Global temperatures have remained stable or slightly declining for the last 8/9 years.

If the solar guys are right, this is the inflection point before the decline.

i.e. hysteria peaks just before evidence accumulates sufficiently to prove the fear unjustified. But not until a few innocent bystanders are creamed.

For years I've thought my brother was lucky in the work he did (residential additions and remodeling) because he could, and sometimes did, ride around town and point and say, 'I built the family room on that house' or 'I gutted their kitchen and rebuilt it.' He spent his time and earned his money creating something that wasn't there before. Until I read your post I didn't have a succinct way of describing the others, but rent seeking behavior nails it.

More to the point of your post, Brit Hume had a report tonight on the environmental requirements enacted by Berkley CA amongst which are absurd requirements for energy efficient appliances homeowners must install before, yes before, they can sell their homes. Any sensible person sold their home before these laws took effect.

Two words: Loser. Pays.

Okay, three words: NOW

yours/
peter.

In the tobacco litigation, trial lawyers established the precedent that a perfectly legal industry can be forced to bear the costs that its enterprise brings to society.

A major factor in the cost of medical care in the US is litigation. All processes, procedures, drugs and equipment must be insured against the risk of malpractice or other litigation. The result is that everything is more expensive. For example, hospital spec electrical outlets are significantly more expensive than identical outlets not packaged for sale to hospitals. These costs are there because of trial lawyers.

Based on the precedent they themselves have established, trial lawyers should have to start paying up, just like they made the tobacco companies do. There should be a national health insurance program funded by a 50% tax on attorneys' fees for personal injury cases.

I take offense at your characterization of lawyers. You take issue at one select group of lawyers, yet appear to be blasting all of them. I'm not a "trial lawyer", nor do I work on mass tort cases, but even your criticism of them is unfair. The mandatory attorney's fees provisions in the ADA is because our legislature decided that access to everyday facilities by those of us who are disabled was THAT important. Likewise, I suggest you watch the beginning of "Fight Club", when the Edward Norton character is describing what he does for a living. It doesn't get any simpler than that. If the cost of fixing something that kills people is more than the cost of (the average settlement x number of lawsuits), then they are perfectly willing to let their products keep killing people.

Dream on, Peter--the law makers are all lawyers. It'll take The Second Coming to get around that. Or, another 1776.

Always remind leftists that The biggest event of the last 15 years is the stunning movement away from socialism.

Anybody who bases his view of the world on "Fight Club" needs to get out more.

I take offense at your characterization of lawyers. You take issue at one select group of lawyers, yet appear to be blasting all of them.

I hope, for your clients' sake, that you read legal briefs more carefully than you read this post. Eric clearly distinguished between the lawyers who are parasites and those who actually help others create wealth:

The answer to that depends on what kind of law they practice. The non-parasitic type of lawyer can help businesses succeed, help advance policies which advance economic growth, or (possibly by teaching) help train young lawyers to see the wisdom of not falling into the "rent seeking" trap.M/b>

I'm not a "trial lawyer", nor do I work on mass tort cases, but even your criticism of them is unfair. The mandatory attorney's fees provisions in the ADA is because our legislature decided that access to everyday facilities by those of us who are disabled was THAT important.

The fact that most of our legislators who legislated those mandatory fees are attorneys themselves is strictly coincidental, right?

If the cost of fixing something that kills people is more than the cost of (the average settlement x number of lawsuits), then they are perfectly willing to let their products keep killing people.

And if there is no money in it for the trial lawyers, they are perfectly willing to let those products stay on the market. Unlike the doctors they like to sue, who treat people regardless of income levels and who can lose their licenses if they refuse to treat based on ability to pay, lawyers won't take a case if they aren't going to get paid. As a matter of fact, lawyers pat themselves on the back for the work they do "pro bono", while making it impossible for other professionals to donate their services. I know physicians who used to freebie services to clergy but can no longer do so for fear of getting sued for fraud because they didn't freebie all their clients.

Of course, only a lawyer, like yourself, who has never really created any kind of goods for sale, would think that businesses want to kill off their customers.

Great post, and I love the word "parasitic." I sometimes advise students who are thinking of law school, and my consistent comment has been "the legal profession is at least 50% parasitic; just make sure to be in the 50% that is not."

Great post, and I love the word "parasitic." I sometimes advise students who are thinking of law school, and my consistent comment has been "the legal profession is at least 50% parasitic; just make sure to be in the 50% that is not."

Great post, and I love the word "parasitic." I sometimes advise students who are thinking of law school, and my consistent comment has been "the legal profession is at least 50% parasitic; just make sure to be in the 50% that is not."

Great post, and I love the word "parasitic." I sometimes advise students who are thinking of law school, and my consistent comment has been "the legal profession is at least 50% parasitic; just make sure to be in the 50% that is not."

