An earlier paper, How to Tax Capital, 70 Tax L. Rev. 1 (2016), proposed a new approach to taxing capital owned by U.S. households and nonprofits. The cornerstone is a flat periodic tax on the market value of U.S. publicly traded securities. An annual tax rate of around .8 percent (80 basis points) would roughly approximate the average tax burden on capital income in the U.S. under the existing patchwork system for taxing capital income. A security issuer would remit the tax based on the market value of its securities. A security issuer would receive a credit for U.S. publicly traded securities it holds so that wealth that is represented by a string of publicly traded securities would be taxed once. Wealth held in forms other than publicly traded securities (e.g, private equity and closely held companies) would be taxed by a complementary tax at the same rate on their estimated value. The earlier paper explained why the securities tax is superior to the individual income tax and the corporate income tax as a tax on capital. It eliminates most distortions created by the existing system, it is easy to administer, and it is impossible to evade other than by holding wealth in illiquid forms (which is costly). This paper examines how the securities tax would function in a global context assuming that other nations do not change their approach to taxing cross-border investment. The current system involves a bifurcated tax on capital income with the nation in which capital is used imposing a company-level tax on income and the state in which owners of capital reside imposing an owner-level tax of dividends, interest, and capital gains. The securities tax is a unitary tax on capital imposed at the company level. Integrating a unitary tax with the current bifurcated system requires several modifications in the securities tax: the corporate income tax would need to be retained to tax foreign direct investment in the U.S.; the U.S. would probably want to give a U.S. company a partial credit against the securities tax for foreign taxes paid by a company on foreign source income; and the U.S. probably would want to rebate a significant part of the securities tax to identified foreign owners of U.S. securities (the rebate would not be paid to unidentified owners). These modifications would mean that the securities tax would not remedy the problems that currently plague the taxation of global capital. One modest benefit is that not rebating the tax to unidentified foreign owners of U.S. assets would allow the U.S. government to share in the profit from the U.S. serving as a haven for hidden wealth, which would make the U.S. somewhat less attractive as a haven. But the modified securities tax would be no worse than the status quo with respect to taxing cross border investment.
早期的一篇论文《如何对资本征税，70 Tax L. Rev. 1(2016)》提出了一种对美国家庭和非营利组织拥有的资本征税的新方法。其基础是对美国公开交易证券的市场价值定期征收统一税。大约0.8%(80个基点)的年税率大致相当于美国现有的资本收入拼凑税制下的平均资本收入税负。证券发行人将根据其证券的市场价值缴纳税款。证券发行人持有的美国公开交易证券将获得信贷，这样一系列公开交易证券所代表的财富将被一次性征税。以公开交易证券以外的形式持有的财富(例如，私人股本和少数人持股的公司)将按其估计价值按相同的税率征收补充税。前面的文章解释了为什么证券税作为资本税优于个人所得税和企业所得税。它消除了现有制度造成的大多数扭曲，易于管理，除了以非流动性形式持有财富(这是昂贵的)之外，不可能逃避。本文考察了证券税如何在全球范围内发挥作用，假设其他国家不改变他们对跨境投资征税的方法。目前的制度涉及对资本收入的双重征税，资本使用国对收入征收公司级税，资本所有者居住的州对股息、利息和资本收益征收所有者级税。证券税是在公司层面对资本征收的单一税。将单一税与目前的分税制相结合，需要对证券税进行几项修改:企业所得税需要保留，以便对在美外国直接投资征税;美国可能希望给予美国公司部分抵免证券税，以抵免公司因外国来源收入而缴纳的外国税款;而且，美国可能希望将很大一部分证券税退还给持有美国证券的已确认的外国所有者(退税不会支付给未确认的所有者)。这些修改将意味着，证券税将无法解决目前困扰全球资本征税的问题。一个小小的好处是，不向持有美国资产的身份不明的外国所有者返还税款，将使美国政府能够分享美国作为隐藏财富避风港所带来的利润，这将使美国作为避风港的吸引力有所下降。但在对跨境投资征税方面，修改后的证券税不会比现状更糟糕。
{"title":"A Securities Tax and the Problems of Taxing Global Capital","authors":"Mark P. Gergen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3619211","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3619211","url":null,"abstract":"An earlier paper, How to Tax Capital, 70 Tax L. Rev. 1 (2016), proposed a new approach to taxing capital owned by U.S. households and nonprofits. The cornerstone is a flat periodic tax on the market value of U.S. publicly traded securities. An annual tax rate of around .8 percent (80 basis points) would roughly approximate the average tax burden on capital income in the U.S. under the existing patchwork system for taxing capital income. A security issuer would remit the tax based on the market value of its securities. A security issuer would receive a credit for U.S. publicly traded securities it holds so that wealth that is represented by a string of publicly traded securities would be taxed once. Wealth held in forms other than publicly traded securities (e.g, private equity and closely held companies) would be taxed by a complementary tax at the same rate on their estimated value. The earlier paper explained why the securities tax is superior to the