The Canadian Conservative party is passing a new crime bill. This bill will do nothing to reduce crime, you could say that it is completely ideological.
The Quebec Justice minister "repeatedly asked for Nicholson to provide studies that support his government’s approach to criminal justice, Fournier said he was told it’s based on “personal observations.”
The legal system in Canada is such that the federal government legislates the criminal law for all provinces, while the provinces are responsible for paying for the prisons and legal costs.
The new bill imposes significant costs, and does nothing to reduce crime. However, I'm not willing to accept that the Conservative government is ignorant of this, rather the have ulterior motives. They are being disingenuous when they state that the new crime bill will reduce crime and make the public safer. Their ulterior motives are open to speculation, but clearly not expert opinion or study endorses their approach, and it is inaccurate to claim they are ignorant of this.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/04/kevin-libin-provinces-will-pay-dearly-for-tory-crime-bill/
Monday, December 5, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Increasing the number of lawyers in Japan, the LDP moving Japan towards judicial review
Today was a holiday here in Japan. It was the holiday I believe for those souls that are no longer with us, so essentially Halloween, in its true pagan sense. I took the day easy, did a bit of shopping and went for a bike ride. I came across the Omiya College of Law.
It got me thinking about the drive in Japan to increase the number of lawyers.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20080318i1.html
As the Japan times article notes there has been an increase in the number of lawyers in Japan. Along with the use of civilian juries there is obviously a movement towards the rule of law. Why is that the case? What is happening in Japan at this point in time that makes the rule of law, and increased use of the judiciary something attractive.
Following the legal scholar Ran Hirschl I believe that this change is in part motivated by political considerations, namely the challenges faced to the post war power the LDP. While he is taking about Constitutional change the change in the legal system is similar. In the last few years the structures that have essentially run Japan since the post war period have been challenged.
http://www.tulsalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Hirschl.Final_.pdf
It was the reemergence of Quebec separatism that was in part the motivation behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the repatriation of the constitution. Likewise in other societies, many constitutional changes have emerged as a result of social conflict.
If you ask the question, how have liberal social issues become effective in the last few decades in America you would have to look to the courts, judicial activism has been largely responsible for a good deal of progressive change. By contrast, the political process was be relatively closed to progressive social change. In Japan you have a very different social system. There is a good deal of regulation and much less space for legal activism. As he notes, in Japan judicial review has not been used so long as the LDP has been in power.
Likely part of the move towards an increase in the numbers of lawyers would be a lessening of regulation, and more leeway for parties to establish their rights through the legal process.
It got me thinking about the drive in Japan to increase the number of lawyers.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20080318i1.html
Judicial reform is having a quick and dramatic impact on the legal profession, not least on the number of lawyers. In March 2002, the government decided to increase the number of those who pass the bar exam to 3,000 a year by 2010. Only 1,000 were passed in 1999.
 |
| Lawyers prosecutors and judges conduct a mock trial at the Tokyo District Court last June in preparation for the introduction of the "saiban-in" quasi-jury system next year. YOSHIAKI MIURA PHOTO |
As the Japan times article notes there has been an increase in the number of lawyers in Japan. Along with the use of civilian juries there is obviously a movement towards the rule of law. Why is that the case? What is happening in Japan at this point in time that makes the rule of law, and increased use of the judiciary something attractive.
Following the legal scholar Ran Hirschl I believe that this change is in part motivated by political considerations, namely the challenges faced to the post war power the LDP. While he is taking about Constitutional change the change in the legal system is similar. In the last few years the structures that have essentially run Japan since the post war period have been challenged.
http://www.tulsalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Hirschl.Final_.pdf
It was the reemergence of Quebec separatism that was in part the motivation behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the repatriation of the constitution. Likewise in other societies, many constitutional changes have emerged as a result of social conflict.
If you ask the question, how have liberal social issues become effective in the last few decades in America you would have to look to the courts, judicial activism has been largely responsible for a good deal of progressive change. By contrast, the political process was be relatively closed to progressive social change. In Japan you have a very different social system. There is a good deal of regulation and much less space for legal activism. As he notes, in Japan judicial review has not been used so long as the LDP has been in power.
Likely part of the move towards an increase in the numbers of lawyers would be a lessening of regulation, and more leeway for parties to establish their rights through the legal process.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The relationship part 1
Relationships are complicated things. As Joe Rogan said on his Podcast, "some people are really fucking careful what relationships they get into". And then there are people like me. I won't say that I fall into relationships, but the fact is I absolutely do. If I have a profile in my past, it's that I don't usually know the person I am going to date before a relatively short period of time before. That short period of time can be really quite brief.
The benefit of getting to know someone before you start dating them is that you can establish if your compatible. But, what makes people compatible. Is it good conversation? Is it similar activities and interests, or is it simply attraction? I would say for a lasting relationship it must be the first two, and that the last one simply grows on you.
But you meet all types during your experiences in this world, and you see all types when you watch films, or even read books. That means that there is no template no one solution for all the different approaches to dating, or mating.
What do people look for in a partner? I think someone who has a passion for what they are doing is the most attractive quality. If your doing something that don't really love than you can't be that happy. Although people do things they don't like all the time. It's best to be in the zone and be really into whatever your doing, and then the time will pass quickly. You want the time to pass quickly when you are working, and slowly when you are with a loved one or on vacation. In a sense you could say that the happiest person is the person who things pass smoothly and easily. Isn't there something tragic about that. Count no man happy who is still alive, for misfortune might soon befall him, I think that is from some Greek Tragedy.
The benefit of getting to know someone before you start dating them is that you can establish if your compatible. But, what makes people compatible. Is it good conversation? Is it similar activities and interests, or is it simply attraction? I would say for a lasting relationship it must be the first two, and that the last one simply grows on you.
But you meet all types during your experiences in this world, and you see all types when you watch films, or even read books. That means that there is no template no one solution for all the different approaches to dating, or mating.
