This is PaulS's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following PaulS's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
PaulS
Recent Activity
As an abstract proposition to be propounded in a college classroom, I think I can understand this DRIVE LESS business. It's glibly simple when confined to a setting that just no longer intersects the real world significantly. But in that real world, it's almost beyond comprehension. Good luck trying to get anywhere with it, so to speak. And getting anywhere is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Many consumer choices have little effect on other choices or other aspects of life. But DRIVE LESS is different. People watch a movie on Netflix for the sake of seeing the movie. But they typically don't DRIVE for the sake of driving, they drive for the sake of something else. In other words, the only way to DRIVE LESS is to withdraw to the same extent from the world - to avoid some visits with friends or relatives, avoid some classes or meetings, etc. (Even if some "transit" is available, in the USA it's almost always uselessly slow, tardy, and unreliable, and hardly ever goes where and when you need to go; it's merely a sinecure for its massively overpaid employees.) So it should be unsurprising that people rumble and complain when they are coerced into withdrawing from the world at the capricious and arbitrary whim of forces beyond their control. Especially since these forces are rarely passing asteroids or weather fronts. No, they wear very human faces - those of powerful executives, back-to-the-Flintstones environmentalists, virtue-signalling politicos, and other such culprits. Therefore, as long as you and I are still around, I expect this discussion to come up periodically - and with never any particular resolution.
1 reply
It maybe can't happen under Trump, but how about some honesty and transparency in regulation? That is, if a particular set of responses to a mercury rule happens to produce a large benefit from (say) PM2.5 reduction, then why not address the PM2.5 directly, at least in the longer term? Why not make the rules honest and transparent instead of relying on convoluted indirect effects? After all, next year, a new mercury-reduction technology, or a new method of coal processing, might meet the mercury rule without the PM2.5 reduction. An added benefit of transparency would be to decrease opportunities for costly political virtue-signaling, by making clear the actual value - or lack of value - of each rule. Let's never forget that politicians and regulators often fall deeply in love with empty posturing -- the good old American tradition of "JUST DO SOMETHING!!!" even when it's ineffective. Direct linkage instead of convoluted linkage would also make it easier to optimize health benefits with less risk of new problems from, say, making electricity too unaffordable for too many people.
1 reply
In the real world, the figure would no longer be a triangle, but nor would it become a many-sided polygon. It would be more like a mesh made of a huge number of polygons, with most nodes highly interconected. That would make the question of why the whole thing should ever slow down much more "interesting". After all there's no a priori reason why slowing down (or even stopping) one polygon or node within a huge mesh should slow the whole works down significantly. Thus the model appears, at least on its face, to break down.
1 reply
I was forgetting... the "truncation" would also save the government Social Security payments and the like...
1 reply
"would it be too much to ask the government to stop hectoring..." That was a good laugh, wasn't it? The government will double down on the hectoring. What else? After all, they're very much about virtue-signaling, haughtiness, and their own self-importance. Compared to that, useful and effective actions or activities hardly even count. The finding also raises, for the umpteenth time, a Freaknonomics type of question. Let us suppose for a moment that despite the absurdly sorry state of nutritional "science", the allegedly bad diets are indeed actually bad for you. After all, this is certainly possible. Then do the bad diets really cost the government (the taxpayer) money (to treat ill-health), as bossy politicians often assert? Or do they actually save money on net, by truncating the most expensive part of life? After all, one of the most expensive things a person can do is to linger on and on in the nursing home for endless years - at $70K or so each - in frail old age.