individual income tax and the corporate income tax as a tax on capital. It eliminates most distortions created by the existing system, it is easy to administer, and it is impossible to evade other than by holding wealth in illiquid forms (which is costly). \u0000 \u0000This paper examines how the securities tax would function in a global context assuming that other nations do not change their approach to taxing cross-border investment. The current system involves a bifurcated tax on capital income with the nation in which capital is used imposing a company-level tax on income and the state in which owners of capital reside imposing an owner-level tax of dividends, interest, and capital gains. The securities tax is a unitary tax on capital imposed at the company level. Integrating a unitary tax with the current bifurcated system requires several modifications in the securities tax: the corporate income tax would need to be retained to tax foreign direct investment in the U.S.; the U.S. would probably want to give a U.S. company a partial credit against the securities tax for foreign taxes paid by a company on foreign source income; and the U.S. probably would want to rebate a significant part of the securities tax to identified foreign owners of U.S. securities (the rebate would not be paid to unidentified owners). These modifications would mean that the securities tax would not remedy the problems that currently plague the taxation of global capital. One modest benefit is that not rebating the tax to unidentified foreign owners of U.S. assets would allow the U.S. government to share in the profit from the U.S. serving as a haven for hidden wealth, which would make the U.S. somewhat less attractive as a haven. But the modified securities tax would be no worse than the status quo with respect to taxing cross border investment.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87547372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Has acting made your a better person? Keanu Reeves was asked that question on his promotional tour for John Wick Chapter 2. Interestingly, his (struggling to) answer tells us a lot about the type of challenges we face in antitrust analysis. Using a series of everyday life examples, analogies, and with help from Keanu Reeves, Julius Caesar, and Nicolas Cage, I discuss four powerful insights in statistics and econometrics that antitrust practitioners can learn and apply, all without any deep understanding of the underlying mathematics. My goal is to convince the readers that you do not need an advanced degree in economics or statistics to become more than dangerous when it comes to econometric analysis in the antitrust domain.
{"title":"Julius Caesar, Keanu Reeves, Nicholas Cage, and Econometrics? Four Analytical Insights for Antitrust Counsel","authors":"Ai Deng","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3582169","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3582169","url":null,"abstract":"Has acting made your a better person? Keanu Reeves was asked that question on his promotional tour for John Wick Chapter 2. Interestingly, his (struggling to) answer tells us a lot about the type of challenges we face in antitrust analysis. \u0000 \u0000Using a series of everyday life examples, analogies, and with help from Keanu Reeves, Julius Caesar, and Nicolas Cage, I discuss four powerful insights in statistics and econometrics that antitrust practitioners can learn and apply, all without any deep understanding of the underlying mathematics. My goal is to convince the readers that you do not need an advanced degree in economics or statistics to become more than dangerous when it comes to econometric analysis in the antitrust domain.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82670868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
If you were to ask any person that regularly watches sports if doping or performance enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) are prevalent in any of the major American sports leagues, the answer would likely be a resounding “yes.” From Barry Bonds to Lance Armstrong, the specter of doping has hung over American sports through the past few decades and there has been a consistent pressure to ramp up efforts to catch offenders. Yet, while the major American sports leagues (such as Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Football League) have updated their drug policies, they have not signed onto the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Anti-Doping Code. To outside observers, the question arises: if American sports leagues are truly serious about catching athletes who use performance enhancing drugs, then why would they not sign onto the world’s largest anti-doping agency?
