Property dukeminier 5th edition

It is not redistributed it is confiscated, stolen, taken, thieved, wrenched from the hands and against the will of those who worked for it and given to those who did not, period.

It was honestly one of the most absurd lines I've ever read, period. I can barely believe that it comes from academics--intellectuals who are supposed to be critical of all reasoning and skeptical of all ideas. Except I can believe it. Our institutions are infested with people who mindlessly spout such drivel. Example number two. Pages contain ridiculous treatment of rent control, the implied warranty of habitability, and the Chicago ordinance from Chicago Board of Realtors, Inc.

City of Chicago. In the opinion for that case, Judge Posner offers the economic rationale for opposing rent control and other regulations on landlords such as those in the Chicago ordinance. Posner says, "The market for rental housing behaves as economic theory predicts: if price is artificially depressed, or the costs of landlords artificially increased, supply falls and many tenants, usually the poorer and the newer tenants, are hurt The single proposition in economics from which there is the least dissent among American economists is that 'a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.

Rent controls do not achieve the goal of actually making housing available at "affordable" prices, whatever that means. The reason is because there will be less housing supplied. Libs always think they can tweak one thing, such as capping rent, without any alternative or unforeseen consequences. It's like believing the company you worked for wanted to control costs and it could just lower your wages or cap your wages and you'd keep right on working just as hard.

People respond and react to incentives. You would look for another job or work less hard. Similarly, landlords look for other ways to make up lost revenue. They provide a worse product or fewer products. The casebook authors take this incontrovertible fact about human nature and try to pretend like there is some epic debate still waging over the issue.

I will give you their argument as faithfully and succinctly as possible before tearing it apart. They say, "Unhappily for the student, though, the vast literature bearing on the debate [over rent control:]--a literature that we merely sample here--is unlikely to lead a disinterested observer to firm conclusions one way or the other. Posner and Easterbrook pretty much capture the case against rent controls. Virtually all economists, as they point out right at the end of their analysis, regard them as counterproductive.

Fewer than 2 percent of them dissented from the proposition stated by Posner and Easterbrook. But almost 44 percent of French economists did, along with 20 percent of Swiss economists and 11 percent of Austrian economists, down to 6 percent of German economists. Finally, the authors fall back on "whether economists have overlooked important nonutilitarian considerations that might 'trump' the conventional analysis.

Uh, no. It's just wrong. The disinterested observer will be persuaded by the overwhelming empirical and theoretical support for the conclusion that rent controls are a bad idea.

Let's present the exact same information in a different way and see how it looks. That's pretty overwhelming. Maybe we should ignore the small minority of economists who are incorrect about this particular issue. It's also worth noting how people use consensus or majority opinion when it agrees with them and disregard it when it doesn't. If the small minority of economists who like rent control are worthy of our consideration, what about the minority of scientists who don't believe in man-made global warming?

What about the minority of creationists? Intelligent designers? Of course the authors would immediately point out how the fact they are in a small minority indicates they are wrong and not worth heeding. When they can't get the economists to agree with them, they call in people from other fields to help balance the scales. Here, they add political scientists, planners, and sociologists--codewords all for damn hippies. Rental prices is an economic question. A sociologist's opinion about the injustice of wealth disparities or historical oppression and response has no bearing on numerical price questions.

That's like asking various professionals their opinion on a math question. There is a right answer, regardless of what profession one follows.

This reminds me of the IPCC creating a "consensus" of scientists on climate change and including podiatrists and optometrists as climate "experts. Planners and sociologists and political scientists derive their power from politics and trying to force people to behave how they tell them. Forgive me for being skeptical of "planners" whose very salary is drawn from sticking their nose in other people's business and using the threat of force to demand compliance with their whims.

Without forced compliance, planners would not exist. So would they support laws that give them more tools to play with and more power? No, not them, they are purely selfless and interested only in helping others. Ah, yes, the old fall back to noneconomic values. When the original justification for rent control fails, supporters fall back on "nonutilitarian" considerations. Which is simply a way to weasel out of responsibility for failed policy. The argument is that other things besides economics should factor in.