This is why despite graduating near the top of my law school class I decided to teach instead of practice. At least I wouldn't have to be part of a profession that rapes the productive class all too often.

We're about a likely to see tort reform out of the 110th as we are to see earmark reform. (Yes! File in I know pile.)

However, there is always a probability that some voter is seeing this for the first time--and thus, may change their mind.

I wonder if we did a Net MB/Net MC for counselors would the benefit exceed cost? Which is to say how scummy are the lawyers as a group? We already know that the lawmakers fail the test to the tune of about $2T/year...or so I'd think.

take offense at your characterization of lawyers.

Take all the offense you want. It was a well thought out and well written analysis.

Which you read wrong, by the way.

So instead you just teach other people the skills they need to rape the productive class as competently and efficiently as possible? Doesn't seem much of an improvement over doing it yourself.

There is still no answer about what percentage of lawyers are "rent seekers"
and what percentage are doing the right thing for the world.

My gut feeling is that it's about 80% rent seeking (ie unproductive parasitic behavior),
but many lawyers are helpful despite themselves. Trial lawyers are pretty much what keeps GM from building cars worse than they alreasy are. (I own a chevy pickup truck.) And, don't tell me about how the government regulators would never let a major corporation do such a thing. Duh.

The bottom line here is that at least a few lawyers are acting as parasites on people who are a real menace to society.

As for the rest:

The vast majority of lawyers give the rest of the a bad name.

There is still no answer about what percentage of lawyers are "rent seekers"
and what percentage are doing the right thing for the world.

My gut feeling is that it's about 80% rent seeking (ie unproductive parasitic behavior),
but many lawyers are helpful despite themselves. Trial lawyers are pretty much what keeps GM from building cars worse than they alreasy are. (I own a chevy pickup truck.) And, don't tell me about how the government regulators would never let a major corporation do such a thing. Duh.

The bottom line here is that at least a few lawyers are acting as parasites on people who are a real menace to society.

As for the rest:

The vast majority of lawyers give the rest of them a bad name.

Apologies, Joseph. You're right --there are exceptions to whatever it is that has so many caring people outraged and clamoring for tort reform.

Loser pays? Yeah, right. Then the big companies will really run you over. They can hire attorneys to squish you, and you can't fight back for lack of money. And then you lose and have to pay? Gimme a break.

You calling police parasites too? They don't create anything either. They make their money taking down the rent seekers. Thats good, but they don't create anything. They just make it possible for the rest of us to. There are a lot of shades in this. Generalization can be dangerous.

A quick review of the comments hints that examples of 'rent seeking behavior' in the law and lawyers are easy to come by but examples of branches of law that are less inherently destructive....well, the silence is deafening.

Lawyers might have made sense when few people were able to read, and language was much more regional, but to an engineer, our system of justice is nonsensical tripe. Just a weekend's effort by a few systems' engineers would make your head swim with hope and great crys of '....of course!, ....why not!, unless you were a lawyer. They like their self - gifted, pocket - lining scams built over centuries.

Thanks, Instapundit, for a place to comment on lawyers, but they won't get it. It's pointless. We are a nation of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and most painfully, for the lawyers.

This is why there should be a cap on lawyers' fees, something like $500/hr (which is about a million a year; more than enough).

It's not just that they produce nothing (ok, arguably conflict resolution). The more important peculiar, anti-capitalist aspect of their profession is that it rests on the coercive power of the state, which enforces court rulings.

Emperor Augustus is known as the man who ended the Roman Republic, but he was also known for several great acts of civil reform. Chief among these was tax reform, under which everyone was taxed a certain amount or percentage. Prior to that, taxes were paid on the basis of how much minions of the state could violently extort from you, backed by the power of the state (and the more the minions could seize from you, the more they got to keep). That is essentially the paradigm under which law is practiced now.

When you write a post on lawyers you get lots of comments. Why? Because a huge number of blog readers are lawyers.

Lawyers tend to be voracious readers and current event lovers. They also understand (at least the ones who are honest with themselves) that most lawyering is "despicable parasit[ism]" to use your pungent phrase.

But the vast majority of lawyers really and truly believe that lawyers and government bureaucrats are the key to solving problems and "making things better". These people are generally referred to as Democrats. They do not understand and the free market and generally fear and loathe it. They are 'five year plan' types who think the Soviet Union failed not because of fundamental flaws in the idea, but rather poor execution. If only there were Ivy League lawyers running the show, everything would have been fine.