What do people look for in a partner? I think someone who has a passion for what they are doing is the most attractive quality. If your doing something that don't really love than you can't be that happy. Although people do things they don't like all the time. It's best to be in the zone and be really into whatever your doing, and then the time will pass quickly. You want the time to pass quickly when you are working, and slowly when you are with a loved one or on vacation. In a sense you could say that the happiest person is the person who things pass smoothly and easily. Isn't there something tragic about that. Count no man happy who is still alive, for misfortune might soon befall him, I think that is from some Greek Tragedy.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Today I came to work. It was extremely humid outside. In fact it has been humid for the last few weeks. The summers in Japan are like that. I believe a number of the days were clocked at 39 degrees Celsius. I'm drinking lots of liquids and trying to be in a room with air conditioning whenever possible.
Last night I went to bed rather late. Actually, it was around 2:30 or later. I feel kinda of trippy today, like I just didn't get enough sleep, so I'm a bit tired for this day. On Saturday to Sunday I slept 1 to 12, so about 11 hours.
I went to the gym in Harjuku the other day, it was a lot of fun. I love that caveman type basement they have at the Harjuku Gold's. You got some nice black and white posters of Arnold and other Mister Universes. Lot's of cavemen around doing savage lifting and exercise.
It would be nice to be in better shape. I think my peak must have been in November and December. I was just eating lots of high quality protein, and sushi. I lifted more than I have ever lifted before. I was even doing almost 10 chin ups.
I've been thinking a lot about the different opportunities I can take advantage of. It's clear there are heaps of opportunities out there but you need to really uncover them. In these tough economic times you need to keep a positive mind frame and keep in touch with positive people around you.
I tried to email some people on the weekend. Some of them replied others did not. I am thinking of one person in particular. Relationships are complicated, or maybe I'm complicated.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Emotions
I was listening to some really interesting lectures on the TVO podcast show Ideas today.
The first was by the political philosopher and linguist Chomsky. He briefly described the crisis of Democracy that occurred during the 1960's. Basically on both the liberal and conservative side there was a fear that what was happening in the US was an excess of democracy. Therefore there were proposals to reduce the influence of the average person in the democratic process. One such development has been the drastic reduction in funding to post secondary education
It is striking that in Mexico they have free education, or very low tuition. Of course when the government tried to bring forward legislation increasing tuition student mobilized massively to fight against the proposals, just as occurred in Quebec. The result was that tuition was not increased. You can contrast this with what took place in the rest of Canada, and in the US where people passively accepted the decision to increase tuition fees and barrow huge amounts to finance education.
I also listened to a lecture by the Canadian Science Fiction writer Cory Doctrow, about attempts being made to prevent Computers and other mediums from infringing copyright laws, and how this is doomed to failure. I rather enjoyed that lecture. He proposed that instead of building within computers a program that prevents downloading or recording of data that infringes, you empower consumers to police themselves. One good example he gives is of each person having a radio transmitter and this enabling the locating of people whose transmitters happen to be malfunctioning. I was already persuaded that the current attempts to stop infringement are doomed to failure, and his lecture merely solidified that perspective. He doesn't really get into the legal aspect much though, which is not surprising given his lack of a legal background.
But the contrast between a hammer and a rifle is quite a good one. Computers have become all purpose tools so it simply makes little sense to try to make them so that they can't be used in certain ways.
Finally I listened to this debate between a professor who thinks we don't need religion and the scared, and one who thinks we still do. It was basically an argument about John Lennon's phrase in "Imagine", there is no heaven, it's easy if you try...." etc....
It got down to semantics at a certain point. There were the creations of straw men to a certain extent. If I were arguing the perspective of the anti-religious person, I would stress the free-thinking an investigative aspect. How religion is organized by necessity into hierarchical systems almost exclusively. It is of course possible to imagine religion without that but where can you find it?
I think that is the most powerful attack on religion. But, I haven't read Daniel C. Dennet's book "The Good Delusion", although I did read the Hitchen's "God is not great".
There was a big bone of contention about chimps. Are chimps good by nature or violent. The religious guy made big hay of the idea that chimps were violent and therefore humans are naturally violent also, ergo religion is not responsible for violence. But, this treats humans as simply natural creatures. Thus we must see that even if humans are by nature this way surely they can be different through reason. So the fact that humans are naturally violent doesn't really mean anything.
I would go after religion through the critique of metaphysics (Kant, Hume) and also through Darwin, evolution. There are no transcendent mental states and therefore there is no knowledge of God outside of experience which is bounded by space and time. Even the observer effect remains in the Kantian idealism which is not the kind of idealism of Bishop Berkley, but simply an idealism of human measuring. The religious guy made hay of the observer effect in quantum physics, which in my mind doesn't really get you that far either.
I also went to the gym and did some weight lifting. I ended by advising the brother of Josh on his legal dispute with the city of Toronto. I believe he may have a claim under the copyright act for the destruction of his work by the city, when they painted without warning over his mural.
The first was by the political philosopher and linguist Chomsky. He briefly described the crisis of Democracy that occurred during the 1960's. Basically on both the liberal and conservative side there was a fear that what was happening in the US was an excess of democracy. Therefore there were proposals to reduce the influence of the average person in the democratic process. One such development has been the drastic reduction in funding to post secondary education
It is striking that in Mexico they have free education, or very low tuition. Of course when the government tried to bring forward legislation increasing tuition student mobilized massively to fight against the proposals, just as occurred in Quebec. The result was that tuition was not increased. You can contrast this with what took place in the rest of Canada, and in the US where people passively accepted the decision to increase tuition fees and barrow huge amounts to finance education.
I also listened to a lecture by the Canadian Science Fiction writer Cory Doctrow, about attempts being made to prevent Computers and other mediums from infringing copyright laws, and how this is doomed to failure. I rather enjoyed that lecture. He proposed that instead of building within computers a program that prevents downloading or recording of data that infringes, you empower consumers to police themselves. One good example he gives is of each person having a radio transmitter and this enabling the locating of people whose transmitters happen to be malfunctioning. I was already persuaded that the current attempts to stop infringement are doomed to failure, and his lecture merely solidified that perspective. He doesn't really get into the legal aspect much though, which is not surprising given his lack of a legal background.
But the contrast between a hammer and a rifle is quite a good one. Computers have become all purpose tools so it simply makes little sense to try to make them so that they can't be used in certain ways.
Finally I listened to this debate between a professor who thinks we don't need religion and the scared, and one who thinks we still do. It was basically an argument about John Lennon's phrase in "Imagine", there is no heaven, it's easy if you try...." etc....