1 reply
This whole argument pretty much epitomizes a big difference between the real world and the world of specialists. For the time being, the real-world distinction between car alarms and climate panic is one almost without a difference. In much of the Northern Hemisphere, the temperature can vary 50F or 60F in a day, considerably more in a week, and by 120F or more over a year. The noise level is so staggering that shifts of a fraction of a degree are completely beneath experiential notice, however much specialists might be able to extract such shifts by elaborate statistical analysis. Experience is still confined to a remote, almost Star Trek future. And unless economic growth stops completely, people in that future will be far better equipped than people now to handle any adaptation issues. In an experiential sense, the warnings are for all practical purposes false alarms. Precipitation is much the same. If a hurricane or a bad thunderstorm happens to "park" over a spot for a time, the consequences will be nasty. And until the recent rise of personal weather stations, the landscape was woefully undersampled (and still is in many areas.) So no one can possibly ever have a good grasp of the historical range for sudden rainfalls. And until another century or two goes by, it will therefore be possible - because untestable - to hype up any sudden, severe rainfall as so "unprecedented" that omigod, it could never possibly have happened before. But one obvious thing about climate over-hype is it's a handy tool special-interest groups use to justify stealing from the taxpayer-at-large. Again and again, lavish subsidies are handed out to expensively rebuild places that should never have been built up (or at least not with anything whatsoever beyond throwaway bungalows) in the first place. The Outer Banks, the low-lying swamps of New York City and the New Jersey Meadowlands, much of Florida, much of the Tidewater, perhaps all of New Orleans, and so on. (One of the best things we could do to promote long-term storm safety, and drastically reduce disaster costs, would be to cut off all government-subsidized flood insurance so that people would finally learn from Mr. Market where and where not to build.) Again and again, ridiculous special-interest mandates are enacted, such as the new California requirement for useless solar panels on deeply shaded roofs out in the (flammable) woods. Another obvious thing is that, some nutty Californians aside, few people will reduce their own standard of living for the sake of others who willfully choose foolish places to build. So the Germans will go on making pious diplomatic statements, while their gigantic bucket-wheels excavate lignite, of all things, until said lignite becomes obsolete for general technological reasons. The Californians will likewise go on with the piety, and the absurd mandates, while the 405 and so on become ever more clogged parking lots, and while their airports burst with people headed to "meetings" they could as just well have phoned in or even skipped. And so on across the globe. So it is that the WSJ seems off-base for the specialist world, but spot-on for the real world.
1 reply
The US version of this, of course, is that living anywhere but hugely expensive Manhattan, Brooklyn, San Francisco, or Los Angeles, is becoming anathema. The "agglomeration effect" terminology is an easy out that signals an utter lack of recent technical progress, or at least an utter refusal to make productive use of recent technical progress. The big, easy, general inventions tapered off to almost nil during the 1970s and 1980s (even the integrated circuit - the chip - was invented all the way back in 1959 IIRC.) No, we are now reduced to gawping at Apple moving the stop button from place to place, or replacing it with some arbitrary, hard-to-remember gesture, and pretending this represents astonishing progress on the same order as the jet aircraft. But worse still, we are being reduced to cramming into awful dormitories - "SRO hotels", really, which were outlawed in New York around 1955, but seem to be coming back in spades - in overcrowded London, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Manhattan. Apparently we can't possibly exchange ideas with each other unless we're all jammed together in a heaving, suffocating crowd, as if life could only ever be structured as a Medieval fair. Pleasant places with room to breathe are simply out of the question. All our vaunted progress in communication seems to be utterly for naught - it's as if the internet, Skype - nay, even the plain old telephone or even ancient postal service, had never existed. Though, actually, I suspect a big underlying problem is billionaires. A self-respecting billionaire may well not wish to live in a lowly Wigan or Podunk. But since they nonetheless get to run everyone's life with little restraint, it follows that there will be no jobs, no means of self-support, except in fantastically expensive prestige spots where they can strut their stuff in a manner they deem fitting to their godly, even Trumpian, status. After all, recent "progress" is almost exclusively in miniaturizing computer chips. It does nothing to reduce the immense cost of stacking even awful dormitory rooms hundreds of feet in the air, and little to reduce the cost of shipping food, water, and other supplies over huge distances into gargantuan overconcentrations of people. You get to use the technological progress you have, not what you wish you had. As long as "we" go on refusing to use what we have - improved computer chips and communication - in favor of gross neo-Medieval overcrowding, housing costs (and problems) will continue their inexorable ascent into stratospheric absurdity.
FWIW, this immediately reminded me of "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics", from about February 2, on XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1950/ Maybe great minds think alike... and certainly, correlations often work weirdly.