HOWEVER, because I am a laywer, I can easily argue the opposite of what I just wrote. To wit: lawyers are government bureaucrats/regulators privatized. We could have all of these issues (ADA is but one small example) handled by government bureaucrats, as in the EU, or we can have it handled privately (as is the American way). In this view, its not about rent-seeking so much as it is about reflecting the true cost of regulation. If ADA enforcement was done by the government it would cost just as much (maybe more) but the costs would be hidden.

When you write a post on lawyers you get lots of comments. Why? Because a huge number of blog readers are lawyers.

Lawyers tend to be voracious readers and current event lovers. They also understand (at least the ones who are honest with themselves) that most lawyering is "despicable parasit[ism]" to use your pungent phrase.

But the vast majority of lawyers really and truly believe that lawyers and government bureaucrats are the key to solving problems and "making things better". These people are generally referred to as Democrats. They do not understand and the free market and generally fear and loathe it. They are 'five year plan' types who think the Soviet Union failed not because of fundamental flaws in the idea, but rather poor execution. If only there were Ivy League lawyers running the show, everything would have been fine.

HOWEVER, because I am a laywer, I can easily argue the opposite of what I just wrote. To wit: lawyers are government bureaucrats/regulators privatized. We could have all of these issues (ADA is but one small example) handled by government bureaucrats, as in the EU, or we can have it handled privately (as is the American way). In this view, its not about rent-seeking so much as it is about reflecting the true cost of regulation. If ADA enforcement was done by the government it would cost just as much (maybe more) but the costs would be hidden.

Shakespeare had it right about lawyers

Commodities trading is rent seeking behavior in the extreme. Yet most every non marxist recognizes the benefits of commodities markets. Certainly some of the function of the legal profession is analagous. TallDave's comment seems to touch upon this.

"Commodities trading is rent seeking behavior in the extreme."

I would have to strongly disagree with that statement. As someone who has a fairly strong background in futures, options and ag commodities I am curious as to why you think two individuals engaging in a consensual transference of future risk is "rent seeking behavior"? Commodities futures trading has no real affect on the underlying cash price of the actual commodity, rather it is the cash price fundamentals that drive the futures price.

If you are referring to speculators in the market who have no underlying cash interest in either buying or selling the commodity in question then to understand their role properly is to see them as providing liquidity to the other players in the marketplace. Speculators don't create waves in the market, they merely ride them (if they are wise).

Just because something isn't bricks and mortar doesn't mean it is therefore rent seeking. Mafia extortion is rent seeking, pillaging a city in wartime is rent seeking, suing the makers of the "Never Ending Story" for false advertising (among Lionel Hutz's greatest moments) is rent seeking.

Also there is a difference between rent seeking and everyday run of the mill parasitic activity. The police and military are parasitic in their relationship to society yet they are not true rent seekers because they are considered necessary for the maintenance of order that allows individuals to actually create wealth. As long as the burden of cost is shared equally by all under the protection then it is considered fair. If a rent is unavoidable, such as in this case that human nature means there will always be crime and the threat of war, then does paying rent truly constitute rent seeking? And if that is the case then doesn't the need to purchase firearms for personal protection also constitute rent seeking because the nature of society demands that some form of protection is needed.

Sort of like the charge made against WWI war profiteers for selling Europeans the means to slaughter each other. That was basically a charge of rent seeking, yet because the war was going to be fought anyway is it true rent seeking? Mining, buying, forging, crafting and shipping all of that iron across the Atlantic Ocean was surely not adding wealth to the world but rather destroying it by making productive use of the capital, labor and natural resources more expensive, not to mention the human and economic cost to the Europeans.

A final point: rent seeking is always, in some way going on. Anytime a company spends resources "gaining market share" they are selling their products for less than they need to if they only want to maintain current profits to instead drive other competitors out of business. This is not in and of itself a bad thing, but it is a form of warfare or rent seeking. Wealth reallocation rather than wealth creation.

I would put the parasitic side of lawyers in the 60% range. I think that if you wanted to get rid of about 90% of that 60%, you could do so by getting rid of OSHA, EPA, ADA, sexual harassment, and tort reform. Probably a good chunk could also be reduced by getting rid of the headache of state employment insurance-related laws, and providing some kind of relief against building regulations at the local level.

I run my own firm (patent lawyer, so I like to think I am on the non-parasitic side), and my pro bono work consists of helping small business owners who are getting royally screwed by government regulators.

It is the small business owners who, in my opinion, wind up the big losers from the parasitic lawyer/regulator class. Big companies can afford the legal bills, pay the insurance that will cover against a lot of it, and it will be a fraction of their overall cost of doing business/can be passed on as a minor consumer cost. Small businesses just can't do it.

Yeah, lets get rid of lawyers and regulations and let corporations free to do whatever they can get away with...

I love these self congratulatory lawyers, clapping themselves on the back for keeping evil capitalism in check with thier parasitic behavior.