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was established in 1999 by the International Olympic Committee in order to address the doping scandal that occurred at the 1998 Tour de France. The Agency’s Code is designed to be extremely strict and punitive in order to properly deter athletes from doping and affecting the fairness of competitions. Their strict code has drawn the ire of many athletes and implicated privacy concerns, but remains in place, governing the Olympics, international sporting competitions, and even the Ultimate Fighting Competition through the US Anti-Doping Agency.
The MLB, NBA, and NFL, despite past pressure from Congress and WADA officials, have continued to monitor their own athletes and collectively bargain with their players’ unions to develop drug testing policies that are both effective and less invasive. Collective bargaining has been seen as a weakness among proponents of the WADA Code; the argument is that collective bargaining fails to address the incentives for players to negotiate “toothless” drug policies and incentives for leagues to ensure that their star players are not implicated in any scandals. However, these concerns are generally overblown, which will be explained further below.
This Note argues that while American sports leagues do have some work to do in order to properly combat doping, the WADA Code is far too draconian and overly punitive to be implemented in American sports. As they stand, the American sports league policies are sufficient and should not become any harsher than they currently are. Part I examines the current anti-doping policies of the MLB, NBA, and NFL as well as the WADA Code. Part II argues that because of the drawbacks of the WADA Code, the American major sports leagues would be ill-advised to adopt WADA’s Code to govern themselves both because the difference in effectiveness is not significant enough to impose the WADA restrictions on American athletes and because doping is not significant enough of a problem to justify it. Part III suggests that striking a balance between current Ameri
{"title":"WADA Time to Stay the Course: Maintaining the Collectively Bargained Anti-Doping Policies in American Sports Leagues","authors":"Warren Chu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3573201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3573201","url":null,"abstract":"If you were to ask any person that regularly watches sports if doping or performance enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) are prevalent in any of the major American sports leagues, the answer would likely be a resounding “yes.” From Barry Bonds to Lance Armstrong, the specter of doping has hung over American sports through the past few decades and there has been a consistent pressure to ramp up efforts to catch offenders. Yet, while the major American sports leagues (such as Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Football League) have updated their drug policies, they have not signed onto the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Anti-Doping Code. To outside observers, the question arises: if American sports leagues are truly serious about catching athletes who use performance enhancing drugs, then why would they not sign onto the world’s largest anti-doping agency? <br><br>The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was established in 1999 by the International Olympic Committee in order to address the doping scandal that occurred at the 1998 Tour de France. The Agency’s Code is designed to be extremely strict and punitive in order to properly deter athletes from doping and affecting the fairness of competitions. Their strict code has drawn the ire of many athletes and implicated privacy concerns, but remains in place, governing the Olympics, international sporting competitions, and even the Ultimate Fighting Competition through the US Anti-Doping Agency. <br><br>The MLB, NBA, and NFL, despite past pressure from Congress and WADA officials, have continued to monitor their own athletes and collectively bargain with their players’ unions to develop drug testing policies that are both effective and less invasive. Collective bargaining has been seen as a weakness among proponents of the WADA Code; the argument is that collective bargaining fails to address the incentives for players to negotiate “toothless” drug policies and incentives for leagues to ensure that their star players are not implicated in any scandals. However, these concerns are generally overblown, which will be explained further below.