It got down to semantics at a certain point. There were the creations of straw men to a certain extent. If I were arguing the perspective of the anti-religious person, I would stress the free-thinking an investigative aspect. How religion is organized by necessity into hierarchical systems almost exclusively. It is of course possible to imagine religion without that but where can you find it?
I think that is the most powerful attack on religion. But, I haven't read Daniel C. Dennet's book "The Good Delusion", although I did read the Hitchen's "God is not great".
There was a big bone of contention about chimps. Are chimps good by nature or violent. The religious guy made big hay of the idea that chimps were violent and therefore humans are naturally violent also, ergo religion is not responsible for violence. But, this treats humans as simply natural creatures. Thus we must see that even if humans are by nature this way surely they can be different through reason. So the fact that humans are naturally violent doesn't really mean anything.
I would go after religion through the critique of metaphysics (Kant, Hume) and also through Darwin, evolution. There are no transcendent mental states and therefore there is no knowledge of God outside of experience which is bounded by space and time. Even the observer effect remains in the Kantian idealism which is not the kind of idealism of Bishop Berkley, but simply an idealism of human measuring. The religious guy made hay of the observer effect in quantum physics, which in my mind doesn't really get you that far either.
I also went to the gym and did some weight lifting. I ended by advising the brother of Josh on his legal dispute with the city of Toronto. I believe he may have a claim under the copyright act for the destruction of his work by the city, when they painted without warning over his mural.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Working out at Gold's Gym
I've just got a renewed membership at Gold's Gym here in Omiya. From last Friday I stared going. On Friday I did back, Saturday I went to Tokyo and did chest at the Shibuya location. Sunday I took off, simply because when I showed up to the gym around 9 p.m. it was already closed. On Monday I went and did legs, and yesterday I went and did my shoulders.
The Leg workout was pretty crazy. I must say that right now I'm really feeling it. It has been awhile since I really worked out my legs that hard, and they are quite sore.
Exercising your leg muscles is extremely important of course, since they are much more primary to your locomotion than any upper body exercise. I think also in terms of abs and weight loss they are absolutely crucial.
I've started to track my calories using a program that has a pretty good database of foods, even those found in Japan. I am also recording all my workout on the exercise App for my iphone.
I can already see some fantastic results even after being back at Gold's for less than 1 week. First, I am sleeping much much better. The muscle fatigue means that despite any attempt to think and stay awake my body is simply naturally tired and therefore unable to do so. The sleep is much more restful and complete than it would be otherwise. There is no easy comparison between sleep from one period and sleep from another, this is especially true if you are comparing the experience of being asleep. But, upon waking up you know very well the difference between having achieved REM sleep and not having achieved a significant amount of it. That difference can be recorded in a app like sleepclock, which uses the iphone gyroscope to gauge when you enter and exit REM sleep.
I'm getting a handle on my diet as well. Simply recording the food you eat can have a huge effect on what you put in your body. Do you really want to write down that you ate X quantity of fried chicken or doughnuts?
The next step is drinking enough water, which is itself aided by that diet app. It has a nice graphical interface that records your water intake. You want to make sure that it fills up, so it actually graphically represents the empty water glasses that you didn't fill, and there is no text, so you really get a nice visual effect of your water consumption.
The Leg workout was pretty crazy. I must say that right now I'm really feeling it. It has been awhile since I really worked out my legs that hard, and they are quite sore.
Exercising your leg muscles is extremely important of course, since they are much more primary to your locomotion than any upper body exercise. I think also in terms of abs and weight loss they are absolutely crucial.
I've started to track my calories using a program that has a pretty good database of foods, even those found in Japan. I am also recording all my workout on the exercise App for my iphone.
I can already see some fantastic results even after being back at Gold's for less than 1 week. First, I am sleeping much much better. The muscle fatigue means that despite any attempt to think and stay awake my body is simply naturally tired and therefore unable to do so. The sleep is much more restful and complete than it would be otherwise. There is no easy comparison between sleep from one period and sleep from another, this is especially true if you are comparing the experience of being asleep. But, upon waking up you know very well the difference between having achieved REM sleep and not having achieved a significant amount of it. That difference can be recorded in a app like sleepclock, which uses the iphone gyroscope to gauge when you enter and exit REM sleep.
I'm getting a handle on my diet as well. Simply recording the food you eat can have a huge effect on what you put in your body. Do you really want to write down that you ate X quantity of fried chicken or doughnuts?
The next step is drinking enough water, which is itself aided by that diet app. It has a nice graphical interface that records your water intake. You want to make sure that it fills up, so it actually graphically represents the empty water glasses that you didn't fill, and there is no text, so you really get a nice visual effect of your water consumption.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
USA CORPORATE LAW/POLITICS, regulating contributions through shareholder approval.
After "Citizens United" you had a situation where corporations can contribute unlimited sums to elect candidates that are favourable to their firms. This has the potential to corrupt the political process in the USA. One solution is to have the shareholders pass resolutions requiring 75% shareholder approval for any campaign funding.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15bogle.html?src=rechp
This article argues for just such an approach.
I see a couple of problems. Firstly, even though this is coming up in the case of Home Depot, it is unrealistic to believe that sufficient votes can be gathered to approve such resolutions in a majority of companies. Moreover, insofar as the contributions can be said to improve the finances of the company by electing candidates who are favourable, it seems that that executives can legitimately claim that they are acting to benefit their corporations, and hence are protected by the business judgement rule. Would shareholders want to handcuff management when it is apparent that funds might be usefully spent electing a pro business candidate? To take a simple example. Suppose that there are two candidates, one proposes increasing taxes on fuel, and the other does not. If you are the CEO of an oil company you obviously have a duty to shareholders to oppose the candidate who is going to decrease your profits. Most large shareholders will realize this and act accordingly.
In addition, this might suffer from the same problem with regard to executive pay. It is rare that shareholders can successfully pass restrictions on executive pay despite there being almost universal benefits for doing so.
