Ipse Dixit

Share

Rohan Grey on Modern Monetary Theory and Intellectual Property

Season 1, Ep. 402

In this episode, Rohan Grey, a J.S.D. student at Cornell Law School and the founder and president of the Modern Money Network, discusses his work on the intersection of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and intellectual property theory. Grey begins by briefly explaining the fundamental premises of MMT and the job guarantee, observing that MMT is an extension of Keynesian economic principles, and that the job guarantee is a way of setting a floor on the price of labor. He also observes that MMT scholarship has not focused on the role of property, and explains why he thinks property is in tension with the social goals of MMT. In particular, the non-rivalry of the intangible goods protected by intellectual property rights should be unnecessary in an MMT framework. He argues that the job guarantee and other policies can make intellectual property unnecessary, and discusses several potential policy approaches. Grey's scholarship is available here, and his article "Who Owns the Intellectual Fruits of Job Guarantee Labor?", in M. Murray & M. Forstater (Eds.), The Job Guarantee and Modern Money Theory: Realizing Keynes's Labor Standard (2017) is available here. Grey is on Twitter at @rohangrey.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

More Episodes

4/29/2022

Aliza Shatzman on Holding Judges Accountable

Season 1, Ep. 758
In this episode, Aliza Shatzman, an attorney and advocate based in Washington, DC, discusses her article "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it," which will be published in the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law. Here is the abstract:Drawing from the author’s own experience of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her clerkship and in the years following it by a former DC Superior Court judge, this Article analyzes the deficits in current federal and DC judicial reporting systems to demonstrate the urgent need for reform. I argue that harassment in the judiciary is pervasive, due to both enormous power disparities between judges and law clerks, and various institutional barriers that perpetuate misconduct and discourage reporting. I survey existing methods of judicial discipline in both the federal and DC Courts and argue that these provide insufficient redress for workplace misconduct. I then discuss the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) (HR 4827/S 2553), which would finally protect judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enabling employees to sue their harassers and seek damages for harm done to their careers, reputations, and future earning potential. Furthermore, I argue that the DC Courts should be included in the JAA, because they are Article I courts created and regulated by Congress, and DC Courts judges are arguably federal judges for Title VII and disciplinary purposes. I also offer a variety of other proposed reforms, which would both strengthen the JAA and provide additional protections to uniquely vulnerable judiciary employees. I conclude by reflecting on my attempts to report the misconduct I experienced, how the systems failed me when I tried to report, and my efforts to seek justice for myself and accountability for the misbehaving former judge.This episode was hosted byBrian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at@brianlfrye.