1 reply
"Educated, highly skilled workers can live anywhere." Really? Is that practical on any scale large enough to matter? The number of people actually required to initiate Next Big Things is vanishingly, negligibly small. Even if every Big Thing originated in Podunk, nothing much would change. It follows that most people, even highly educated and skilled people, will indeed be workers, i.e. working for some organization. Most likely, and simply as a matter of numbers, that organization will be at least fairly large, and ultimately owned or controlled by one or more of our Famous Rentier Billionaires. True startups, after all, are small and few. (Much production really consists of mechanically reproducing designs in quantities of tens of thousands to millions and beyond, with robots substituting for almost all of the lightly-educated sector of the former workforce. Thus a car plant that once employed 20,000 might only employ 700 nowadays.) But Famous Rentier Billionaires usually desire to live and set up shop at the most prestigious - read: otherworldly expensive - megacity locations available. They have no use for Podunk. That forces their workers, for the most part, to live in or near those places. Hence we see, for example, the disgusting, nonsensical spectacle of very well-paid (by general standards) and talented people living four to an absurdly expensive dorm room in or near egregiously overcrowded, earthquake-prone San Francisco - and spending so much time at work and on the commute that they have absolutely no "life" whatever of their own. Short of radical change of a currently unknowable nature, this seems bound to go on worsening. The "environmental" view that most people ought to be jammed into impossibly expensive megacities only reinforces it. And since it tends to cast off everyone outside of Manhattan, Hollywood, and San Francisco, it doesn't seem to bode well for the future of the country as a whole.
1 reply
As implied above by Matthew Moore, the real question would be: what practical methods might lead towards the three abstract ends asserted to be desirable? Historically, we got state socialism, which always went more or less the way of Venezuela, demonstrating that absolute power corrupts absolutely. On a smaller scale, we got the kibbutzim and similar organizations, which eventually all but died out as people grew weary of answering tiresomely to a board of petty, meddlesome busybodies every time they needed a new shirt. And one suspects that ancient small tribes (like some present-day families) far outdid either of the preceding in obnoxious bossiness. We seem to be entering an era when most people will cease to be of much economic use, as the scale on which actual creative work is automatically reproduced continues to grow without bound. "Jobs" will be left mainly as roles where "deplorables" signal their subservience to their self-appointed betters, a relationship taught quite well indeed in US public schools. Nevertheless, that arrangement cannot possibly end well, as it will engender widespread fury. Thus, practical questions about how to go beyond hazy utopian abstraction and implement something feasible in the real world may prove important, and fairly soon.
Toggle Commented Aug 9, 2017 on My socialism at Stumbling and Mumbling
Simple. I'm unsure of the very point I quoted. Why does anyone in the US really need to care what the European or other elites think about carbon taxes in the US (or any other domestic policy.) How could their attitudes (or in this case laughter) make any difference whatsoever, outside of the cocktail party circuit? What could an ordinary US citizen possibly lose by ignoring or even scorning them utterly? In other words, the quoted point about them laughing fails the "so what" test miserably, so what was it about? They can laugh to their hearts' content and it matters in no way whatever. The withdrawal from the agreement will be done with complete impunity (if it sticks.)
1 reply
"'At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?' Er, now?" This seems like a variation on the old "everybody else is doing it" playground taunt. But really, when we get down to the proverbial brass tacks, what possible salience does it have? Any such laughter impinges only on those connected to the international cocktail-party circuit. Who else needs to care even one whit? The énarques of Paris can laugh to their hearts' content, and it will not change my life or my neighbor's life by one iota. After all, they are thousands of miles away. Actually, even their American equivalents live in their own hermetically-sealed bubble, separate and apart from ordinary folks even on the coasts, never mind ordinary folks in "flyover" country. The biggest potential for changing most people's lives would be the high likelihood that carbon pricing will quickly add to the gentrification of all forms of travel. The énarques, living lives of relative luxury, will hardly feel that at all. On the other hand, ordinary people will feel it, and feel it but good. Feelings of that sort seem hardly likely to garner votes, despite the willingness of some to render pious responses to abstractly cost-free stated-preference surveys. Instead, what might actually garner votes is anything that could discomfit the smug énarque-equivalents of the USA, who are rather widely disliked (as exemplified by, say, Hillary Clinton when she couldn't be bothered to campaign much in "flyover" country.) Face it, regardless of the merits, withdrawal from the Paris treaty fits the bill. It seems to be discomfiting the disliked quite effectively. So break out the popcorn and enjoy the show, laughter and all. It looks set to go on for quite some time.
