L11 Assignment 1. Using the analytical tools of his economic realism, how would Richard Posner argue that the majority opinion in Penn Central v. New York City makes sense? Why would Morris Cohen agree or disagree? An interesting and stark contrast exists in the economic realm, pivoting mainly on what people believe to be the most important factor to consider when making societal decisions. This is the recurring common dispute and internal conflict between whether one should focus more on the economic benefits to a single individual or on the benefits to the overall society. In regards to the majority opinion in the case of Penn Central v. New York City, it is clear to see that the overall ruling leaned in the opposite direction of economic realism, and rather strongly favored …show more content…
His stance is in opposition to the position of Richard Posner. And as we know, Richard Posner presents his overall disposition more so in the stance of economic liberalism. He has been very clear about his belief that the best economic decision is one in which the total earning capacity of the economy is maximized even when that earning capacity is mainly held by a single individual. Posner would have strongly argued against the ruling, claiming that an increase in overall profits due to the proposed structural changes of Penn Station would provide a longer-term and greater total benefit to the economy (Leiter 1). Expanding on the benefit of the economy, he suggests that the increase in total earning capacity of the individual owner of Penn station is a better economic investment than the retention of less profitable, albeit more historical, landmarks in the community (Leff, 1). However, in this case specifically, it is important to note that the court ruled