<br><br>This Note argues that while American sports leagues do have some work to do in order to properly combat doping, the WADA Code is far too draconian and overly punitive to be implemented in American sports. As they stand, the American sports league policies are sufficient and should not become any harsher than they currently are. Part I examines the current anti-doping policies of the MLB, NBA, and NFL as well as the WADA Code. Part II argues that because of the drawbacks of the WADA Code, the American major sports leagues would be ill-advised to adopt WADA’s Code to govern themselves both because the difference in effectiveness is not significant enough to impose the WADA restrictions on American athletes and because doping is not significant enough of a problem to justify it. Part III suggests that striking a balance between current Ameri","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89760798","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court appeal of Georgia, et al., v. Public.Resource.Org., explores the interplay of copyright law and the edicts of government doctrine. The “edicts of government” doctrine was first validated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of nineteenth century cases. Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834); Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888); Callaghan v. Meyers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888). While the doctrine has never been directly recognized in the express wording of the copyright statute, it is nevertheless firmly rooted in foundational copyright principles that are themselves reflected in the text of the statute. Three foundational copyright principles buttress the doctrine. First, copyrightable authorship does not extend to official announcements of law, the hallmark of edicts of government. Authorship as requires personalization, an attribute that is antithetical to official pronouncements of law, which are generated in an impersonal and ex officio manner. Second, all edicts of government, as legal texts, are methods of operation, rendering them uncopyrightable. Third, authentic statements of law entail the merger of idea and expression insofar as the expression underlying edicts of government are capable of being expressed in only a limited number of ways in order to preserve its authenticity. Consequently, the Official Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A.) is not copyrightable. Petitioners concede that the statutory content of the O.C.G.A. is uncopyrightable. The annotations incorporated into the O.C.G.A. by the state legislature bear the imprimatur of the state and are therefore produced under the ostensible authority of the state, which renders them an edict of government. Contrary to Petitioners’ argument, an edict does not need to have the force of law to qualify as an uncopyrightable edict of government. The Supreme Court’s precedents contradict this position. Instead, faithful reading of these precedents suggest that something becomes an uncopyrightable edict of government when it is produced under the ostensible authority of the state and thus receives a presumptively official status, owing to its endorsement by the state. The process by which the annotations contained in the O.C.G.A. are adopted and merged with the statutory content therein constitutes the exercise of such ostensible authority, rendering the O.C.G.A. an uncopyrightable edict of government.
本法庭之友摘要在乔治亚等人诉Public.Resource.Org最高法院上诉案中提交。，探讨了版权法和政府主义法令的相互作用。“政府法令”原则最初由美国最高法院在19世纪的一系列案件中证实。惠顿诉彼得斯案，33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834);班克斯诉曼彻斯特案，128 U.S. 244 (1888);卡拉汉诉迈耶斯案，128 U.S. 617(1888)。虽然这一理论从未在版权法规的明确措辞中得到直接承认，但它仍然牢固地植根于基本的版权原则，这些原则本身也反映在法规的案文中。三个基本的版权原则支撑着这一理论。首先，受版权保护的作者身份并不适用于政府法令的标志——官方法律公告。作者身份需要个性化，这是一种与法律的官方声明相对立的属性，后者是以客观和当然的方式产生的。其次，所有政府法令作为法律文本，都是操作方法，因此不具有版权。第三，真正的法律陈述需要思想和表达的结合，因为作为政府法令基础的表达只能用有限的几种方式来表达，以保持其真实性。因此，《乔治亚州官方法典》(o.c.g.a)不具有版权。请愿者承认《O.C.G.A.》的法定内容不受版权保护。由州立法机关纳入《O.C.G.A.》的注释得到了该州的认可，因此是在该州的表面权威下制作的，这使它们成为政府的法令。与请愿人的论点相反，一项法令不需要具有法律效力就可以成为不受版权保护的政府法令。最高法院的判例与这一立场相矛盾。相反，对这些先例的忠实解读表明，当某种东西是在表面上的国家权威下产生的，并且由于得到国家的认可而获得推定的官方地位时，它就变成了不受版权保护的政府法令。O.C.G.A.所载的注释被采纳并与其中的法定内容合并的过程构成了这种表面上的权力的行使，使O.C.G.A.成为一项不受版权保护的政府法令。
