April 25, 2024

Letters: Letters: A.B.A. Standards and Law Schools

Re “The Price to Play Its Way” (Dec. 18), which described American Bar Association standards in the nation’s law schools:

The article rightly took aim at the prohibitive cost of law school for many people, and drew much-needed attention to the astonishingly minimal workloads of some law professors, who may still earn six-figure salaries.

Yet the article’s criticism of the accreditation system seems misguided. The legal profession already has more than its share of money-grubbing or sloppy and incompetent lawyers. Reopening the floodgates by slackening standards would only worsen the often poor quality of lawyers and legal services.

We might reasonably quibble about what the particular standards ought to be, but law is a profession for which high and rigorous standards are surely vital. David Tallman, J.D.

Atlanta, Dec. 18

To the Editor:

The article highlighted a problem with the current state of legal education in the United States, but was wrong in suggesting that an increase in low-cost legal training alternatives would improve the system.

However we got to this point, the bigger problem today is a vast oversupply of law graduates with poor or no job prospects. Granted, our society has unmet legal needs. But at a time when we have law school graduates working in low-paying jobs outside the profession, even while they have $200,000 balances on student loans, the answer is not to produce more lawyers.

A comparison of law schools with medical schools yields some stark contrasts. The number of law school programs and law students has skyrocketed over the past 20 years, in sharp contrast to the situation at medical schools. As a result, doctors are in short supply, while many law grads face bleak job prospects. If there were more medical schools and fewer law schools, the country would be better off.

Stanley M. Dub, Esq.

Shaker Heights, Ohio, Dec. 18

The writer is a lawyer in Cleveland.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=217ac1c907a539489972c56c678dc8d4

China Plans to Release Some of Its Pork Stockpile to Hold Down Prices

And with the price of pig meat up 38 percent in major cities since the start of the year, the government is about to open its floodgates.

China’s Commerce Ministry said Friday that it planned to release part of the central government’s 200,000-metric-ton stash of frozen pork onto the market, following earlier releases from pork reserves held by cities and at least 11 provinces trying to cap rising food prices.

So far, they have failed. Year-over-year inflation in China rose to 6.4 percent in June. The ministry says the price of pork in big cities soared by 17 percent last month alone, propelled by higher feed prices, rising wages and increased demand.

“As we know, pig breeding has experienced consecutive increases the last three years,” the ministry’s spokesman, Yao Jian, said at a briefing on Friday. “But with the progress of urbanization and increasing consumption of pork by the people, market control faces new challenges on the quantity of pork consumption.”

If a reliable supply of pig meat does not sound like a national priority, consider this: pork makes up more than half the meat consumed in China, and up to 70 percent in some areas, China’s state-run CCTV television network reported in May.

As living standards and meat consumption have risen, the demand for pork has jumped apace. The average Chinese consumer ate four times as much pork in 2007 as he did in the early 1990s, the English-language newspaper China Daily reported at the time. While per-person consumption is still higher in some nations like Denmark, the Chinese, over all, produce and eat more than half the world’s pigs.

The crush of demand for pork has made the supply vulnerable to all sorts of fluctuations, from epidemics of pig diseases to weather changes that affect the price of grain that fattens pigs. But a nation that runs on pork cannot afford to run short. So in 2007, the government decided to establish a national pork reserve, reasoning that a backlog of frozen meat could be used to make up for shortages and stabilize prices when necessary.

In practice, a strategic pork reserve has problems. Frozen meat does not keep for more than about four months, and live animals must be fed and constantly replenished to keep the reserve stable. In Shaoxing, a large city in coastal Zhejiang Province, the local government keeps a virtual reserve of pork by paying farmers a subsidy of 20 renminbi per pig — about $3 — to keep their herds at a set level.

The government’s latest plan to open the pork floodgates faces a different problem: even at 200,000 metric tons, which is about 220,000 tons, the reserve is too small to make a dent in demand, and so is unlikely to have a big impact on rising prices.

Not to worry, however. The National Development and Reform Committee, China’s powerful state planning agency, says prices will stabilize in the second half of 2011, according to an interview in The 21st Century Business Herald, a state-run daily newspaper.

Li Bibo contributed research.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=21bf97ad5eb6da41e2e30073e3a60026

Books of The Times: Nation Goes on Its Merry Way to Ruin

The authors are forthright in their intentions. They are angry about the “outsized ambition, greed, and corruption” that led to “economic Armageddon,” as the book’s subtitle puts it. They view the actions that prompted the meltdown as reprehensible and regret that few of the perpetrators have been held accountable.

