Saturday, September 17, 2011
Midwest Law & Economics Association Annual Meeting at Indiana
- Miichael Blinn (Cohen & Malad, Indianapolis), Behavioral Public Finance and the Value-Added Tax
- Bradley Borden (Brooklyn), Quantitative Inequity in Line-Drawing Analysis
- Gerrit De Geest (Washington U.), Overcoming Theoretical Indeterminacy
- Victor Fleischer (Colorado), Do Elite Tax Lawyers Add Value? An Empirical Study of Tax Receivables
- Daniel Katz (Michigan), Quantitative Legal Prediction
- Leandra Lederman, Which Cases Settle? A Large-Scale Empirical Study of U.S. Tax Court Cases
- Jonathan Nash (Tulane), Expertise and Judicial Opinion Assignment
- Eric Rasmusen (Indiana-Bloomington), Intermountain: Getting to the Top of the Hill
Sorry, Mike-- I don't mean to be mean-- but your misunderstanding is just too funny not to repeat here. Your post on critical tax said:
"Critical tax started out as an inspiring movement with a lot to say. Unfortunately, it has degenerated into its own narrow ideology. Papers like this provide comfort to people who already agree with them, but their rather slavish political correctness, and (in most cases) lack of intellectual rigor, suggest that their real world influence is limited."
This conference was practical as can be, and totally lacked a unifying political ideology. Just look at the titles! And to quote Scalia from the paper I presented:
"The constitutional work can be dull, too, but it’s not like the tax code. Philosopher-kings do not read the Internal Revenue Code, believe me."
It reminds me of something funny that happened to me while I was a visitor at Yale Law. There was a reception in the faculty lounge for a conference-- I think it was critical race theory, or maybe just a talk by Mari Matsuda, because she was there. I was in a group with her sipping our wine and talking in general terms about the Supreme Court. Everybody was complaining how terribly biased and ideologically corrupt the Supreme Court was. I nodded along, but I realized that though I was in full agreement with the words that were said, we were in total disagreement over which of the things the Court did were good and which were bad. It would have been obtrusive for me to proclaim my conservatism, yet I did feel awkward.
Posted by: Eric Rasmusen | Sep 18, 2011 9:13:33 PM
See my response to Mike Livingston's comment above.
Posted by: Darryll Jones | Sep 19, 2011 9:30:08 AM