Having re-read the case I have to conclude that there has to be some merit to the decision. For example, various media companies are linked to certain businesses. A good example is General Electric owning NBC. If they can use their media wing to promote policies that favor the company as a whole, I don't see why other businesses can't do the same. It is worthwhile to keep in mind that prior to Citizens United those elected to both the Senate and the presidency favored big business over the average citizen. It is only in Congress that you have something approaching effective representation. Therefore, I don't see this decision as making a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. More importantly it is unfair for some companies to have influence through ownership of media to spend unlimited amounts, whereas others cannot. It is additionally true that there is currently a breakdown between traditional media, and new media which uses the internet. There is no longer a clear distinction between owners of media and users.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15bogle.html?src=rechp
This article argues for just such an approach.
I see a couple of problems. Firstly, even though this is coming up in the case of Home Depot, it is unrealistic to believe that sufficient votes can be gathered to approve such resolutions in a majority of companies. Moreover, insofar as the contributions can be said to improve the finances of the company by electing candidates who are favourable, it seems that that executives can legitimately claim that they are acting to benefit their corporations, and hence are protected by the business judgement rule. Would shareholders want to handcuff management when it is apparent that funds might be usefully spent electing a pro business candidate? To take a simple example. Suppose that there are two candidates, one proposes increasing taxes on fuel, and the other does not. If you are the CEO of an oil company you obviously have a duty to shareholders to oppose the candidate who is going to decrease your profits. Most large shareholders will realize this and act accordingly.
In addition, this might suffer from the same problem with regard to executive pay. It is rare that shareholders can successfully pass restrictions on executive pay despite there being almost universal benefits for doing so.
Having re-read the case I have to conclude that there has to be some merit to the decision. For example, various media companies are linked to certain businesses. A good example is General Electric owning NBC. If they can use their media wing to promote policies that favor the company as a whole, I don't see why other businesses can't do the same. It is worthwhile to keep in mind that prior to Citizens United those elected to both the Senate and the presidency favored big business over the average citizen. It is only in Congress that you have something approaching effective representation. Therefore, I don't see this decision as making a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. More importantly it is unfair for some companies to have influence through ownership of media to spend unlimited amounts, whereas others cannot. It is additionally true that there is currently a breakdown between traditional media, and new media which uses the internet. There is no longer a clear distinction between owners of media and users.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Ecological city: Tokyo
Despite the recent nuclear disaster, tsunami, and earthquakes, there is a lot to admire about Tokyo. There are a number of incredibly ecological things about the city. First, public transportation system. Second, parks and green spaces. Third, widespread use of bicycles. Fourth, the housing. Fifth, the eating habits of the Japanese.
The first thing that strikes many visitors to Japan is the excellent bus and subway systems. You can easily catch a subway by walking in almost any direction. There are numerous stops, both under ground and above ground. Moreover, even once you leave the city proper and go into the countryside you still find many train stations ready to take you to the downtown core. While the public transportation system is not cheap, it is also not that expensive. You do not pay much more than you would in Canada, and trains are everywhere. The time tables are adhered to quite well, so you can time your trip exactly. You miss one train and the other one is there several minutes later.
Despite there being a dearth of space, you can find beautiful parks in almost any section of Tokyo, or any smaller Japanese town. The parks are well maintained and have nice flowering trees, and also often large lakes. You can find many avian species, fish, and animals of all kinds using the facilities. Children, the elderly, and couples of all ages also enjoy sitting in the parks.
Despite being a huge metropolis you have many people using bicycles from all walks of life. If you go to any part of Tokyo and especially the downtown core you find piles upon piles of bicycles. In short it is a widely used form of transportation. Correspondingly it is well regarded by all city dwellers. There is absolutely no stigma attached to using a bicycle. You can ride on both the sidewalk and the street with very little fear of being hurt by motorists or scolded by pedestrians. In fact, when you trying to bicycle by a person, it is often they who apologize for blocking your path.
Most people live in one room apartments, and even wealth families have small houses by comparison with North America. However, this is a very beneficial situation as it requires far less heating and energy to live in one of these apartments. In addition, since there is much less space for belongings there is less opportunity to amass large quantities of objects. The small apartments and density of housing also works to make the public transportation routes that much more efficient.
The first thing that strikes many visitors to Japan is the excellent bus and subway systems. You can easily catch a subway by walking in almost any direction. There are numerous stops, both under ground and above ground. Moreover, even once you leave the city proper and go into the countryside you still find many train stations ready to take you to the downtown core. While the public transportation system is not cheap, it is also not that expensive. You do not pay much more than you would in Canada, and trains are everywhere. The time tables are adhered to quite well, so you can time your trip exactly. You miss one train and the other one is there several minutes later.
Despite there being a dearth of space, you can find beautiful parks in almost any section of Tokyo, or any smaller Japanese town. The parks are well maintained and have nice flowering trees, and also often large lakes. You can find many avian species, fish, and animals of all kinds using the facilities. Children, the elderly, and couples of all ages also enjoy sitting in the parks.
Despite being a huge metropolis you have many people using bicycles from all walks of life. If you go to any part of Tokyo and especially the downtown core you find piles upon piles of bicycles. In short it is a widely used form of transportation. Correspondingly it is well regarded by all city dwellers. There is absolutely no stigma attached to using a bicycle. You can ride on both the sidewalk and the street with very little fear of being hurt by motorists or scolded by pedestrians. In fact, when you trying to bicycle by a person, it is often they who apologize for blocking your path.
Most people live in one room apartments, and even wealth families have small houses by comparison with North America. However, this is a very beneficial situation as it requires far less heating and energy to live in one of these apartments. In addition, since there is much less space for belongings there is less opportunity to amass large quantities of objects. The small apartments and density of housing also works to make the public transportation routes that much more efficient.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Thoughts on earthquake
First, some personal observations. I was watching the Ume (Plum) trees when the great earthquake struck. I can honestly say that at the time I was in shock, but that the effects while surprisingly strong did not indicate outright destruction around me. As the Bus proceeded up the main street in Mito, I could see some cracks in the pavement, broken glass, and in some places shattered facades, and crumbled bricks. When we got out of the bus and went up to the station it was clear that everything was shut down, the power was out and lots of bottles were smashed. Outside the station people were milling about. I noticed a couple of Chinese girls taking pictures. I myself started to film, but I also realized that the aftershocks were likely to come and it was better to get in an open space away from big buildings.
