Book Review: End this Depression Now! by Paul Krugman

Today I finished reading “End this Depression Now!” by Paul Krugman. In this book, Paul Krugman argues for fiscal expansionary policy with the objective of ending the depression. This is an excellent book that argues this side of the economic debate in layman’s terms, while at the same time addressing the “Austerians” objections to a strong expansionary policy.

This book can be broken up into several different topics that the book is not formally split into. First, the sources of the current problems, the economics behind the problem,  objections to expansionary fiscal policies, differences between the United States’ and Europe’s crisis, and solutions.

Krugman’s arguments are derived from history and basic Keynesian economics. However, most of the book deals with the objections to Keynesian Economics. The objections to an expansionary fiscal policy that Krugman addresses are:

1. Experience shows that fiscal stimulus doesn’t work.
2. Bigger deficits would undermine confidence.
3. There aren’t enough good projects to spend on.

These objections are adequately addressed, however there are a few assumptions that would need to be examined more in depth to complete his arguments and convince many. For example, Krugman only briefly discusses why he believes the United States is in a liquidity trap and he also only briefly discusses why government expenditures created through the accumulation of debt have a net positive impact on the economy in the long run. The book is based on these two issues, but they are not discussed in depth. Another issue that he stated in the beginning of the book that he would address was how the government could flood the economy with an expansionary fiscal policy and then successfully decrease the level of government involvement in the economy without resulting in a contraction. However, an adequate analysis of these issues would probably be beyond the scope of the text. There are many other objections to Keynesian economics, but Krugman does address the most important ones in today's political arena.

Krugman is critical of the Obama administration for not seeking a sufficiently expansionary policy that would actually rescue the economy. However, most of his criticism is directed at Republicans because of their opposition to expansionary fiscal and monetary policy. But he does not particularly target either party, rather he targets a line of thought that he names. For example, he uses the terms ‘deficit hawks’ and ‘bond vigilantes,’ to refer to people who are trying to reduce deficit spending during a recession. 

This book is dedicated “[t]o the unemployed, who deserve better.” And rightly so, few other objectives are as valuable as decreasing unemployment in the field of economics.

Overall, I would rate this book 9.5/10. While one might not necessarily agree with all that Krugman argues or states in this book, it is worth the read so that one is familiar with the fiscal expansionist point of view and the arguments for their policy.

Either way, Krugman probably got a kick out of this comic with all of his callings for a fake alien invasion.

Theories of Criminal Punishment

There are a variety of theories about why we punish criminals. While each theory has its adherents and critics, the theories themselves are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The discussion on the theories of criminal punishment is very important in today’s society because of the high level of recidivism in the United States. If criminal laws were implemented that were based on ineffective theories of punishments, these laws could result in an increase in crime rather than a decrease in crime. The following list of theories for criminal punishment is given in Wayne R. LaFave’s Hornbook on Criminal Law 5th Edition:

1. Prevention
2. Restraint
3. Rehabilitation
4. Deterrence.
5. Education
6. Retribution
7. Restoration

Prevention, which if also called intimidation, aims at convincing criminals from becoming recidivist by giving them an unpleasant experience that they do not wish to repeat. This theory of punishment differs from the deterrence theory because it is aimed at someone who is already a criminal rather than at someone who may become a criminal. This theory has been challenged due to the high degree of recidivists. Nonetheless, some argue that prevention should be the main goal of a criminal justice system.

Restraint is expressed as incapacitation, isolation, or disablement. It is the theory of punishment that argues that society may protect itself from individuals who have displayed violent tendencies. The argument is that restrained criminals cannot commit additional crimes. There are several criticisms against this theory including the destructive tendency that that formerly restrained individuals often inflict on society if they are not in some manner rehabilitated.

Rehabilitation is also called correction and sometimes reformation. This theory argues that society ought to “punish” a criminal by giving him appropriate treatment in order to return him to society as a ‘reformed’ individual. The focus in rehabilitation theories of punishment is towards making the criminal’s life better and by changing their behavior. Thus, there is little focus on suffering.  The primary criticism of this theory is that it fails to display results.

Deterrence is sometimes referred to as general prevention. This theory argues that the sufferings of the criminal are able to deter others from committing future crimes. The primary criticism against this theory is that it is ineffective. However, there seems to be some level of agreement that punishment is effective in deterrence at some level. Deterrence may not be effective for crimes of emotion, but it may be effective in reducing the number of individuals that become professional safebreakers.

Education, this theory argues that criminal punishment serves to educate the public regarding the distinctions between good and bad. While the general public may not need education regarding serious evil actions, they may need education for less serious crimes. A major criticism is that failure to prosecute under this theory also infers that the public has been educated not to consider certain actions a crime.

