I am a business-friendly Communist

Are We Overpaying Grandpa? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com: "The total annual income in the United States (national income, as economists call it) is about $12.5 trillion, or about $40,000 per person per year.� The egalitarian view of government is that it taxes persons with annual incomes more than $40,000, and pays benefits to persons with less than $40,000, so that those with less than average incomes could enjoy living standards closer to the average."

Which got me thinking: what if we actually did that? What if we basically guaranteed every worker, say, about $40k per year? The only catch is, one would have to work to qualify, even a legal small business.

The nightmare scenario is a bunch of people doing as little as humanly possible, but still getting a bunch of money. But so what?

Think of it as a huge subsidy for small business: they would only have to pay minimum wage. Or, we could do away with the minimum wage.

I know this doesn't make any sense, because of inflation and etc, but it's a fun notion.

Timely example of non-OPTN organ donation

Stranger Saves Man's Life Through Internet Organ Donation

Under the NOTA, one can donate outside the network for matched-pair donations, which is essentially an exception to the prohibition against organ purchasing (as the exchanged organ for a third party is, in essence, "payment" for the donated organ).

Weekly timesheet: 2/15/2010

Right to business. All this from sticky notes and memory. (Also: this is net of all breaks & lolligagging; quality work time only.)

2/15: 8 hours.
3 hours of crim pro reading: federal statutory discovery requirements: less gamesmanship, more accuracy (& more legitimacy?).
1 hour IPLC meeting: new assignments; mine is unusual.

2/16: 8 hours.
3 hours writing IPLC memo about Native hire preferences (applies) and state civil rights law (doesn't apply); done.
5 hours in classes.

2/17: 8 hours.
3 hours new IPLC memo research about treaty rights (good) and pollution (bad); my new goal: most succinct memo ever.
2 hours crim pro reading: Brady & constitutional discovery requirements, especially materiality & the role of prosecution (from a defense-oriented prof).
1 hour: Journal cite checking review (only 6 thin binders, not 12 thick binders).
2 hours: ULWR research. Reread federal statute, regs, & policies about organ donation. Way better than reading a secondary. Next step: reading State laws. After that: secondary sources to check understanding.

2/18: 8 hours
2 hours crim pro reading, as above.
2 hours JML cite checking. Finished 1 binder.
2 hours crim pro class
2 hours ULWR research, as above.

2/19: 8 hours
4.5 hours JML cite checking. Finished 2 more binders.
3.5 hours: JML symposium. Mostly sitting around & chatting with people I already knew. I failed to network. I guess I assume it has no value, but I think experts say I'm wrong.

I set up a blog specifically to take notes while I do ULWR research on-line, which is how legal research is mainly done. I figure if I can do decent legal research and writing, I can free-lance forever.

Timesheet

I think this should be my newest feature. In an earlier post, I considered posting about the progress I'm making on my papers. Usually, though, I'm unhappy with the progress I make on my papers, or perhaps I don't want to disclose how little I actually accomplished on a given day. At any rate, I haven't posted about them until now. 

As for my main ULWR paper, it pains me - literally causes me physical anxiety to write this - but I haven't worked on my ULWR. This is the beast. I need to do it to graduate. So, it might be (almost certainly is) that I've placed a huge amount of pressure on myself to do this well. Naturally, it will pretty good. The question is: will it be very good? 

As to my ILPC paper that is actually due very soon, I worked on it for 8 hours today. I composed a decent full draft of about 3/4 of the paper. The remaining 1/4 is the important part: federal pre-emption, which is the (best?) friend of the enemy of state law. Try reconciling federal pre-emption with a plain reading of the 10th Amendment, and get back to me on that someday.

I worked on both papers for zero hours on Friday. Mainly, I took the dog for a walk and cleaned the house on Friday. I also watched the Olympics. 

So, here's the timesheet:

Tuesday:

2 hours: Criminal Procedure readings

3 hours: Worked on ILPC paper (research and writing blurbs)

5 hours: classes

Wednesday:

4 hours: Worked on ILPC paper

Thursday:

4 hours: worked on ILPC paper

2 hours: Criminal Procedure readings

2 hours: classes

Friday

2 hours: Walked the dog

Saturday

8 hours: Worked on ILPC paper (composing)

Ultra-curmudgeon: Like!

Conversations - Expert’s Advice - Stop Whining and Run Your Small Business - Question - NYTimes.com

Getting good people is 100 times more difficult than conventional wisdom says.

Yup. Of course, the subject of the interview is on his 3rd marriage, so he might not have the whole "happiness" thing worked out yet. Of course, his point is that you gotta do what it takes to make money, which is basically to focus totally on making money. Not exactly a fresh idea, but it sounds true to me.

A response to a criticism of "entitlements" and Big Government

Social Security (or Medicare or Medicaid) is not perfect in either its administration or its financing. But the financing is separate from objectives or performance. Criticism about unsustainability could be answered simply by raising taxes, and/or reducing benefits.

The broader point about trusting government with "your" money implies the philosophy underlying your critique, and it's a fair one (and a classic). You might be right, but We the People (not "the Government") decided differently: that it is better to nationalize the risk of poverty related to old age and illness, rather than individualizing the risk. "We" could be wrong, but that's a majoritarian representative democracy for you.

I think a smaller, cheaper government is better. But history shows that a huge chunk of people in any society make seemingly irrational, self-destructive decisions that hurt themselves, and hurt the rest of us, and one of the projects of government is to respond to that reality. The American way has been to grow the economy to provide as much opportunity as possible, including the self-destructive or irrational or unskilled people. But we also wanted our homeland to cleaner and safer, and over time, other countries also developed a competitive labor force. There is less and less for self-destructive people or irrational or low-skilled people to do to pay for themselves. The administrative state has grown in response. Indeed, one could be forgiven for thinking that the administrative state caused the poverty, rather than the other way around. I would pay attention to a "free market," laissez-faire, small government approach to that fundamental issue if it included a serious, adult assessment of how it provides for the self-destructive, the unskilled, the poor and ill; not because my heart bleeds, but because it simply needs to be done. But the "hands-off" approach either just assumes everything will work out, or simply doesn't care. Which is why We the People don't buy it. "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want," Mark 14:7.

Poverty + addiction = ?

Eastside Neighborhood Is Dark Side of Vancouver’s Olympic Glow - NYTimes.com: "The research, published in August in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that addicts given heroin in a clinical setting committed fewer crimes and cost the government less in social services. Some weaned their habit with substitution drugs like methadone. Others learned to maintain their addiction."

Everyone has a pet theory about what to do with addicts who are poor. The ones based on actual research are unsatisfying to anyone who just wants all addicts to suck it up and quit using. I think it's probably because anything short of the ideal of permanent total abstinence seems like the same thing as giving up, as incentivizing drug use. Naturally, I think that's silly: drug users need no additional incentive to use drugs.

Alcohol abuse = common

For Scots, a Scourge Unleashed by a Bottle - NYTimes.com: "“For a large section of the Scottish population, their relationship with alcohol is damaging and harmful — to individuals, families, communities and to Scotland as a nation,” the Scottish government said in a recent report."

Same goes for rural Alaska, and lots of other places, too. So much "crime" is young, high men behaving badly. I think it was ever thus. But one of the conditions that creates lots of young, high men is... young, high men. No one has cracked the code yet.