Together with Yumi I stood around for a bit, before we decided to follow some of the groups of workers making their way to a evacuation center, which was basically the school grounds of a large elementary school. Once there there were heaps of people milling about, and aftershocks coming now and then. We eventually left there and made our way back to the station. Long lines had formed around the taxi stand, and in addition all the buses were stationary. We waited around in the cold for a bit before going into a building entrance that was opened, and then a bus which had the heaters turned on. After that we made our way to the highschool near the station where they had set up blankets and space heaters. Along with a bunch of other people we would spend the next couple of days there just waiting.
The weather was quite nice the following two days but I spent most of it just sitting on the floor trying to stay warm. The Japanese were incredibly ordered and calm under the circumstances. We were fed at regular intervals and the various people camped out shared whatever food they had. The elderly women, who themselves had been in Mito to view the Ume trees had copious amounts of food on hand. I was continually surprised when they would bring out yet more food. They had an especially large quantity of Nauto, the famous fermented soybean dish.
I also managed to use my iphone to keep everyone updated on my condition. It was remarkable that even when the cell phone voice network was down I was still able to access the internet and post messages. Once the power was restored I was able to borrow a charger and keep my phone charged. Finally, on Sunday we had had enough and decided to try to get to Tokyo. We got a bunch of people together and rented a car, and drove to the last station that was still connected to the Tokyo grid.
That was 10 days ago. I had planned on going down to Osaka, after arriving here in Tokyo but I never made it. Yumi was distraught at the notion of me going down there.
So much has changed in the past week. Basically the western media was screaming murder about the radiation danger from the fires and explosions at the plant in Fukushima. I was in turn bombarded with warnings from my friends and relations on Facebook. At the same time BBC experts were saying there is nothing major to worry about. Nevertheless I thought seriously about going down to Osaka, not the least because I really enjoy it down there.
Well as suddenly as the delirium built it evaporated, thus confirming that it was all trumped up in the first place. But, I`m still a little nervous about proceeding North back to Ibaraki. I`ve spent the last week here in Tokyo and really started to enjoy the lifestyle here again, not to mention I`m well aware the at the US advises a distance of at least 80km from Fukushima, whereas Hitachi is only 100 km away, not a huge margin of error. Of course at the same time the Japanese are saying you should be at least 30 km away, so maybe the proper distance is a medium between 30 and 80?
I have heard that many foreigners have left Tokyo, but thus far I`m not entirely sure that this is the case. I will call some of my friends to confirm. I know I ran into a girl who was president of Temple, and she told me that most of the TUJ students had already left, and Temple in fact had rented a plane to fly a number of them out.
I guess the few days dealing with the earthquake took a lot out of me, because I`m only now beginning to feel more rested and normal. I certainly didn`t feel like the event was traumatic at the time but maybe it was. I have no idea if on a subconscious level I wasn`t deeply disturbed.
For awhile I thought this might be one of those profound life changing moments, where you realize what is important to you. I`m not sure that this has happened.
I will say that all that I`ve experienced confirms to me that the Japanese more or less have it right, and that we in Canada or less right, and in the US even less. The storm that struck New Orleans is proof enough that a similar event in the US would occasion massive unrest and crime, simply because of the difference in social conditions, and the atomistic social life.
Together with Yumi I stood around for a bit, before we decided to follow some of the groups of workers making their way to a evacuation center, which was basically the school grounds of a large elementary school. Once there there were heaps of people milling about, and aftershocks coming now and then. We eventually left there and made our way back to the station. Long lines had formed around the taxi stand, and in addition all the buses were stationary. We waited around in the cold for a bit before going into a building entrance that was opened, and then a bus which had the heaters turned on. After that we made our way to the highschool near the station where they had set up blankets and space heaters. Along with a bunch of other people we would spend the next couple of days there just waiting.
The weather was quite nice the following two days but I spent most of it just sitting on the floor trying to stay warm. The Japanese were incredibly ordered and calm under the circumstances. We were fed at regular intervals and the various people camped out shared whatever food they had. The elderly women, who themselves had been in Mito to view the Ume trees had copious amounts of food on hand. I was continually surprised when they would bring out yet more food. They had an especially large quantity of Nauto, the famous fermented soybean dish.
I also managed to use my iphone to keep everyone updated on my condition. It was remarkable that even when the cell phone voice network was down I was still able to access the internet and post messages. Once the power was restored I was able to borrow a charger and keep my phone charged. Finally, on Sunday we had had enough and decided to try to get to Tokyo. We got a bunch of people together and rented a car, and drove to the last station that was still connected to the Tokyo grid.
That was 10 days ago. I had planned on going down to Osaka, after arriving here in Tokyo but I never made it. Yumi was distraught at the notion of me going down there.
So much has changed in the past week. Basically the western media was screaming murder about the radiation danger from the fires and explosions at the plant in Fukushima. I was in turn bombarded with warnings from my friends and relations on Facebook. At the same time BBC experts were saying there is nothing major to worry about. Nevertheless I thought seriously about going down to Osaka, not the least because I really enjoy it down there.
Well as suddenly as the delirium built it evaporated, thus confirming that it was all trumped up in the first place. But, I`m still a little nervous about proceeding North back to Ibaraki. I`ve spent the last week here in Tokyo and really started to enjoy the lifestyle here again, not to mention I`m well aware the at the US advises a distance of at least 80km from Fukushima, whereas Hitachi is only 100 km away, not a huge margin of error. Of course at the same time the Japanese are saying you should be at least 30 km away, so maybe the proper distance is a medium between 30 and 80?
I have heard that many foreigners have left Tokyo, but thus far I`m not entirely sure that this is the case. I will call some of my friends to confirm. I know I ran into a girl who was president of Temple, and she told me that most of the TUJ students had already left, and Temple in fact had rented a plane to fly a number of them out.
I guess the few days dealing with the earthquake took a lot out of me, because I`m only now beginning to feel more rested and normal. I certainly didn`t feel like the event was traumatic at the time but maybe it was. I have no idea if on a subconscious level I wasn`t deeply disturbed.
For awhile I thought this might be one of those profound life changing moments, where you realize what is important to you. I`m not sure that this has happened.
I will say that all that I`ve experienced confirms to me that the Japanese more or less have it right, and that we in Canada or less right, and in the US even less. The storm that struck New Orleans is proof enough that a similar event in the US would occasion massive unrest and crime, simply because of the difference in social conditions, and the atomistic social life.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
My draft Comparison Japan/USA corporate law, Corporate governance in Japan and the USA: Lifetime employment is better for the development of human capital, control of agency costs, and even the increase of shareholder value.