Retribution is the oldest theory of punishment. It is also called revenge or retaliation (or even the “just deserts” theory.) It derives from the principle that the one who has caused harm to society should himself suffer for that harm. The primary criticism is that retribution is merely retaliation and serves no moral or practical purpose. However, supports of this theory claim that it provides a check against tyranny because a person is only punished when he deserves it, and is not punished when he does not deserve it. Likewise, supporters of this theory reject utilitarian approaches on punishment because they hold the view that punishment ought to not be inflicted upon a person in order to benefit society as a whole.

Restoration, also called restorative justice, focuses making amends for the offending, particularly the harm caused to the victim, rather than inflicting pain upon the offender. This is done through a process of the criminal recognizing the wrongfulness of his actions and expressing remorse for the resulting injury and taking necessary steps to repair the wrong. The critics of this theory argue that Restoration Theories treat like criminals unequally, and that it is ineffective in reducing crime.

Aquisition by Find

Acquisition by Find:

The Scottish proverb “finder’s keepers, loser’s weepers,” is not entirely accurate. Under common law, the finder of property holds that property in trust for the benefit of the true owner.  What is true, however, is that the finder of property has rights to that property that is superior to the rights of everyone else. Ironically, these rights are considered good against the “whole world.” “The title of the finder is good against the whole world but the true owner.” Ray A. Brown, The Law of Personal Property 26 (Walter B Raushenbush 3d ed. 1975). 

One of the most famous cases involving this principle is the case of Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange 505 (K.B. 1722): Where a chimney sweep found a jewel, and carried it to the shop of the Defendant, a goldsmith. He asks the goldsmith’s apprentice to examine it. The apprentice took out the stones, and refused to return them. The court held for the chimney sweeper, the finder of the object, although chimney sweeper did not by finding acquire absolute ownership, he is entitled to possess it against anyone but the true owner. (For a more sophisticated application of some of these principles from Armory, See Long v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 97 (Ark. App. 2009), where a challenge of a good-faith valuation of missing items by a gemologist was made.)

What Constitutes Possession

In determining whether or not “possession” existed by the finder, there is a two part test. First, the finder must have physical control over the goods; and second, the finder must have the intent to assume dominion over the goods.

Lost vs. Mislaid property and Conflicts with Owners of Real Estate

The distinction between finding “lost” or “mislaid” property can be important in determining the rights of the finder. Mislaid property is when the property was intentionally put in a certain place. These objects are treated as if placed in the custody of the landowner. Lost property, on the other hand, has not clearly been intentionally placed. Lost property is likely to be awarded to the finder.

However there is a conflict between finders, and the owners of the property on which the property is found. English courts tend to award possession to the property owner. American Courts tend to award possession to the finder.

In McAvoy v. Medina, 11 Allen 548 (Mass. 1866) this distinction between mislaid property and lost property was important.  The finder, a customer in ∆’s barber shop, found a pocketbook that was left there by another customer. The barber and the finder disputed to whom the pocketbook should belong to. The court held that possession goes to the barber because the true owner intentionally placed the pocketbook on the barber’s table, and thus entrusted the pocketbook to barber’s care.

Estray Statutes

Most states have statutes (sometimes called estray statutes) that govern the character of lost and mislaid property. They often require that the finder of the property to report the find to a designated government official who enters the find into a public registry.

Chapter 169 of the Ohio Revised Code has the requirements for reporting and claiming unclaimed property in Ohio. Generally, Ohio has a statute of limitations of two years on claiming lost property.

Quotes:

“Possession is eleven points the law.” Colley Cribber, Woman’s wit, Act I (1697)

“Possession is very strong; rather more than nine points of the law. “ Lord Mansfield, Corporations of Kingston-upon-Hull v. Horner, 98 Eng. Rep. 807, 815 (1774).

Chateau Bellue Cholet (2010) Bordeaux

I am far too lazy to write an article tonight on contingent remainders after having a bottle of Chateau Bellue Cholet (2010) Bordeaux. I can only post the music that I listening to the most at the current moment. That music is Of Monsters and Men: Little Talks

The Best Wine: Bellevue Cholet 2010

This Bellevue Cholet was part of my mixed basic package  from WSJWine.com. I highly recommend this package for anyone who wants to experiment in wine tasting while getting a great deal. This wine bottle in particular is a mix with 50% Merlot, 30% Cabernet Sauvignon, and 20% Cabernet Franc (served at 64 degrees Celsius.) This bottle wine is imported from France and contains 13.5% alcohol. It is a red semi-dry wine 

The wall street journal recommends serving the bottle with a hearty white or red meat dish, while decanting an hour or so before serving. Traditionally it is recommended served with pot au feu. But if beef stew is not your style, it is also recommended with a firm cheese or a few slices of baguette.

 Personally, I think this wine goes with anything.