1 reply
Why, one asks? Isn't it blindingly obvious to anyone less absurdly condescending than Tamnny? The "opportunities" are primarily located in otherworldly-expensive places like Silicon Valley or NYC, in highly specialized fields that change faster than an adult *outsider* with adult responsibilities could ever acquire and constantly re-acquire the demanded credentials. It's not as though the folks Tamny condemns have many tens of thousands of $ just lying around waiting to be gambled on tuition for entry into a fashion of the week which will likely be a fashion of yesterday long before said tuition is spent. Face it too: the scale on which *paying* jobs are done is relentlessly increasing. It has beneficially done so for a couple of centuries but nothing can increase forever without reaching a breaking point. If it doesn't scale, it rarely pays nowadays (rentiers such as lawyers being a partial exception), certainly not NYC rent. But when it *does* scale, it no longer requires vast armies, not with the strong backs of yesteryear, not with more modern and ruinously expensive credentials. Average Is Over: a $3.94 bus ticket to the megacity may well buy Average Joe only homelessness. It's a new paradigm, and anyone who thinks we know how to cope with it is simply delusional. The currently fashionable Lake Wobegon approach - everyone and their brother and sister attempting to jam onto what is becoming the very narrow and heavily tolled entrance ramp to Above Average Nirvana, is manifestly failing. Indeed, it must fail by definition. This implies that politics will be a lot of "fun" for a good long time, with Bernie and Donald merely the bland beginning. Break out the popcorn. We ain't seen nuttin' yet!
1 reply
There is a more "efficient" way to sort people by income, which the airline industry has infamously deployed to the tune of numerous headlines about the side-effects. Supply the plebs with awful swill at a low price, and supply halfway-decent beer (costing maybe 20% more to supply, on the airline model) at two or three or five or ten times the price. To rake in even more while (falsely) advertising a low price, add a myriad of semi-concealed surcharges. Charge for the glass, for a napkin, for use of the table, for use of the barstool, for use of the door handle to enter and leave, for use of the floor to walk on, for use of AG's saloon bar, and for who knows what else. A computer kiosk of the sort now found in some fast-food places could handle that "efficiently", and anybody whose time was worth anything at all would probably default expensively rather than tap and tap and tap through the whole mess. Voila!
Toggle Commented May 19, 2017 on The fairness error at Stumbling and Mumbling
Meh. The near-monopoly system ensures that such evidence can't possibly develop. Once upon a time, there were alternatives such as Midwest Airlines that charged a *modest* premium for fairly decent service (of course no one can fix the FAA and the TSA but that's another story.) But these days, the monopolists have gobbled them up. So it's usually either the execrable cattle class, or else *many* times the price. That way the monopolists and their apologists can pretend that non-rich folks oh-so-dearly desire to be treated like dirt, when it's simply that most folks aren't made of money. The gigantic hole in competition theory is that somebody eventually wins. Then, presto, no more (substantive) competition. So the distance I am willing to drive to avoid the meritless, stinking refuse heap that the air-travel system has become has increased by a factor of around 3 over the years...
1 reply
How quickly they forget. LOL. For many years now, the job of "liberals" has been to liberally arrogate arbitrary power to the executive, and use it to force business people to wade through (or hire ridiculously expensive lawyers to do the wading) ever more pages of self-contradictory bumf, before carrying out even the most trivial action. This has succeeded brilliantly, witness President Obama's famous proclamation that he "had a pen and a phone." But about that. Now The Donald has the pen and the phone. Of course, from the narrow view of a handsomely appointed silo in Manhattan, Brooklyn, San Francisco, Hollywood, or Los Angeles, this scenario was believed inconceivable, because the ethnic vote or whatever. Only it happened anyway, partly because most of the world isn't actually an impossibly costly skyscraper apartment. So now the job of "conservatives" - or whatever The Donald might be, which no one can possibly know - is to conserve the power they could never conceivably have grabbed, and use it to their own ends. Oops. I suppose we could return to constitutional government with checks and balances - and with reasonable quantities of bumf rather than planet-sized stacks of it - but luxuries like due process would proceed too slowly to comport with the contrived urgency with which both sides bless their pet issues. Since both sides enthusiastically support quasi-dictatorship - that pen and that phone - and since their respective desired ends are all so sacred and holy as to, er, trump all else, I suppose quasi-dictatorship is what we shall have.