Memorandum
RE: Corporate governance in Japan: The upside of lifetime employment
One of the striking differences between Japanese and American corporate governance is that in the former, the welfare of employees is of concern to managers. A major reason for this is that a substantial number of employees have a job for life.[1] I argue that lifetime employment is better at developing human capital, controlling agency costs, and even increasing long-term shareholder value. As with any choice in corporate governance there are downsides, yet maintaining lifetime employment is on the whole preferential.
I. Inherent Cultural differences are not the key reason for lifetime employment
A) Culture is an inadequate explanation.
It is often thought that the reason employees have a less important role in American corporate governance is due to culture. Some believe Americans have a cultural preference for at-will employment. The view is that both employees and the employers are aware and appreciate the fact they can end the relationship at any point in time. One problem with this view is that most empirical studies have confirmed that employees believe they can quit at any time, but that they cannot be fired. This suggests at-will employment is not well understood among American employees.[2] They understand that they have mobility and access to a robust external labor market, but don’t understand that the employer can fire them for any reason, at any time. American legal scholars, Gilson and Roe, believe Americans prefer at-will employment because they have a cultural preference for it, whereas the Japanese have no cultural preference.[3] The fact that employees don't understand that their employment is at-will means that it is not a cultural preference but rather a legal reality. To prove there is no Japanese cultural preference for lifetime employment they examine Japanese labor history.
B) Historical differences
Prior to WWI Japan had a flexible labor market, which meant that when there was a shortage of labor, employees sought to extract the highest price for their labor by changing jobs, and when there was an excess supply of labor firms dismissed employees. Lifetime employment was only introduced as an emergency measure specifically designed to head off extreme labor unrest.[4] At the time, employees were striking, taking over the management of factories, and voting for socialist parties. This is an accurate description of Japanese labor history. As of today Japan has a cultural preference for lifetime employment but this wasn't always the case, but more importantly there is a legal obligation. What is missing from the Gilson and Roe research is a symmetrical explanation of at-will employment. The fact that America has always had a flexible labor market doesn't mean it is an inherent part of American culture. In the US, at-will employment is so entrenched, and exceptions so rare, that it is taken for granted among employers that an employee could be fired for any reason with few exceptions. US law does prohibit dismissal based on race, gender, age, sexuality, and disability, but at-will employment remains the default legal rule. It is Japanese employment law that grounds the different approach to life time employment.
III. Employment Law
A. Japan. Japanese employment law strongly protects labor against dismissals, and this gives the corporation strong incentives to include them in corporate governance. Even the New Deal inspired Japanese constitution expressly protects labor. Article 25 of the Japanese Constitution provides that “all people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living”.[5] According to Sugeno lower courts have interpreted this to mean that they can subject any national legislative or administrative act to judicial examination to determine whether or not it consistent with maintaining these standards[6]. For example, if the government suddenly decided to pass legislation allowing employers the unfettered right to dismiss employees courts might very well strike it down as unconstitutional. There are low levels of litigation given the strong involvement of the government in regulating labor contracts, when cases do go before courts there is generally a pro-labor bias.[7] As Sugeno notes, “article 27 which states that, “all people shall have the right and obligation to work”…has been established as a basic principle in the legal regulation of the labor market.[8] Lastly, article 28 establishes the right to bargain and act collectively. With these powerful constitutional provisions it is not hard to see that employees would naturally have an important role in corporate governance. Nevertheless, the powerful role that employees have in the management of corporations was not legislated. As Takashi Araki notes, “the Japanese stakeholder model significantly relies on customary practices and thus shows a striking contrast with the institutionalized German stakeholder model.”[9] Case law in Japan developed the abuse of right doctrine to protect against unjust dismissals, and that means that dismissals are invalidated unless the misconduct is serious.[10] Most important of all, there is protection against economic dismissal, something entirely inconceivable in the US. As Araki explains:
First, there must be business-based need to resort to reduction of personnel. Second, the employer must take every possible measure to avoid adjustment dismissals, such as: reduction in overtime; reduction in regular hiring or mid-term recruitment; implementation of transfers (haiten) or “farming out” (shukko) with respect to redundant workers; non-renewal of fixed-term contracts or contracts of part-timers; and, solicitation of voluntary retirement. In other words, dismissals must be the last resort to cope with the economic difficulties. Third, the selection of those workers to be dismissed must be made on an objective and reasonable basis. Lastly, the management is required to explain the necessity of the dismissal, its timing, scale and method to the labor union or worker group if no union exists, and consult with them concerning the dismissals in good faith.[11]
It is very difficult to fire a permanent employee. On the other hand, fixed term employees can be let go when the term of the contract, usually one year, ends. However, just a few renewals can place these contract employees into the permanent employee category[12]. Japan also has joint management-labor consultations. In addition to a collective labor contract, each employer must establish its own distinct set of work rules in consultation with employees. These work rules are legally relevant and cannot be changed without mutual agreement. However, management is more or less free to introduce any changes it sees fit. But, in practice companies are very receptive to the opinions of employees. In addition, the Japanese labor relation’s board does periodic checks to make sure that the company is filing such reports. Prior to any changes to the work rules employees must be consulted. The consultation is somewhat of a formality but its very existence encourages employers to consult employees. As Araki observes, the existence of strong protections made management much more open to consultations with employees so as to avoid the formation of unions[13]. Araki also believes that Japanese employers are making minor concession to avoid labor militancy. Remarkably Japanese unions and work councils are comprised not only of lower level employees but also management. Because of internal promotion all managers have been at one time or another lower level employees. The uniqueness of the Japanese stakeholder model is that it depends largely on customary practice.[14]
B. USA. US courts have acted to stop both states and the federal government from regulating labor, and this lack of regulation gives corporations no incentive to include employees in corporate governance. It would appear at first glance that the US has had mild judicial intervention. Employees and employers are free to decide employment contracts. Araki argues that on the contrary, there has been heavy judicial intervention to keep employees from having any say whatsoever in corporate governance. As Araki notes, “American law, as interpreted by the National Labor Relations Board and Federal courts, prohibits most such employee involvement as illegal intervention into “labor organization” on the part of employers and as a hindrance to establishing bona fide, independent labor unions.”[15] Courts will curtail any state or federal regulation of employment based on the Fifth and Fourteen amendments to the constitution, and this has enshrined freedom of contract. Both the employer and the employee have the right to freely determine their employment relationship without government interference.[16] All attempts by organized labor to introduce national legislation have been struck down by US courts[17]. In contrast to Japan, there is no constitutional clause dealing with labor, and the courts are pro-employer. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the at-will employment relationship is sacrosanct, and courts will almost never allow an employer to grant lifetime employment regardless of how many times the employee is given written or verbal confirmation.[18] The only real situation where courts will enforce promises of lifetime employer is where the employee was once an employer and sold the business because here courts feel they are enforcing normal contractual rights. To conclude this section it is fair to say the labor law of Japan establishes a firm basis for employee participation in corporate governance whereas US labor law actively prevents any such involvement. Another key difference between the two nations is the treatment of senior management. In the US senior management are treated differently from regular employees since they receive extremely high salaries, and usually a share of equity in the business. Senior management become significant shareholders in the company. By contrast, Japanese executive remuneration is much lower, and they belong to the same unions as regular employees. Perhaps looking at how these employees are treated will help settle whether the stakeholder model’s protections against dismissal are better than the shareholder model’s privileging of flexible labor markets.
