreement, not on IP for sure.

So IP considerations are not weighing nearly as much against TPP as you might think.

In a word, Vietnam.  Vietnam has about ninety million people and a relatively low per capita income, below by 2k by some measures.  It liberalized tariffs a good deal upon WTO accession, but since then has done some backsliding.  It has large numbers of state-owned enterprises, and its policies toward such enterprises could use more transparency and predictability, as indeed TPP would bring.  Most generally, Vietnam is not today a free country.  Bringing Vietnam into TPP would further ensure their attachment to a broadly liberal global trading order.  TPP also would bring free(r) labor unions to Vietnam.

Tuong Lai writes (see the first link above):

But Vietnam cannot play its significant geopolitical role until it fully develops economically and further liberalizes politically. And adopting the T.P.P.’s requirements — free trade unions, reduced state participation in the economy, greater transparency — will help Vietnam along that route.

Many potential TPP signers still have significant tariffs against Vietnamese textiles?  Here is Jack Sheehan:

Vietnam is set to gain the most from the TPP due to the potential for a greater share of the apparel and footwear market, particularly in the US and Japan.

In 2012, Vietnam exported almost $7bn (£4.2bn) worth of apparel to the US, which accounted for 34% of US apparel imports. Vietnam also exported $2.4bn worth of footwear.

The TPP will allow Vietnam to export apparel to the US at a 0% tariff rate, which will make Vietnamese exports even more competitive.

Here is an assessment from the Peterson Institute that Vietnam will be the biggest gainer from TPP.  Do you get that, progressives?  Poorest country = biggest gainer.  Isn’t that what we are looking for?  And if you are a deontologist, Vietnam is a country we have been especially unjust to in the past.

Yes, I am familiar with the IP and tech criticisms of TPP, and I agree with many of them.  But if you add those costs up, in utilitarian terms I doubt if they amount to more than a fraction of the potential benefit for the ninety million people of Vietnam.  TPP is more of a “no brainer” than a close call.

Most generally, one of the big dangers today is “The Great Unraveling of Globalization.”  Is the passing or the striking down of TPP more likely to contribute to that trend?  People, you are allowed only three guesses on that one.

Getting a speeding ticket is not a feel-good moment for anyone. But consider Reima Kuisla, a Finnish businessman.

He was recently fined 54,024 euros (about $58,000) for traveling a modest, if illegal, 64 miles per hour in a 50 m.p.h. zone. And no, the 54,024 euros did not turn out to be a typo, or a mistake of any kind.

Mr. Kuisla is a millionaire, and in Finland the fines for more serious speeding infractions are calculated according to income. The thinking here is that if it stings for the little guy, it should sting for the big guy, too.

…The fines are calculated based on half an offender’s daily net income, with some consideration for the number of children under his or her roof and a deduction deemed to be enough to cover basic living expenses, currently 255 euros per month.

Then, that figure is multiplied by the number of days of income the offender should lose, according to the severity of the offense.

Mr. Kuisla, a betting man who parlayed his winnings into a real estate empire, was clocked speeding near the Seinajoki airport. Given the speed he was going, Mr. Kuisla was assessed eight days. His fine was then calculated from his 2013 income, 6,559,742 euros, or more than $7 million at current exchange rates.

The full story is here, and in a much earlier MR post I argue against the practice.  Wealthier people have a higher value of time, and it is probably efficient to allow them to speed more.

Financial Post: Canada is now the first country in the world to require that for every new regulation introduced one of equivalent burden must be removed.

C-21, has been operating as policy for several years already, which means that the costs of new rules must be quantified and equal or greater costs removed. It essentially caps the cost of rules coming directly from regulations.

This is not quite as radical as it sounds. As I understand it, the law applies only to new bureaucratic rules and regulations not to legislation. Nevertheless, it’s reasonable to force regulatory bureaucracies to operate within a budget so that new rules are promulgated only when the new rule is expected to be an improvement over existing rules taking into account all costs.

Chad writes me:

What jobs (particularly ones we think of as being inherently beneficial to society) might America have too many of? Political journalism comes to mind this particular month, since we apparently have enough to carefully monitor the Chipotle orders of presidential candidates 19 months before the election. Writers might be another, particularly in a world of self-publishing.

One can imagine lots of reasons for a greater-than-optimal number of people in a particular profession, from government subsidies to cultural biases, but I’m curious if you have a gut feeling about any professions in particular.

A good question, in my view the answer is not so simple.  Writers and artists are indeed a possible nomination, but some of the demand for these professions is likely for consumption, which makes the overinvestment difficult to judge.  And what about lawyers?  Relative to the number of laws and regulations (too many in my view, but take them as given), it is not obvious to me that we have too many lawyers.  Someone has to tell companies when it is safe to proceed, or not.

How about too many people selling medical devices and other high margin items?  Too many people making alcohol?  Too many people raising and selling animal meat?  Those would be my picks.

The finance sector is another obvious culprit, but as a fraction of wealth I do not think it is larger than in the past.  Admittedly people in the finance sector may be engaging in the wrong activities, but I am not sure the case for fewer employees per se is so obvious.  Still, it is another candidate, if only because it (often) involves people selling high-margin items.

I had not known such a thing exists:

There are raisins stored in California warehouses as part of the U.S. government’s National Raisin Reserve — but the program may shrivel in the face of a Supreme Court challenge.