{"title":"The Uncopyrightability of Edicts of Government","authors":"Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Peter S. Menell","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3477564","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3477564","url":null,"abstract":"This amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court appeal of Georgia, et al., v. Public.Resource.Org., explores the interplay of copyright law and the edicts of government doctrine. The “edicts of government” doctrine was first validated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of nineteenth century cases. Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834); Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888); Callaghan v. Meyers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888). While the doctrine has never been directly recognized in the express wording of the copyright statute, it is nevertheless firmly rooted in foundational copyright principles that are themselves reflected in the text of the statute. \u0000 \u0000Three foundational copyright principles buttress the doctrine. First, copyrightable authorship does not extend to official announcements of law, the hallmark of edicts of government. Authorship as requires personalization, an attribute that is antithetical to official pronouncements of law, which are generated in an impersonal and ex officio manner. Second, all edicts of government, as legal texts, are methods of operation, rendering them uncopyrightable. Third, authentic statements of law entail the merger of idea and expression insofar as the expression underlying edicts of government are capable of being expressed in only a limited number of ways in order to preserve its authenticity. \u0000 \u0000Consequently, the Official Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A.) is not copyrightable. Petitioners concede that the statutory content of the O.C.G.A. is uncopyrightable. The annotations incorporated into the O.C.G.A. by the state legislature bear the imprimatur of the state and are therefore produced under the ostensible authority of the state, which renders them an edict of government. Contrary to Petitioners’ argument, an edict does not need to have the force of law to qualify as an uncopyrightable edict of government. The Supreme Court’s precedents contradict this position. Instead, faithful reading of these precedents suggest that something becomes an uncopyrightable edict of government when it is produced under the ostensible authority of the state and thus receives a presumptively official status, owing to its endorsement by the state. The process by which the annotations contained in the O.C.G.A. are adopted and merged with the statutory content therein constitutes the exercise of such ostensible authority, rendering the O.C.G.A. an uncopyrightable edict of government.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80108494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Oppenheimer, Henry Cornillie, Henry B. Smith, T. Thai, Richard Treadwell
This essay reviews the impact of President Ronald Reagan’s policies on civil rights enforcement in the 1980s, as he tried to turn back the clock on civil rights. Reagan devastated the civil rights enforcement agencies, as he pandered to the white nationalists who helped him win election. But Reagan’s attempts ultimately failed, and leave behind an important lesson for President Donald Trump. Reagan’s appointments to and policies at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) seriously damaged civil rights enforcement. But employment discrimination law has survived and continues to be an often-effective tool against racism, misogyny, homophobia, religious hatred, and other forms of discrimination. Title VII cases (and claims under parallel statutes) continue to be a major part of the caseload in federal courts. Why? Because the Civil Rights Act is largely enforced by private civil rights groups and lawyers in private practice who bring cases before independent judges pursuant to a private right of action. Did a progressive Congress have the foresight to recognize that a private right of action would protect the victims of discrimination from future administrations hostile to civil rights, and thus include it in the statute as a check against enforcement agencies captured by civil rights opponents? Hardly. Rather, moderate and conservative Senate Republicans, resigned to the fact that an employment discrimination law was inevitable, and fearful of a powerful federal agency that would restrict business autonomy in the manner of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), substituted a private right of action for agency adjudication in an attempt to sabotage the effectiveness of Title VII. In 1964, the adoption of a private right of action was widely seen as a great loss for civil rights advocates, turning Title VII from an enforceable law to an ineffectual call for voluntary compliance with anti-discrimination policies. Almost no one foresaw the development of a private bar of plaintiffs’ employment discrimination lawyers. Those who tried to sabotage the enforcement of civil rights through a private right of action should be turning in their graves, having inadvertently given civil rights advocates a powerful tool to resist assaults on civil rights.
