Luke Herrine

Whenever an l&e scholar is surprised that I can respond to a skeptical question with knowledge of the relevant concepts, I now know that this is the subconscious line of thinking they’re repressing

Well, it’s not a moral discipline. Purely empirical

Feel free to hop in! I think I’m going to write a reflection in this whole symposium. Very discouraging

The goal isn’t to promote efficiency, even, because we’re constrained by the limits of “protection”!

Later he says "consumers" doesn't just mean consumers. Back to the same ambiguities

Erik Hovenkamp’s contribution to this symposium explicitly restates the consumer surplus (which is maybe the trading partner surplus, who knows?) definition of welfare as if nobody has ever understood, let alone critiqued, it

I think the answer is the latter. There’s now a longstanding pattern of l&e scholars treating the LPE literature as one article long even when they’ve engaged with avowedly LPE scholarship in their areas of expertise

(Although not going into the pre-neoclassical tradition)

The Goldin & Liscow article meets this standard

The new Fusionism: PT Barnum & Norman Vincent Peale

L&E critics cite and discuss more than one LPE article challenge: impossible

No! But there is a piece that more directly engages abolitionist literature* in this symposium:

lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/defaul...

*which is not, like, the only view on the crim system in LP. It's weird that all these responses treat articles by LPE scholars as announcing The LPE View

Ironically one of the $10k George Mason anti-LPE essays criticizes my blog post providing a basic critical introduction to the concept of "efficiency" as being written in too casual a tone, like an op-ed.

No, it only works for some kinds of stuff

Market Governance in Trumpworld Over the past year, the much-touted right-wing embrace of anti-monopolism has been reduced to a distant memory. What has emerged instead is a personalist form of market governance…

Today, Luke Herrine (@lookheron.bsky.social) offers a whirlwind tour of market governance in Trumpworld.

While most agencies have embraced a pro-monopolist, pro-corruption reorientation, the lone exception is the FTC. Why is this? And what does it suggest about market regulation under Trump 2.0?

always gna learn something you didn't expect to learn from @lookheron.bsky.social @lpeblog.bsky.social

This one's for you, Jon:

lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/defaul...

There's another piece in the symposium about how L&E is actually fundamentally about empirical methods and LPE should learn something. It discusses 1 LPE article and doesn't even address the rebuttal in another

lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/defaul...

Journal of Law and Political Economy

Not ALPE, but there is JLPE:

escholarship.org/uc/lawandpol...

Trump Admin stopped opposing the lawsuit against Biden Admin's major new income-driven repayment plan, which rendered the lawsuit moot before a settlement could be reached. Oops! Now that plan is the law until further notice.

Good 🧵on a pathbreaking article (still out for placement in law reviews, I believe!)

FTC Chairmanship as an extended audition for Dear Leader: market governance under Trump's personalist regime

Law and economics, as you know, is a field outside history or disciplinary boundaries. It is defined only by rigor and seriousness. Everything that is criticizes it is, by simple deduction, unserious and not rigorous.

It's almost certain he can't be bothered to learn about your work. Here's another sample:

"And if you dive into the literature, you will find a field deeply
engaged in the analysis of power and inequality at a level of so-
phistication beyond the LPE critique’s wildest comprehension..."

I'm sorry the actual exception made is for David Grewal's article. "It is hard to find others" Sanga tells us. Meanwhile that article is literally discussed by @akapczynski.bsky.social in the same symposium.

You spend hours familiarizing yourself with the literature, reading critiques and debates, developing your own analysis, worrying about whether you've missed something important...and then instead of careful critical response it's "I can't be bothered to read what you're saying."

There's one footnote that acknowledges that maybe some LPE scholars might engage with economic theory (citing @sanjukta.bsky.social) but Sanga can't be bothered to see how common this is.

And it's presented as if we haven't heard this before. As if this objection is not constantly on our minds.

Yale Law scholar dismisses and entire field of scholarly inquiry on the grounds that it has not engaged deeply with the law-and-economics literature. It is 6 pages and it cites to only five LPE articles--including none of the articles in the same symposium!

lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/defaul...

Hey, speaking of which,

Market Governance in Trumpworld Over the past year, the much-touted right-wing embrace of anti-monopolism has been reduced to a distant memory. What has emerged instead is a personalist form of market governance…

I’ve got a spicy essay on @lpeblog.bsky.social arguing Trump2 so far has been like 1979 deregulation returning as farce

lpeproject.org/blog/market-...