Community solar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Westmill Solar Park in Oxfordshire, England (2012)

A community solar project, farm or garden is a solar power installation that accepts capital from and provides output credit and tax benefits to multiple customers, including individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and other investors. Participants typically invest in or subscribe to a certain kW capacity or kWh generation of remote electrical production. The project's power output is credited to investors or subscribers in proportion to their investment, with adjustments to reflect ongoing changes in capacity, technology, costs and electricity rates. Community solar provides direct access to the renewable energy to customers who cannot install it themselves. Companies, cooperatives, governments or non-profits operate the systems.

As of 2021, there are 39 U.S. states with at least one community solar project.

Benefits of community solar

Installing solar panels on a building or household can come with a variety of issues. For homeowners, these limitations include roof shape/size constraints, shading, grid capacity, and zoning regulations. Non-homeowners cannot make building modifications like solar installations. Additionally, low-income households in the U.S. face an energy burden (a term used by the U.S. Department of Energy to define how much of a household's gross income is spent on paying for energy) that is roughly triple the amount of other U.S. households. With around 50 million low-income U.S. households (about 44% of the U.S. household total), many U.S. residents are spending large amounts of their income on energy. Many of these residents, whether they are renters or their properties don't support installation, don't have access to solar.

Community solar functions similarly to conventional grid-supply energy insofar as it provides energy remotely, requiring no installation or maintenance on the part of the consumer. Because of community solar projects' remote nature, the physical limitations of solar installation for consumers disappear. Also, due to its subscription/opt-in functionality, community solar can increase access to solar energy for low-income households. These projects benefit initial investors too. As consumer rates for solar energy become lower through distributed generation of community solar, initial investors in community solar projects experience higher returns in the long run.

Centralizing the location of solar systems can thereby create advantages over residential installations:

• Avoiding trees, roof size and/or configuration limitations, adjacent buildings, the immediate microclimate and/or other factors which may reduce power output at the residential location;
• Avoiding building codes, zoning restrictions, homeowner association rules and aesthetic concerns;
• Reduced maintenance requirements;
• Reduced installation costs;
• Return-on-investment.

There are also a number of social/community benefits of community solar:

• Expanding participation to include renters and others who are not residential property owners;
• Increased solar access for low-income residents;
• Community solar's ability to generate jobs and educational resources.

Community solar in the United States

An estimated 85% of U.S. residents can neither own nor lease systems because their roofs are physically unsuitable for solar or because they live in rented or multi-family housing and do not have control over their roof. As of 2022, 22 states encourage their development through policy and programs.

Federal and other tax policies are necessary to finance community solar farms. U.S. Senator Mark Udall introduced the SUN Act (Solar Uniting Neighborhoods) to extend the existing 30% tax credit to community solar farms in 2010 and 2011. The bill would have enabled groups of individuals or homeowner associations to develop utility-scale solar power facilities in collaboration with local utilities that would distribute the power and credit owners based on their percentage of investment in the solar farm, extending the tax credits accordingly. “These projects have the potential to drastically increase the adoption of clean energy nationwide, but the tax code hasn’t kept up,” Udall said. “You can get a 30-percent tax credit for putting a solar panel on your house, but not for investing in a solar farm.”

Many states have adopted virtual net metering (VNM) policies, which let businesses or households that subscribe to an offsite community solar project receive the net metering credits from that remote project.

Community solar subscribers can only claim to use renewable energy if they receive the renewable energy certificates (RECs) associated with the electricity they are using. Often, RECs are split from the electricity that community solar projects create and sold to utilities in order to help them comply with renewable portfolio standards implemented by states.

Federal Policies and Programs

The solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC), implemented in 2006, is a one-time tax credit for commercial solar developers, including those who develop community solar projects. While the solar ITC rate was scheduled to gradually decrease over time, Congress passed a two year extension of the 26% rate in 2020 alongside a COVID relief package, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 restored its original 30% rate.

The Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) in the U.S. Department of Energy has sponsored various community solar related projects and research efforts. One such program is the National Community Solar Partnership, a partnership of various community solar stakeholders with the aim of increasing accessibility and affordability of community solar programs in the U.S.

California

SolarShares (2007) offers customers of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District the opportunity to buy shares in its solar farm. The electricity generated by each customer’s“shares appears as a credit on his or her energy bill, a savings expected to average between $4–$50 a month, given sunshine variability. For a monthly fee—starting at $10.75 a month (averaging 9%) for a 0.5 kW system—participants opt into solar power production. The current phase is sold out, although plans are in progress to expand capacity.

The PVUSA array in Davis, California (2001) provides virtual net metering for city-owned meters. The California legislature passed a law specifically allowing this for this individual array. Senate Bill 43 was signed by Governor Brown on September 28, 2013 

Colorado

Colorado legislation passed in 2010 that requires the Public Utilities Commission to rewrite rules to direct investor-owned utilities to offer rebates for community solar gardens. 