{"title":"Be Careful What You Wish For: Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, The Assault on Civil Rights, and The Surprising Story of How Title VII Got Its Private Right of Action","authors":"D. Oppenheimer, Henry Cornillie, Henry B. Smith, T. Thai, Richard Treadwell","doi":"10.15779/Z385M6270B","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z385M6270B","url":null,"abstract":"This essay reviews the impact of President Ronald Reagan’s policies on civil rights enforcement in the 1980s, as he tried to turn back the clock on civil rights. Reagan devastated the civil rights enforcement agencies, as he pandered to the white nationalists who helped him win election. But Reagan’s attempts ultimately failed, and leave behind an important lesson for President Donald Trump. Reagan’s appointments to and policies at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) seriously damaged civil rights enforcement. But employment discrimination law has survived and continues to be an often-effective tool against racism, misogyny, homophobia, religious hatred, and other forms of discrimination. Title VII cases (and claims under parallel statutes) continue to be a major part of the caseload in federal courts. Why? Because the Civil Rights Act is largely enforced by private civil rights groups and lawyers in private practice who bring cases before independent judges pursuant to a private right of action. \u0000 \u0000Did a progressive Congress have the foresight to recognize that a private right of action would protect the victims of discrimination from future administrations hostile to civil rights, and thus include it in the statute as a check against enforcement agencies captured by civil rights opponents? Hardly. Rather, moderate and conservative Senate Republicans, resigned to the fact that an employment discrimination law was inevitable, and fearful of a powerful federal agency that would restrict business autonomy in the manner of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), substituted a private right of action for agency adjudication in an attempt to sabotage the effectiveness of Title VII. In 1964, the adoption of a private right of action was widely seen as a great loss for civil rights advocates, turning Title VII from an enforceable law to an ineffectual call for voluntary compliance with anti-discrimination policies. Almost no one foresaw the development of a private bar of plaintiffs’ employment discrimination lawyers. \u0000 \u0000Those who tried to sabotage the enforcement of civil rights through a private right of action should be turning in their graves, having inadvertently given civil rights advocates a powerful tool to resist assaults on civil rights.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74901003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Luping Sun, Xiaona Zheng, Ying Jin, Minghua Jiang, Hansheng Wang
Retailers are interested in understanding which price promotions are profitable and which are not. However, simultaneously estimating the promotion effects of a large number of products on retailer sales and profits is technically challenging for both researchers and practitioners. To address this challenge, this study proposes a Partially Profiled Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (Partially Profiled LASSO) model, which can estimate ultra-high-dimensional regression relationships at a low computational cost and control for the endogeneity of promotion depth. The model can flexibly incorporate the time-varying promotion effects and the cross-over effects among the promotions of different products. We conduct an empirical study using data provided by a large retailer over a five-month period. Our model efficiently identifies products with promotion effects and the promotion effects are significantly associated with certain promotion, product, and category characteristics. The results also show that our model with cross-over effects outperforms the benchmark models that are widely used to handle the high-dimensional predictor matrix (e.g., the standard LASSO and principal component regression methods). This paper contributes to the related literature on price promotion and marketing analytics in data-rich environments, and provides implications for retailers to make more informed promotion strategies.
{"title":"Estimating Promotion Effects Using Big Data: A Partially Profiled LASSO Model With Endogeneity Correction","authors":"Luping Sun, Xiaona Zheng, Ying Jin, Minghua Jiang, Hansheng Wang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3289112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3289112","url":null,"abstract":"Retailers are interested in understanding which price promotions are profitable and which are not. However, simultaneously estimating the promotion effects of a large number of products on retailer sales and profits is technically challenging for both researchers and practitioners. To address this challenge, this study proposes a Partially Profiled Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (Partially Profiled LASSO) model, which can estimate ultra-high-dimensional regression relationships at a low computational cost and control for the endogeneity of promotion depth. The model can flexibly incorporate the time-varying promotion effects and the cross-over effects among the promotions of different products. We conduct an empirical study using data provided by a large retailer over a five-month period. Our model efficiently identifies products with promotion effects and the promotion effects are significantly associated with certain promotion, product, and category characteristics. The results also show that our model with cross-over effects outperforms the benchmark models that are widely used to handle the high-dimensional predictor matrix (e.g., the standard LASSO and principal component regression methods). This paper contributes to the related literature on price promotion and marketing analytics in data-rich environments, and provides implications for retailers to make more informed promotion strategies.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"233 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77044366","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract A novel function of live streaming is that viewers can send paid gifts to broadcasters. In addition, viewers can engage with broadcasters by sending danmaku, a type of comment scrolled across the screen in real time. This paper investigates the role of viewers’ social interaction in paid gifting on live streaming platforms. We argue that viewer-viewer interaction can prompt paid gifting by affecting viewers’ arousal level through stimuli extracted from danmaku. Types of danmaku-related stimuli are presence of others, social competition, and emotional stimuli. Specifically, presence of others is measured by total number of words; social competition by debate level; and emotional stimuli by similarity of danmaku, number of excitement-related words, and number of emoji. Using data from a major live streaming platform in China, empirical results show that except for number of emoji, the other four variables positively affect paid gifting.