III. Development of Human Capital
A. How strong is the link between lifetime employment and investment in human capital? Gilson and Roe argue that lifetime employment is not the reason Japanese corporations invest in human capital, but rather the lack of an external labor market is. Showing that the Japanese system of lifetime employment does not exist for the purpose of developing employee skills is not sufficient, they must also show that it is unreasonable to believe that it will aid in the development of those skills. They rely on the following thought experiment. Suppose you are the employee and you are living in a system where you have lifetime employment, but lack an external labor market. All firms hire internally, and therefore an employee cannot leave. Of course this is not entirely true since many Japanese corporations exist as part of a network of companies, so employees can usually join firms associated with their firm. They concede that an employee doesn’t need to invest in self-development. However, since there is no external labor market the employer has no incentive to pay the employee well. This is merely the logical corollary of employees being unable to take advantage of the rise and fall in demand for labor, or the scarcity of certain skills. But, it is well worth the sacrifice since an employee with limited foresight and funds cannot easily predict which skills will be of use in the future. Not that long ago employees in the US were told to invest in computer skills, many of those that did so were hugely disappointed when numerous companies opted to out source the work to India. For Gilson and Roe, the lack of an external labor market is the real reason for employer investment in human capital. Given that lifetime employment and an inflexible external labor market seem in Japan at least to be coextensive, it is difficult to see what is to be gained by attributing all causality to the latter. In favor of the value of a robust external labor market and employee self-investment they cite Silicone Valley[19].
B. Can investment in human capital take place without lifetime employment? Gilson and Roe give the example of Silicon Valley to demonstrate that lifetime employment is not needed to develop human capital. Here you have the ideal evidence justifying flexible labor markets. But, this example is unsuitable for several reasons. First, it totally ignores the fact that California is one of only a handful states to ban non-competition agreements. In most of the US highly valuable employees cannot simply quit their job and join another company because they enforce non-competition agreements. The enforceability these agreements is determined by strict criteria.[20] Non-competition agreements must be reasonable in time, space, and subject matter. These factors are interdependent. A non-competition agreement that covered all of America but was restricted to Nuclear fusion might be valid, because the job is very specific. In any individual case it is difficult for the employee to determine if it possible to join a competitor without violating the agreement. Often even senior management employees are forced to sign non-competes.[21] The very existence of a non-competition agreement has a chilling effect and induces employees to remain at their company when they might have quit.[22] Another reason to doubt the generalization of Silicone Valley is that high tech workers have a highly specialized skill set that the vast majority of Americans lack. To say that these employees can self-invest in training and profit thereby does not mean that most employees can. Finally, it overlooks the massive amount of government funding that flows from the Pentagon and other sources to these industries. In other industries jobs are much more difficult to obtain and the external market is subject to more extreme variation. It would be remiss when considering the role employees play in corporate governance to not look at the laws each country has in place. If you do, you see that Japan has firmly entrenched labor rights, and thus labor involvement in corporate management flows naturally. By contrast, US statutes are almost completely silent, and when courts do speak they are firmly excluding labor from corporate governance.
V. The agency problem is not solved with flexible employment.
A) Despite senior management in the US receiving high salaries the agency problem is worse because there is no lifetime employment. The tales of management malfeasance extend from the Enron scandal to the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The stakeholder model does a better job of solving the agency problem. Ronald Dore argues that the punishing inefficient managers through dismissal, or by a decrease in the value of the corporations stock is external and impersonal. The Japanese approach is based upon internal controls whereby the manager is made to feel moral guilt for failing to succeed. More importantly because the top managers have worked for the firm their entire lives they are closely identified with the firm and see the firms interests as coextensive with their own. [23]The Japanese manger learns to love his employer because he has lifetime employment. There is no reason to fear being replaced by external managers either. Shareholders have much less need to watch over management. Mangers have much less need to watch over employees. Employees have much less hatred for managers. Even more fascinating is the evidence that the stakeholder model is more suited to post industrial capitalism.
B) The stakeholder model and with it lifetime employment is better for post-industrial capitalism. The Japanese economist Katushito Iwai makes some important observations about the nature of the corporation.[24] On the one hand a corporation has shareholders, and on the other it is a legal person. If one only focuses on the shareholders than the corporate form is merely a fiction maintained as a tax shelter and conduit to funnel dividends and capital gains to shareholders. In a closely held or private corporation this appears to be accurate and the shareholder is a puppeteer pulling all the strings. However, the corporation also has a legal personality and can enter into contracts and own property. In large public corporations no shareholder is directing policy. Managers are free to guide the corporation in whatever direction they so choose. Aside from first amendment speech protections, American law treats the corporate form largely as a fiction, the corporation exists to serve shareholders. On the other hand, the Japanese system is more committed to the corporation as a legal person. Both models have advantages. The Japanese one is better at addressing the hold-up problem where employees and managers feel comfortable investing in firm specific knowledge knowing that the company promises them lifetime employment. At the same time the shareholder model is better at preventing moral hazard, but only if it is closely held. In a closely held corporation vigilant shareholders would fire managers who under-perform.