In a direct writing style familiar to those who follow Ms. Morgenson’s Sunday “Fair Game” column, the authors piece together the rapid rise in high-risk mortgages and the swift collapse of the complex financial scaffolding that supported them. Ms. Morgenson joined The Times in 1998 after working at Forbes, Money and Worth magazines and won a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for her coverage of Wall Street. She also worked as a broker at Dean Witter. Mr. Rosner is a partner at Graham Fisher Company, an independent research firm, and worked for many years at Oppenheimer Company.

Drawing on their deep expertise, the authors ably trace the legal and regulatory changes that stoked the unsustainable housing boom. With a few exceptions, the book focuses more on policy and power than on personalities, and it illuminates several small decisions that later had huge, unintended consequences. For example, a modification in the handling of bundled loans, approved by the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in 2001, more than any other factor, “opened wide the floodgates for the mortgage securities mania,” the authors write.

The book begins in 1994 with President Bill Clinton’s kicking off a public-private partnership to extend homeownership to more Americans. At that time 64 percent of Americans owned their homes; within a decade the percentage would rise to nearly 70. Yet an idea that sounded so appealing would soon be exploited by institutions and individuals who detected the potential for astounding profits.

Ms. Morgenson and Mr. Rosner finger the usual suspects: subprime mortgage lenders, credit-rating agencies, investment banks, politicians, the Federal Reserve.

But the institution to which the authors devote the most ink is Fannie Mae, the government-supported enterprise created in 1938 to make home loans more accessible. And the person they hold most accountable is someone whose role in the “mortgage maelstrom” has until now “escaped scrutiny”: James A. Johnson, Fannie Mae’s chief executive from 1991 to 1998. Mr. Johnson was the “anonymous architect of the public-private homeownership drive that almost destroyed the economy in 2008,” the authors assert. “He was especially adept at manipulating lawmakers, eviscerating regulators and leaving taxpayers with the bill.”

The description of Mr. Johnson’s role is damning — and although the account lacks his perspective, it is thoroughly supported through scores of interviews with academics, government officials and industry executives, some of whom are granted anonymity. While Mr. Johnson didn’t respond to interview requests over five months, according to the authors, they overcome this obstacle with impressive use of public records and secondary sources, carefully attributed in the text or described in a two-page “Notes on Sources.” Still, more specific references in endnotes would have strengthened the book’s authority, and in some places would have improved the narrative’s flow.

“Reckless Endangerment” will never be mistaken for summer beach reading, but the authors explain the minutiae clearly, pausing often to explain a dense financial concept or to inject a clarifying metaphor. Lax regulation is effectively likened to “allowing the lead-footed drivers to set speed limits.” Less effective is a comparison of Wall Street’s hope for profits from subprime lenders to “Elmer Fudd envisioning a duck à l’orange dinner when stalking Daffy Duck.”

A particular strength of this book is the number of doubters the authors unearthed: the unsung government analysts, public lawyers and private researchers who dared to question policy decisions and stand up to the formidable “housers,” as the true believers in government subsidies for home ownership are called.

The reader has a sickening sense of missed opportunity as these prophets are ignored or, worse, vilified, by those in a position to halt the mania. When a Congressional Budget Office researcher in 1995 reveals the multibillion-dollar extent of the government’s subsidy to Fannie Mae and its brother institution, Freddie Mac (and that one-third of these benefits never reached borrowers), he suggests that “Congress may want to revisit the special relationship.” Unable to assail the merits of his analysis, outraged Fannie Mae executives resorted to ad hominem attacks, calling budget office officials “digit-heads” and “economic pencil brains.”

One of the doubters was Mr. Rosner himself, who in a 2001 report warned about the potential for economic ruin for American consumers as they took on more and more home debt. Washington regulators met his 30-page paper “with a dismissive silence,” the authors say.

Unlike some whodunits, “Reckless Endangerment” has no tidy ending. Millions of homes remain in foreclosure, high unemployment persists, and, the authors say, Congress failed to pass truly corrective legislation when it had the chance. Although Ms. Morgenson and Mr. Rosner hope that shining a light into the dark corners of this “economic Armageddon” might prevent another one, they sadly conclude that something similar “most certainly” will happen again.

Pam Luecke is the Donald W. Reynolds professor of business journalism at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=7e30259cd647f4e9e175f40ea30fc91d