{"title":"The Magic of Danmaku: A Social Interaction Perspective of Gift Sending on Live Streaming Platforms","authors":"Jilei Zhou, Jing Zhou, Ying Ding, Hansheng Wang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3289119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3289119","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A novel function of live streaming is that viewers can send paid gifts to broadcasters. In addition, viewers can engage with broadcasters by sending danmaku, a type of comment scrolled across the screen in real time. This paper investigates the role of viewers’ social interaction in paid gifting on live streaming platforms. We argue that viewer-viewer interaction can prompt paid gifting by affecting viewers’ arousal level through stimuli extracted from danmaku. Types of danmaku-related stimuli are presence of others, social competition, and emotional stimuli. Specifically, presence of others is measured by total number of words; social competition by debate level; and emotional stimuli by similarity of danmaku, number of excitement-related words, and number of emoji. Using data from a major live streaming platform in China, empirical results show that except for number of emoji, the other four variables positively affect paid gifting.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87997956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Indian judiciary has been one of the finest examples of justice dispensed without fear or favour. Ever since judicial standards were codified and the Indian judiciary set up (by the British), it has proved itself worthy of admiration, adoration and appreciation. The Indian judiciary has stepped in to help the people get justice whenever and wherever possible. The Indian judiciary has been a pioneer of judicial innovations and reforms, Public interest Litigations (PIL) being a case in point. Recently, due to a number of reasons, dispensation of justice in India has become difficult leading to the situation 'justice delayed is justice denied'. This paper deals with establishing of Jurisdictional Supreme Court Benches across India and its possible impact on the dispensation of Justice.
{"title":"Establishing of Supreme Court Benches across India: Discussion on Feasibility and Impact","authors":"Kartik Hegadekatti","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3249783","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3249783","url":null,"abstract":"Indian judiciary has been one of the finest examples of justice dispensed without fear or favour. Ever since judicial standards were codified and the Indian judiciary set up (by the British), it has proved itself worthy of admiration, adoration and appreciation. The Indian judiciary has stepped in to help the people get justice whenever and wherever possible. The Indian judiciary has been a pioneer of judicial innovations and reforms, Public interest Litigations (PIL) being a case in point. Recently, due to a number of reasons, dispensation of justice in India has become difficult leading to the situation 'justice delayed is justice denied'. This paper deals with establishing of Jurisdictional Supreme Court Benches across India and its possible impact on the dispensation of Justice.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82638275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is an emerging view that there are two types of forensic science: “junk” science such as forensic odontology (bitemark analysis) and “real” science such as nuclear DNA typing. The 2009 National Research Council report contributed to the emergence of this view. On the one hand, the report was sharply critical of techniques such as bitemark analysis. On the other hand, the report had high praise for techniques such as the DNA typing identification technique and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) as an elemental analysis methodology. The courts are becoming increasingly skeptical about “junk” science techniques. In some instances, they are excluding testimony based on such techniques. In other cases, they are severely restricting the wording of the opinions based on such techniques that experts may testify to. However, in the case of “real” science, the courts tend to assume reliability. In particular, the courts have come to view nuclear DNA typing and GC/MS analysis as the “gold standards” of forensic science. The courts routinely admit testimony about nuclear DNA typing, and one court has gone to the length of declaring that GC/MS analysis is “nearly infallible.” However, the 2016 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report raised questions about one “gold standard,” DNA analysis. The PCAST report questioned the validity of the traditional methods of analyzing mixed DNA samples. The report faulted those methods as unduly subjective. In addition, many commentators have challenged the validity of Low Copy Number (LCN) testing of minute or “touch” DNA samples. Although the New York have admitted testimony about LCN analysis, many other courts have barred such testimony. The thesis of this article is that like nuclear DNA testing, GC/MS analysis has important limitations. The article explains that when GC/MS is used in drug testing, the court must inquire as to the mode of analysis: full scan, selective ion reliance, or selective ion monitoring. The article adds that when GC/MS is employed to identify ignitable liquids in arson investigations, the court should inquire as to the condition of the sample tested: Has it been subjected to weathering, microbial degradation, or pyrolysis? It is certainly justifiable to subject “junk” science to more intense scrutiny. However, the courts should not naively assume that GC/MS is “nearly infallible.” In forensic science, even “gold standard” techniques have significant limitations.
