Torts is my Everest; it's the class I have put by far the most time, work and thought into, and it also seems to be the one that requires the most intellectual capacity (though perhaps that is a subjective analysis). The exam, which is on Tuesday, will be the last frontier of measuring my self-worth when it comes to law school's yardstick of success... if I fail here, there is no excuse because I am as prepared as I can be.
Torts involves a lot of underlying connections between different areas: proximate cause to duty, alternative design in products liability to negligence, blah blah blah. As I've been making these connections for the past few days, here are some interelated connections I have been making recently BEYOND Torts:
Pinochet Died. I'll shed less tears than I did for Nixon.
Click here to continue on an amazing journey onboard my Train of Thought
Pinochet, though, made me think of Milton Friedman, who was his economic advisor and arguably the silver lining of the dark cloud that was the Pinochet regime of terror.
Here's a particularly good article by Brad DeLong (Berkeley economist) on the differing world view of Friedman and Keynes, whom in may ways did not differ that much at all. Both understood the empirical realities of markets, much of what is "agreed upon" by economists today. Where they differed was on the degree of the role of government involvement in the economy. In a sense, their views are paradigmatic: Keynes sees a role for a patriarchal technocratic government limiting the ravages of laissez faire capitalism, while Friedman argued that the corruption, bureaucracy, and limitations on freedom embodied in government were greater evils than the inequities wrought by free markets. In my view, both are wrong, and both are right... the answer lies somewhere in the tension between these two viewpoints.
This tension lives on in the current debates on Latin America. Here's a view from the Right (although in the leftist press) by Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff on how the rise of the leftist governments threatens Latin America's economic prospects. And here's a view from the Left by CEPR's Mark Weisbrot, on how fears of the rise of populism in Latin America are misguided as their economies are cruising along. Both of these viewpoints, while important expressions of the necessary tension at opposite poles, miss the target because of their rigid ideological approach. Rogoff would have us equate the growth of political populism with economic stagnation, which is obviously not true in either practice or theory. And Weisbrot wants to overlook the troubling tendencies of Chavez and the dangers of an antagonistic stance towards foreign investment because, so far, the economies have been doing well and have reduced inequality to some degree. Again, I believe that the answers lies somewhere in the tension: it is important for societies to be economically viable and politically open, but not to the point of inequality and conformity to a US-centric approach to democracy and cooperation.
Here's an interesting take on Chavez: Revolutionary or astute businessman? Is his free heating-oil program really foreign aid to help the poor of the US, or is it good ole' corporate advertising for Venezuela's US company, CITGO, disguised as charity? Or is it both? Check out these advertisements that have been all over Slate.
Another tension related to these topics: Another Harvard economist, Jeffrey Sachs' view on how the main impediment in development is the West's reticence to provide foreign aid for development, while others argue that it is internal political conditions that prevent aid from being used successfully for development. Who's right? Probably both.
More development and politics: here's an article from the Times on today's award ceremony for Nobel Peace Prize Winner Muhammad Yunnus and the Grameen Bank entitled "Nobel Winner Warns of Dangers of Globalization". The title of the article is a bit of a pet-peeve, as it makes it seem as if Yunus believes that we should therefore "stop" globalization. I often find relatively misinformed people who believe that "globalization" is a "choice" made by the IMF and some cabal of capitalists, as opposed to what it really is: a historical trend that is due to uncontrollable changes in economic means and modes of production (a marxian analysis if there ever was one!). It's clear from both Yunus' comments and from his general work that he does not hold this misperception... he understands that globalization is not a force that can be "stopped", but that instead we must put political will into making structural adjustments (such as microcredit programs) needed to alleviate the suffering of those who are most economically displaced by the trend. Anyway... I was annoyed how the headline is one that feeds the misperception. However, another interesting tension: the need to create global market conditions that allow for economic expansion and recognize economic realities but at the same time do not leave behind those least equipped to take advantage of them.
The Yankees signed Andy Pettite. I know, it's not interrelated. But it did make me happy. Hopefully this time he won't put ads on the subway trying to convince NY'ers to read the Bible.
Back to Torts.