1 reply
Really, wouldn't one way to mitigate the costs be to simply to quit subsidizing people to live in flood-prone areas? Why don't we encourage them to move away from such spots, instead of nailing them down with subsidies? After all, not one soul has had to live hard by the sea for well over a century, ever since railroads and then automobiles came into use. There is absolutely no need for any barrier island anywhere in the US to be inhabited - it's merely a nice hobby which the hobbyists ought to pay for at entirely their own risk. Ordinary, few buildings seem to be retained much beyond about 40-70 years, at least not without major construction. So, if only insurance pricing encouraged people to choose more rationally, then when it came time to rebuild, they might rebuild elsewhere instead of at their current foolishly chosen site. What could possibly be simpler? Did subsidized insurance or some similar factor encourage Shishmaref residents to wait until the last possible moment, instead of dealing more 'organically' with a blindingly obvious problem - namely that it was mind-bogglingly foolish to choose to live there from the very outset, with or without climate change? It seems unlikely that such remote land could be hugely valuable, so had they abandoned relatively worthless buildings as and when they aged out, it needn't have cost much. Or are we - the societal "we" - conceptualizing people as barnacles that for some magical mystical reason must remain glued down to one particular spot for life, no matter how ridiculously unfit-for-purpose that spot happens to be? Barrier islands are well-known to shift with storms, and to flood readily. So, with or without climate change, why is anyone ever subsidized to live on any barrier island anywhere in the USA? Is Congress simply so bought and paid for by the real-estate industry, or so infatuated with the US obsession with owning real-estate, that we must subsidize outright stupidity without limit? Oh, and are the 200 million people worldwide? Then your number would come to 45 cents per day worldwide. Actually, far less, since precious few relocations would need to be as absurdly expensive as $300,000, and sensible relocations from aged-out buildings need to sacrifice only the minimal value of a useless building. So what kind of palaces are those in Shishmaref, or is it just so ridiculously expensive and finicky to build in that region that no one ought to live there at all?
1 reply
That "There is no California" shouldn't be too much of a surprise. After all, the highways and byways have plenty of signage about "The Calfornias", plural...
Toggle Commented Aug 24, 2015 on "There is no California" at Newmark's Door
1 reply
Seems to me there's a few lingering questions. The balls are roughly spherical, so the packing fraction cannot be 100% - some water surface will still be exposed. With even a little wind, they will not pack perfectly hexagonally, so more water than theoretical will be exposed. In addition, from the pictures, they're quite black. So: 1. It's reservoir water, at least fairly clean. So can the balls shade it enough to significantly limit algae growth, or is the determinative limit (Liebig minimum) actually some nutrient, let's say nitrogen or phosphorus - rather than sunlight? Will it be helpful to reduce ultraviolet, or was it inhibiting something other than algae, that will now create metabolites worse than what would have been there? 2. The balls seem to be fairly dead black, so they must reduce the albedo substantially (for one thing, negligible specular reflection, unlike water.) As they heat up from the famous California sunshine, they will re-radiate infrared into the surface layer of the water - which will become less dense as it warms, so it will stay put. Who knows, from time to time they might even turn over and heat the water directly. Will the extra surface warmth increase net evaporation enough to outweigh the reduction in exposed water surface? 3. The balls will create local concentrations and diminutions of the airflow. The newly-irregular reservoir surface might even induce localized turbulence under the right wind conditions. Will the change in airflow at the remaining water surface help reduce evaporation, or will it help outweigh the reduction in water surface? Now, the scheme might work. Then again it might not. So does the LADWP know the answers to such questions? Since there has been no mention of that sort of thing ever being tried before on any significant scale, how do they know? Do they have anything beyond some cockamamie intuition magicked up at some consultant-driven "brainstorming session"? (Anything "facilitated" by a massively overpaid "consultant" must automatically be right, right?) What sorts of measurements are they taking to confirm that the desired effect outweighs any side effects? Or will this wind up as some sort of Animas River bull-in-the-china-shop stunt? Oh, and can whatever makes the balls black (rather than translucent like nearly all pure plastics) leach into the water as the wind shifts them and wears them down, inducing all manner of histrionics about "chemicals" - whether justified or not?