The National Raisin Reserve — which is overseen by the Fresno-based Raisin Administrative Committee — is part of post-World War II-era program that forces raisin producers to give part of their annual crop to the government to prevent an oversupply of the dried fruit. Controversially, the program seizes the raisins from the farmers without paying them, and that has created friction, lawbreaking farmers, and a Supreme Court case. One scofflaw farmer, Marvin Horne, has refused to surrender his raisins to the government and owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and over 1 million pounds of the sweet dried fruit to Uncle Sam.

The controversial raisin-seizing program could soon be, however, a relic of history.

Several Supreme Court justices expressed doubts Wednesday that federal officials can legally take raisins away from farmers without full payment even if the goal is to help boost overall market prices.

The article is here, via Jeffrey Lessard.  Here is commentary from Ilya Somin, here is an IJ video on the case.

…the warden of the Lee Correctional Institute, Cecilia Reynolds, said that in recent weeks her officers found 17 phones in one inmate’s cell. She said she suspected that the phones continue to come in on drones.

There is more here, interesting throughout.  How about this bit?:

Prison officials, echoing Ms. Reynolds, say that convicts and their families and friends are willing to pay more than $1,000 to get a device – like an iPhone — into a prison. Smartphones are so desirable because unlike pay phones at prisons, they are not recorded or monitored, enabling gang leaders to freely run their criminal activities from behind bars. The phones also allow them to watch pornography and communicate surreptitiously with fellow prisoners.

The phones are essential for coordinating with smugglers using drones, because the prisoners need to know where to find the deliveries in the yard. Most important for the smugglers, the prisoners can then use the phones to quickly pay them.

How about blocking cell phone signals inside the jail?  Elsewhere, a possibly radioactive drone was found on the roof of the office of Prime Minister Abe.  As I’ve said already on Twitter, the drone wars have begun…

Jonathan Chait writes:

At a growing number of campuses, professors now attach “trigger warnings” to texts that may upset students, and there is a campaign to eradicate “microaggressions,” or small social slights that might cause searing trauma. These newly fashionable terms merely repackage a central tenet of the first p.c. movement: that people should be expected to treat even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as full-scale offenses.

Read his whole discussion, but he more or less disapproves.  I’ve long wanted to disagree with Chait “from the left,” and it seems this is my chance, I had better grab it while I can.

While teaching Law and Literature this year, I attached very gentle, low key “trigger warnings” to a number of items on the syllabus, namely those dealing with extreme violence, rape, and some other very unpleasant situations.  I am glad I did this.  I told students that if they preferred to do a substitute assignment, I could arrange that.  Is that so unreasonable?  There were no takers, but I don’t see it did anyone harm or limited free speech in the classroom (or outside of it) to make this offer.  If anything, it may have eased speech a slight amount by noting it is OK to feel uncomfortable with some topics, or at least serving up that possibility into the realm of common knowledge.  That struck me as better and wiser than simply pretending we were studying the successful operation of the Coase theorem the whole time.

I don’t doubt that trigger warnings may be misused in some situations by some professors, but overall they seem to me like another small step to a better world.  I do agree we need to liberate trigger warnings from the strictures of the PC movement, no argument there.

Addendum: I am pleased to see that GMU was moved into the highest category for university free speech, according to FIRE.

Or at least a plague on Louisville?  From Emily Badger in The Washington Post:

…they took advantage of a kind of natural experiment: In 2011, Louisville converted two one-way streets near downtown, each a little more than a mile long, back to two-way traffic. In data that they gathered over the following three years, Gilderbloom and William Riggs found that traffic collisions dropped steeply — by 36 percent on one street and 60 percent on the other — after the conversion, even as the number of cars traveling these roads increased. Crime dropped too, by about a quarter, as crime in the rest of the city was rising. Property values rose, as did business revenue and pedestrian traffic, relative to before the change and to a pair of nearby comparison streets. The city, as a result, now stands to collect higher property tax revenues along these streets, and to spend less sending first-responders to accidents there.

Gilderbloom and Riggs have also done an analysis of the entire city of Louisville, comparing Census tracts with multi-lane one-way streets to those without them. The basic pattern holds city-wide: They found that the risk of a crash is twice as high for people riding through neighborhoods with these one-way streets. The property values in census tracts there were also about half the value of homes in the rest of the city.

The full story is here.

This passage shook me up, bravo to the author:

…although nonviolence was crucial to the gains made by the freedom struggle of the 1950s and 1960s, those gains could not have been achieved without the complementary and still underappreciated practice of armed self-defense.  The claim that armed self-defense was a necessary aspect of the civil rights movement is still controversial.  However, wielding weapons, especially firearms, let both participants in nonviolent struggle and their sympathizers protect themselves and others under terrorist attack for their civil rights activities.  This willingness to use deadly force ensured the survival not only of countless brave men and women but also of the freedom struggle itself.

That is from the recent book This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible, by Charles E. Cobb, Jr.  Also related is the 1962 book Negroes with Guns, by Robert F. Williams, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Truman Nelson, about the use of guns for protection against the Ku Klux Klan.  Martin Luther King of course did keep a gun in the house, and he relied on neighbors who, at times, protected his house by carrying guns.