Hardcover book forthcoming. 
Here is a description from the Amazon product page:

Since the 1980s,
society’s wealthiest members have claimed an ever-expanding share of income and
property. It has been a true counterrevolution, says Pierre Rosanvallon–the
end of the age of growing equality launched by the American and French
revolutions. And just as significant as the social and economic factors driving
this contemporary inequality has been a loss of faith in the ideal of equality
itself. An ambitious transatlantic history of the struggles that, for two
centuries, put political and economic equality at their heart, The Society of
Equals calls for a new philosophy of social relations to reenergize egalitarian
politics. For eighteenth-century revolutionaries, equality meant understanding
human beings as fundamentally alike and then creating universal political and
economic rights. Rosanvallon sees the roots of today’s crisis in the period
1830-1900, when industrialized capitalism threatened to quash these
aspirations. By the early twentieth century, progressive forces had begun to
rectify some imbalances of the Gilded Age, and the modern welfare state
gradually emerged from Depression-era reforms. But new economic shocks in the
1970s began a slide toward inequality that has only gained momentum in the
decades since.

Jennifer S. Taub has updated “What We Don’t Talk About When
We Talk About Banking
” on SSRN.  Here is
the abstract:

The run on the shadow banking system in 2008 is routinely
identified as the event that transformed the nonprime mortgage securities
meltdown into a full-blown Global Financial Crisis. Yet, the components of this
shadow sector have not been brought into the light let alone under adequate
regulatory supervision. The government-initiated reform measures enacted to
date lack consistency and cohesion. Too little attention has been paid to how
the varied pieces of this system interconnect with each other and with “real”
banking. For example, the multi-trillion dollar repurchase agreement (“repo”)
market was ground zero for the sudden, severe withdrawal of liquidity from the banking
system in the United States. Yet little has been done to address the dependence
upon this short-term, often overnight funding market. Conversely, some shadow
players like money market mutual funds, (MMFs) that were already subject to
heavy structural controls, have been further regulated. While these new rules
were designed to strengthen the funds, making them less prone to runs by their
own investors, these same changes may create even more instability and risk

Is there a sociological explanation for why Wall Street–and other large, complex and interconnected systems–are rigged for crisis?  Charles Perrow, author of Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies says yes.  Normal accidents occur when two or more unrelated failures interact in unpredicted ways.  As applied to Wall Street, the theory is that as the number of trades, a steeply rising number, increases and as the market becomes increasingly technology dependent, the likelihood of these normal accidents occuring also increases.   Examples of normal accidents in the financial markets include the flash crash based on the false tweet that there were explosions at the White House last spring, the NASDAQ software glitch that caused the flash freeze in August, and the unprecedented trading losses suffered during the financial crisis of 2008. This article in the Atlantic provides a provocative description of Wall Street’s normal accidents, predicts that more are to come, and suggests that limiting the number/volume of trades is one place to start in thinking about reducing the occurance and significance of these normal accidents. 

A specific example of a normal accident is: “one trader at JP Morgan Chase” racking up a “$6 billion in trading losses while the company’s

A friend recently asked me to suggest some books that might help him improve his meditation practice.  Operating under the assumption that if the topic is appropriate for the Wall Street Journal (“Doctor’s Orders: 20 Minutes Of Meditation Twice
a Day
“)
, then it’s good enough for this blog, I thought I’d pass on my suggestions to interested readers.  The first 3 make up my personal list of “classics,” and the last is a shameless plug for a book of edited dharma talks I wrote based on my year of studying under sensei Ji Sui Craig Horton of the Cleveland
Buddhist Temple.  While my suggestions all focus on Buddhist/Zen meditation, there are certainly more “generic” approaches to learning about meditation — for example, one might visit the website for
the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society,
which seeks to transform higher education “by supporting and encouraging
the use of contemplative/introspective practices and perspectives to create
active learning and research environments that look deeply into experience and
meaning for all in service of a more just and compassionate society” (I was made aware of this source while attending a panel discussion on
Engagement, Happiness, and Meaning in

Peter Huang recently published a review of Leo Katz’s “Why
the Law Is So Perverse
” in 63 Journal of Legal Education 131 (you can download the
paper via SSRN here).  I have only
briefly skimmed the paper, but I believe there is much of value here for
corporate law scholars. The following
excerpt is from the introduction:

This book is an imaginative tour of legal paradoxes that are
related to the field of social choice, which studies the aggregation of
preferences. In a non-technical and accessible way, Katz discusses many complex
and subtle ideas, using the language of legal cases, doctrines and theories. As
he notes on page 6, some legal scholars have applied social choice theory to
analyze diverse and fundamental legal issues. Two recent examples are how
social choice illuminates the reasonable person standard in torts and other
areas of law and the notion of community standards underlying the doctrine of
good faith performance in contract law…. Katz’s book explicates four fundamental legal paradoxes as
the logical consequence of the perspective that legal doctrines entail
multi-criteria decision-making. This means that each of these foundational
doctrines is logically related to a voting paradox and its

I (Josh Fershee) will follow up with a post of some (I hope) substance
shortly, but I thought I’d take a moment to briefly re-introduce myself.   When I last wrote for BLPB, I was teaching
at the University of North Dakota School of Law. Last fall, we made the move to
West Virginia University College of Law
(I say “we” because my wife (Kendra Huard Fershee) not only moved with me, but because she is
also on the law faculty.)   I joined WVU as part of a university-wide
energy-law expansion and work with the Center for Energy and Sustainable
Development
.

I teach business law courses and energy law courses, with
most of my research relating somehow to energy business and regulation.  I teach Business Organizations, Energy Law
Survey, Energy Business: Law & Strategy, and Energy Law and Practice.  I plan to add a Hydraulic Fracturing
Seminar, too, in the near future. 

Of perhaps some interest to our readers, I have taught my Energy Business: Law & Strategy course once, and I plan to do so again in the
spring.  I think it is a unique class,
especially in the law school environment, with its focus on how law comes to be and how businesses are strategic in their use of law and regulation.  (Note: I am of the mind that this reality is important to understand whether you want to work for businesses and employ such strategies or if you want to work to limit businesses in the ability to do so.)  I have the students work in groups, and they draft a written final
project, which they also present to the class. 

Below the jump, I provide the books, course description, goals, and
assessment items for the course. I welcome any comments or suggestions for additional teaching
materials or concepts.