There are problems removing both senior management, and lower level employees. In America it is routine to talk about bringing in an external manager to take over a failing corporation. But, there are serious problems with bringing in external management. It is widely known in management circles, that in the vast majority of cases, bringing in external managers is extremely harmful to the corporation[25]. Intuitively this makes sense since the new manager is likely to know far less about the company. Furthermore, in most public corporations shareholders cannot actively monitor managers so it is difficult to justify that strategic change. There are also problems with dismissing lower level employees. It is increasingly doubtful that layoffs benefit shareholders. There is evidence that firing employees is bad for the corporation under general accounting principles, and for the share price of the corporation, both in the short and long term.
There are problems removing both senior management, and lower level employees. In America it is routine to talk about bringing in an external manager to take over a failing corporation. But, there are serious problems with bringing in external management. It is widely known in management circles, that in the vast majority of cases, bringing in external managers is extremely harmful to the corporation[25]. Intuitively this makes sense since the new manager is likely to know far less about the company. Furthermore, in most public corporations shareholders cannot actively monitor managers so it is difficult to justify that strategic change. There are also problems with dismissing lower level employees. It is increasingly doubtful that layoffs benefit shareholders. There is evidence that firing employees is bad for the corporation under general accounting principles, and for the share price of the corporation, both in the short and long term.
VI) Is firing employees is bad, good, or indeterminate for shareholders? If the share price is used as a guide there is evidence that firing employees is bad for shareholders. However, there is also evidence that firing employees is good for shareholders. Newsweek claims that layoffs are bad for company performance. The article notes:
Airlines faced not only the tragedy of 9/11 but the fact that economy was entering a recession. So almost immediately, all the U.S. airlines, save one, did what so many U.S. corporations are particularly skilled at doing: they began announcing tens of thousands of layoffs. Today the one airline that didn't cut staff, Southwest, still has never had an involuntary layoff in its almost 40-year history. It's now the largest domestic U.S. airline and has a market capitalization bigger than all its domestic competitors combined.[26]
This is not an isolated example, as Newsweek explains:
A study of 141 layoff announcements between 1979 and 1997 found negative stock returns to companies announcing layoffs, with larger and permanent layoffs leading to greater negative effects. An examination of 1,445 downsizing announcements between 1990 and 1998 also reported that downsizing had a negative effect on stock-market returns, and the negative effects were larger the greater the extent of the downsizing. Yet another study comparing 300 layoff announcements in the United States and 73 in Japan found that in both countries, there were negative abnormal shareholder returns following the announcement.[27]
It is possible that the reason that firms fire so many employees do so because they are in financial distress, and therefore labor market flexibility is not itself the cause of their decline in share price.[28] The firing of employees could be a signal to the market the company is in trouble. But there is other evidence that firing employees increases share price. Kevin J. Murphy notes that, “GD's stock jumped more than 30%, from $22.75 to over $30, in mid-March 1991 after three Wall Street investment banks issued “buy” recommendations, citing GD's new compensation plans and Anders' announced reductions in capital and research and development spending.”[29] General Dynamics also fired a large number of employees. From the following we can't say whether the movement of the companies stock after the dismissal of employees is because of the dismissal or some other factor. There are so many complex factors that enter into the judgments of shareholders when they are deciding whether to buy or sell. This fact alone suggests that labor flexibility is not inherently beneficial to shareholders.
Employees have a much larger role in Japanese corporate governance. An important reason employees in Japan have a bigger role is because many of them have lifetime employment. This paper argued that the Japanese system of lifetime employment is better at developing human capital, controlling agency costs, and may not decrease shareholder value. As with any system of corporate governance there are negatives to lifetime employment, however, these negatives are more than offset by the positives.
[2] Glynn, et al. Employment Law Private Ordering and Its Limitations, at 65 ¶ 3 (2007).
[3] Ronald J. Gilson, Mark J. Roe, Lifetime Employment: Labor Peace and the Evolution of Japanese Corporate Governance, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 508, at 17 (1999).
[4] Gilson, supra note 1, at 7.
[5] Kazuo Sugeno, Japanese Labor Law, University of Washington Press, at 14, (1992).
[6] Id, at 14.
[7] Id, at 14.
[8] Id. at 15.
[9] Takashi Araki, A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS IN JAPAN, 22 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J at 67, (2000).
[10] Id. at 6.
[11] Id. at 6.
[13] Araki supra, at 9.
[14] Id. at 8.
[15] Id. at 10.
[16] Cynthia L. Estlund, An American Perspective on Fundamental Labor Rights," in Social and Labour Rights in a Global Context (Robert Hepple, ed., Cambridge University Press), at 197, (2002).
[17] Id, 197.
[18] Hanson v. Central Show Printing Co., Inc., 130 N.W.2d 654 (Iowa 1964).
[19] Ronald J. Gilson, Mark J. Roe, Lifetime Employment: Labor Peace and the Evolution of Japanese Corporate Governance, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 508, at 16 (1999).
[20] An example of that test is in EarthWeb Inc. v. Schlack, 71 F. Supp. 2d (S.D.N.Y.) (1999).
[21] IBM v. Johnson 629 F. Supp. 2d 321 S.D.N.Y. (2009).
[22] Matt Marx, Deborah Strumsky, and Lee Fleming, Noncompetes and inventor Mobility: Specialists, Stars, and the Michigan Experiment, at 22 (2008).
[23] Ronald Dore, COMMENT: PAPERS ON EMPLOYEES AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, 2 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J 159 (2000).
[24] Katushito Iwai, unpublished lecture, “What Will Become of the (Japanese) Corporation? – A Comparative Perspective,” 9th John Whitney Hall Lecture at Yale University, Nov. 2007
[25] The Economist, Schumpeter, The curse of the alien boss, Aug 5th 2010
[26] Newsweek, Lay Off the Layoffs, at 1 February 05, 2010. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/04/lay-off-the-layoffs.html
[27] Id, at 3.
[28] Tim, C. Opler et al. Financial Distress and Corporate Performance, The Journal of Finance, Vol XLIX , No 3. at 1 (1994)
[29] Ibid, at 14.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)