'trial lawyers are what keep gm building good vehicles'.

What a joke. Toyota is what keeps GM building good vehicles. The consumer who stops buying GM vehicles when they blow up unexpectantly keep GM building good vehicles. The pride of the engineers of GM, in a job well done is what keep GM building good vehicles.

trial lawyers just increase the costs of goods and services, until they can price them out of the market.

I'm no "trial lawyer," and I certainly don't like them, but I think accusing them of being "rent seekers" is a little broad-brushed.

If a tort lawyer, by internalizing an industry's externalities (e.g., forcing a cement factory to consider the cost its pollutants inflict on third parties in its price), causes the market to move to a more socially optimal point, then he has actually increased total social utility. Likewise, a government lawyer who creates regulations governing, say, the default rules of shareholder rights, may thereby reduce transaction costs for businesses seeking to incorporate and contribute value to the overall economy. Neither action is precisely "creating wealth," but neither is exactly "rent seeking" or "parasitic" either.

Capitalism is a great thing, but it operates under a pre-defined set of rules. You can no more have a functioning capitalist economy without clear-cut shareholder rights than you can without enforceable property rights. Lots of lawyers are purely rent seeking and parasitic, and lots of lawyers directly create value, but some fall into an ill-defined third category: useful, but indirectly.

Jeff (August 1 10pm):

Maybe make loser pays applicable to individual plaintiffs who lose. A defendant who loses is going to pay anyway.

If I'm the target of a frivolous lawsuit I feel I should certainly be awarded attorneys' fees from the losing plaintiff.

A "loser pays" system at the very least has the seed of a great idea.

In economic literature, lawyers, bandits, and government workers (non-research) are usually used as the definition of renkseekers. One study even went as far as study the effects of growths of certain school enrollment with overall GDP. (If I remember correctly it was 1/5% reduction in GDP for law students and 1% growth for engineers.)

As others have commented, that doesn't mean lawyers, police officers, and economists *cough* don't have merit. Lawyers are part of 'the rule of law' that also encourages economic growth. If contracts are broken or damages made that impede the flow of business, then the absence of rent-seeking behavior (lawyering) enourages worse rent-seeking behavior (theft in the form of contract breaking, for instance.)

Only in nations where rent-seeking is the only game in town is a problem. If you know that if you study hard you can get a gov job with bribes and bonuses, or you can bust your hump trying to start a business which can be taken by some corrupt official... well the choice is obvious.

As someone who has a fairly strong background in futures, options and ag commodities I am curious as to why you think two individuals engaging in a consensual transference of future risk is "rent seeking behavior"?

I was proceeding from the premise laid out at the start of this discussion -

..there are two general ways to increase your wealth: by creating things people want, or by fighting over prizes that already exist -- things other people have created or found.

If you choose to define 'transferable future risk' as a created thing then by all means do so. I do not, and I'm pretty sure most every other rent seeker could, if pressed, come up with some sort of similar descriptor attempting to define their behavior as a thing also.

But don't think I consider rent seeking somehow unacceptable or unsavory, often it is not.

As someone who has a fairly strong background in futures, options and ag commodities I am curious as to why you think two individuals engaging in a consensual transference of future risk is "rent seeking behavior"?

I was proceeding from the premise laid out at the start of this discussion -

..there are two general ways to increase your wealth: by creating things people want, or by fighting over prizes that already exist -- things other people have created or found.

If you choose to define 'transferable future risk' as a created thing then by all means do so. I do not, and I'm pretty sure most every other rent seeker could, if pressed, come up with some sort of similar descriptor attempting to define their behavior as a thing also.

But don't think I consider rent seeking somehow unacceptable or unsavory, often it is not.

"Think of this on a larger scale and you can see that the more a society spends on rent seeking -- on quarrels over who gets what -- the poorer it becomes. If that's all that anyone did, everyone would starve in due course."

That's a pretty good description of the situation in many African countries, including the one I lived in. People spend so much time fighting over the little bit they see in front of them (which seems like a lot at the time) that they never get around to producing more. Then they pay the price down the road.

Everyone wants to disparage lawyers until you need one! Just pray you never do.

An interesting example is patent lawyers. Some are parasites, esp. ones who represent "patent trolls" - people who seek patents strictly for purposes of litigation against the productive. The counter example is patent attorneys who secure patents for entrepeneurs, allowing them to leverage their ideas into capital and wealth (working with one of the latter now, helping us create a $500,000,000 biz - wealth - basically out of thin air and new ideas). My point? sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between parasites and the productive lawyers, and sometimes they are both (that same atty reps a couple patent trolls).

PS The person who said Shakespear had it right should read Shakespear again. In context, he was actually making the OPPOSITE point.