1 reply
"...the likelihood of a shark attack has not changed." Huh? Whoa! When people are being told in this way that sharks are near shore, the odds that sharks are near shore are essentially 100% [unless the drone-masters are lying - just conceivably they're engaged in a behavioral study ;D ] When there are no drones, or information is otherwise unavailable, the odds that they are present are whatever they are, but almost certainly substantially less than 100%. The odds of being attacked will be different accordingly. Sure, it's a contingent or Bayesian probability, but the probably that I will be attacked given that sharks are known/verified to be present is higher than on a randomly chosen day when that is not a given so that in fact they might or might not be present. Kind of like if I cross a non-busy street when I know a bus is nearly upon me, then there's an excellent chance that I'll die, but if I cross it at a randomly chosen time, there's "only" a more modest chance that I'll die. So in real life I'll check first to see whether a bus or other vehicle is nearly upon me. In other words information is useful, at least if it's the right information. No?
1 reply
I wonder how 'irrational' the sort of voting over redistribution that so exercises the Left truly is. Perhaps the perception is that the redistributed income/wealth merely stops by at the self-interested party's own door on the way to someone else who's deemed to be worse off still. Certainly on a planet stuffed with seven billion people there's always someone who can be said to be even worse off. And failing a some 'one', there's always some 'thing' - frequently a thing of utterly no consequence lurking out there in the "environment", that only a specialist would ever even notice much less fuss over. Thus, voting in the posited sense might be seen by many as simply an exercise in futility. After all, here in the USA, when people elected Bill Clinton in 1992 on such grounds, many of them found that the net redistribution seemed to be away from themselves. So it was (in part) that we then got Newt Gingrich and company in 1994. Oh, how complicated are the webs we weave...
Well, in one way your title answers your question. But seriously, "everybody knows" by now that government responds to a tight supply of something like water by restricting people across-the-board and in a Draconian manner to an arbitrary X% of their historical usage. Since California has already done just that to its water agencies, we can expect said agencies, over time, to use "smart" meters, social-media shaming, and so on, to pass the misery along brutally to individual consumers. The blindingly obvious rational response to that sorry state of affairs is to be reasonably wasteful whenever possible - lest you be caught out and forced below a humane minimum for no reason but that you had exhibited a history of unfortunate frugality. As always, there is a serious lack of checks and constraints on government or other monopoly bureaucrats - and that invites them to do the first and simplest thing that enters their tiny little heads, with uttermost disregard for consequences or for anything else. Vide our epidemic of reckless trigger-happy cops. Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose - so now expect to be plagued by trigger-happy water cops.
1 reply
<shrug> I thought there was something odd but it only appeared in the title bar of the browser, and maybe once in a mouse-hover label - things I pay little attention to. </shrug> Maybe I happened to pick it up while the files were changing? Did you change anything that was actually conspicuous?
1 reply
"On net, accounting for the effect of fuel savings on revenue from the fuel tax, such a policy would also have generated about $68 billion per year in new tax revenue and reduced external costs by $2.3 billion." Oh, goody. So, on the face of it anyway, prices of bulk goods like food and building materials would rise by an aggregate $68 billion. Folks who are already struggling to buy food or housing would surely appreciate that. (But at least buyers of diamond jewelry, which weighs next to nothing, couldn't even notice.) And in exchange for the harder struggle, a whopping $2.3 billion, or a whole gigantic 3% of the price increase, would be the reduction in external costs of truck traffic. And if history is any indication whatsoever, the $68 billion would be squandered on football stadiums in already-rich cities, and the like. As if hundred-millionaire football players and multi-billionaire team owners need yet more lavish subsidies. Seems like "bog-standard" self-aggrandizing Congressional boondoggling - you did say CBO - and nothing more. And yet - somehow our Congresscritters are perpetually shocked, just shocked mind you, at their abysmal public-approval standing, wherein the proverbial used-car salesmen look like saints by comparison.
1 reply
"Then nobody gains or loses from their removal - because firms would carry on hiring the best people anyway." That is more than a bit misleading. Mountains of paperwork, even 'virtual' paperwork, laboriously created and maintained to 'document' a proposition that is in the negative and therefore intrinsically unprovable - "OurCorp doesn't discriminate" - are hardly cost-free. The lawyer time involved is unbounded and absolutely not cost-free; indeed it is exceedingly lucrative for lawyers. The knock-on effect will be multifarious. The staggering potential cost makes it impractical to fire or discipline a member of a specially-privileged "class" who is a poor worker, which is great for lazy or incompetent class members. But that creates a powerful disincentive to hire (i.e. take a chance on) class members in the first place, which is not so great for class members of any sort. I suppose it all does provide the academic community unbounded opportunity to publish papers. After all, on current theories, the universe can not last long enough to finish sorting out where the chips ultimately might fall.