{"title":"Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS): In Scientific Evidence, Even 'Gold Standard' Techniques Have Limitations","authors":"J. Gin, E. Imwinkelried","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3245423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3245423","url":null,"abstract":"There is an emerging view that there are two types of forensic science: “junk” science such as forensic odontology (bitemark analysis) and “real” science such as nuclear DNA typing. The 2009 National Research Council report contributed to the emergence of this view. On the one hand, the report was sharply critical of techniques such as bitemark analysis. On the other hand, the report had high praise for techniques such as the DNA typing identification technique and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) as an elemental analysis methodology. The courts are becoming increasingly skeptical about “junk” science techniques. In some instances, they are excluding testimony based on such techniques. In other cases, they are severely restricting the wording of the opinions based on such techniques that experts may testify to. However, in the case of “real” science, the courts tend to assume reliability. In particular, the courts have come to view nuclear DNA typing and GC/MS analysis as the “gold standards” of forensic science. The courts routinely admit testimony about nuclear DNA typing, and one court has gone to the length of declaring that GC/MS analysis is “nearly infallible.” \u0000However, the 2016 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report raised questions about one “gold standard,” DNA analysis. The PCAST report questioned the validity of the traditional methods of analyzing mixed DNA samples. The report faulted those methods as unduly subjective. In addition, many commentators have challenged the validity of Low Copy Number (LCN) testing of minute or “touch” DNA samples. Although the New York have admitted testimony about LCN analysis, many other courts have barred such testimony. \u0000The thesis of this article is that like nuclear DNA testing, GC/MS analysis has important limitations. The article explains that when GC/MS is used in drug testing, the court must inquire as to the mode of analysis: full scan, selective ion reliance, or selective ion monitoring. The article adds that when GC/MS is employed to identify ignitable liquids in arson investigations, the court should inquire as to the condition of the sample tested: Has it been subjected to weathering, microbial degradation, or pyrolysis? It is certainly justifiable to subject “junk” science to more intense scrutiny. However, the courts should not naively assume that GC/MS is “nearly infallible.” In forensic science, even “gold standard” techniques have significant limitations.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84118105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Researchers typically encounter missing data in practice and have developed various imputation methods. However, the existing methods are mainly developed for independent data and the assumption of independence disregards the connections of units through various social relationships (e.g., friendship, follower-followee relationship). In fact, the observed responses from connected friends should provide valuable information for missing responses. This factor motivates us to conduct imputation in this paper by borrowing information from connected friends using a network structure. With the missing at random assumption and using observed information only, we propose a partial likelihood approach and develop the corresponding maximum partial likelihood estimator (MPLE). The estimator’s consistency and asymptotic normality are established. Using the MPLE, we then develop a novel regression imputation method. The method utilizes both auxiliary information and connected complete units (i.e., network information); using the imputed data, we can compute the sample mean of the responses. We show this method to be consistent and asymptotically normal. Compared with the imputation method using auxiliary information only (i.e., ignoring network information), the proposed estimator is statistically more efficient. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to demonstrate its finite sample performance. We then analyze a real example about QQ in mainland China for illustration.
{"title":"Network Imputation for a Spatial Autoregression Model with Incomplete Data","authors":"Zhimeng Sun, Hansheng Wang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3249837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3249837","url":null,"abstract":"Researchers typically encounter missing data in practice and have developed various imputation methods. However, the existing methods are mainly developed for independent data and the assumption of independence disregards the connections of units through various social relationships (e.g., friendship, follower-followee relationship). In fact, the observed responses from connected friends should provide valuable information for missing responses. This factor motivates us to conduct imputation in this paper by borrowing information from connected friends using a network structure. With the missing at random assumption and using observed information only, we propose a partial likelihood approach and develop the corresponding maximum partial likelihood estimator (MPLE). The estimator’s consistency and asymptotic normality are established. Using the MPLE, we then develop a novel regression imputation method. The method utilizes both auxiliary information and connected complete units (i.e., network information); using the imputed data, we can compute the sample mean of the responses. We show this method to be consistent and asymptotically normal. Compared with the imputation method using auxiliary information only (i.e., ignoring network information), the proposed estimator is statistically more efficient. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to demonstrate its finite sample performance. We then analyze a real example about QQ in mainland China for illustration.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80252170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：