There is a moral component, you see. Even this final stronghold does not hold at all because the position is morally bankrupt. There is nothing moral about stealing someone's property or about forcing increasing numbers of poor people to go without housing, both of which rent control does. Those lucky enough to already have housing benefit from artificially low prices, but those benefits are more than offset by the losses incurred by landlords and the poor, would-be tenants who never get the chance to rent the apartment at a higher price even if they are willing to pay it.

It is theft. It is a simple, involuntary transfer of wealth from some people to others in an inefficient manner. All of society must bear the costs of that inefficiency. The authors are right, there is a moral component and there are noneconomic considerations. They just assign blame and praise to exactly the wrong parties. Supporters of rent control are the criminals, the perpetrators, the thieves of undeserved property.

Landlords and tenants willing to pay higher rent are the victims. To sum up, the authors blow it on a critically important subject by allowing their partisanship to shine through in inappropriate places and permeate the entire text.

They also focus on the wrong topics, emphasizing needless points of view using bad logic while not giving nearly enough airtime to the truth. This casebook was so unnecessarily long expensive , barely even tried to dumb down material or explain concepts and define terms, and just honestly did not vibe with me. Hopefully it'll vibe with other law students. Good riddance. Oh to gosh back in time when Pierson v.

Post was the most complicated property law I had to know. This is a general beef that I have about casebooks, i. I may be too accusatory, but one wonders if the authors just don't know the answers. Other than that, I decided not to give the casebook 5 stars because it was not well organized. The authors should have made it clearer when they were giving background information, as opposed to excerpts of cases, because a reader like moi found it all the text jumbled together like a black sesame soup.

This was actually a pretty great casebook. Property is not my forte, but this casebook has a lot of relevant cases and it's very easy to actually read through it consistently, rather than having to skip around like a lot of other casebooks. Ever wonder about the origins of our materialistic Anglo-American tradition? Possible ex library copy, will have the markings and stickers associated from the library.

Accessories such as CD, codes, toys, may not be included. Hippo Books via United States. Light rubbing wear to cover, spine and page edges. Very minimal writing or notations in margins not affecting the text. Possible clean ex-library copy, with their stickers and or stamp s.

Ships from the UK. Former Library books. Shows some signs of wear, and may have some markings on the inside. In stock. Better World Books via United States. Former library book; may include library markings. Used book that is in clean, average condition without any missing pages.

Owls Books via United States. ThriftBooks-Atlanta via United States. May have limited writing in cover pages. Pages are unmarked. ThriftBooks-Dallas via United States. Spine may show signs of wear. Text is legible but may be soiled and have binding defects. Heavy wear to covers and pages contain marginal notes, underlining, and or highlighting. All pages and cover are intact. Possible slightly loose binding, minor highlighting and marginalia , cocked spine or torn dust jacket.

Maybe an ex-library copy and not include the accompanying CDs, access codes or other supplemental materials. BookHolders via United States. Hard cover. ThriftBooks via United States. Very Good. Dust jacket quality is not guaranteed. Ergodebooks via United States. Fast Shipping! Condition: GOOD. Spine creases, wear to binding and pages from reading. May contain limited notes, underlining or highlighting that does affect the text.

Possible ex library copy, will have the markings and stickers associated from the library. Accessories such as CD, codes, toys, may not be included. Light rubbing wear to cover, spine and page edges. Very minimal writing or notations in margins not affecting the text. Possible clean ex-library copy, with their stickers and or stamp s. Used - Hardcover Condition: Very Good.

Condition: Very Good. No Jacket. May have limited writing in cover pages. Pages are unmarked. Spine may show signs of wear.

Used - Hardcover Condition: good. Condition: good. The book shows some signs of wear from use but is a good readable copy. Cover in excellent condition. Binding tight.