HB10-1342, the Community Solar Gardens Act specified:

• Energy must be sold directly to an investor-owned utility.
• Utility pays retail + RECs.
• Utility provides Virtual Net Metering credit on the subscribing customer’s bill.
• System size limited to 2 megawatts (MW).
• 6 MW total limit on the program for first three years.
• There must be at least 10 subscribers.
• Subscribers must be located in same county or city as the solar garden. Subscribers whose county has a population less than 20,000 may subscribe in a neighboring county.
• Subscribers may buy up to 120% of their own power use worth of solar power.
• Either a for-profit or nonprofit entity may own and administer the solar garden.

In Colorado, Xcel Energy customers continue to pay the standard non-energy fees, but can buy enough solar shares to offset 120 percent of their load.

Florida

Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) has a solar farm that began producing power in October 2013. The municipal utility, which has approximately 55 percent of its 230,000 electric customers living in multi-family housing, sought a unique solution for those wanting to use solar power, but unable to modify the homes they rent or lease. This project also allows those customers the ability to buy into solar without all of the upfront costs. Subscribing customers volunteered to pay a higher rate on their power bill, but they were also able to lock in that rate for the estimated life of the project – 25 years. Today, 1,312 solar panels are generating up to 400 kilowatts (kW) of electricity at OUC's Gardenia Operations facility next to Interstate 4. The panels are on three canopies, which have created 151 covered LED-lit parking spaces over about 2.5 acres. A total of 39 customers have subscribed to the project. Each kW of the array’s 400 kW was sold in blocks, with a limit of 15 blocks per customer. Each block represents 112 kilowatt hours (kWh) on a customer's monthly bill, so the maximum benefit per customer is 1,680 kWh. The average OUC residential customer uses around 1,200 kWh. Any unused power is credited on the account for the next month.

Maryland

Maryland established a community energy pilot program in 2017. The purpose of this program is to invest in Maryland’s solar industry, diversify the energy resources of the state, and provide renewable energy for all state residents, particularly those who qualify as low-to-moderate income. Several utility companies, including BGE, Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light, and Potomac Edison Company (MD) have been working alongside subscriber organizations, including Neighborhood Sun, to provide customers with a subscription to existing solar projects.

There are several existing solar farms across Maryland, including the Panorama Landfill project. It is the largest in the US and the first residential solar farm in Maryland. Located in Fort Washington, Maryland on a former landfill, Panorama covers 25 acres of land and contains 19,000 panels.

Massachusetts

The Green Communities Act of 2008 authorized what was formally known as "neighborhood net-metering", which allowed a group of residents in a neighborhood/town to pool resources to cover the capital cost of a renewable energy installation.

Residents of Brewster founded the first cooperatively run solar garden in Massachusetts. The solar garden was built by solar installer My Generation Energy Inc. Each member of the cooperative was to receive benefits from the co-op; including the net-metering credits from the solar garden through Nstar. Known as the Brewster Community Solar Garden, it is a 345.6 kW community solar farm located on Cape Cod.

Massachusetts and the Federal government each offered incentives to improve solar economics. A traditional investment in photovoltaics without incentives would take 12 or more years to pay back the initial cost. The incentives lowered the payback period to 6–10 years.

Gardens built by developer Clean Energy Collective started producing power in Newton, Massachusetts in July 2014. The company originally partnered with now-defunct energy efficiency firm Next Step Living and is currently working with the startup Solstice Initiative.

The largest community solar-plus-storage farm in the state in Winchendon, Massachusetts was completed in March, 2018 by CleanChoice Energy and Borrego Solar.

In 2018, Massachusetts implemented the Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) program as a replacement for the state’s former Solar Renewable Energy Credit (SREC II) program. Under the SMART program, Massachusetts pays solar energy system owners at a fixed rate per kilowatt hour as an incentive. This program was updated in 2020, and updates included an expansion of the definition of Low Income Customers and expanded consumer protection standards.

Minnesota

In 2013, the Minnesota State Legislature passed a new law requiring Xcel Energy, the largest electric utility in the state, to begin a community solar pilot program. Other utility companies in the state do not have the same requirement, but some are voluntarily developing community solar programs. Xcel Energy still operates a community solar program in Minnesota, and the utility company oversees the Solar*Rewards program, the largest community solar program in the country. Most of its participants are not individual households, but rather large-scale clients like businesses.

In 2019, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council gave Minnesota an A grade for shared renewables programs, a category which includes community solar. As of June 2020, Minnesota had the largest community solar market of any U.S. state in terms of megawatts alternating-current installed capacity. In January 2021, there were 784 megawatts of community solar operational capacity in Minnesota.

New Jersey

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities began a community solar pilot program in 2019. In the first two years of the program, 150 projects with 225 MW capacity were approved for development and incentives. All projects are required to reserve 51% of capacity for low- to moderate-income subscribers.

New York

New York City is home to some of the first urban community solar farms in the country allowing renters to go solar. Rooftop community solar enables solar to become economically feasible for building owners.

Utah

Electric utilities in St. George built a large photovoltaic facility to exploit 310 days a year with sunlight, and allowed residents to purchase it to supplement conventional energy. The program required no set-up or maintenance for the participant.

Participation is sold in whole and half units of 1 kilowatt. A 1 kW unit on the SunSmart grid cost $6,000. One unit equals approximately 15% of the average home’s monthly power (or about 140 kWh). A one-time tax credit of 25% of the purchase price, up to a maximum of $2,000, was available from the state of Utah. Purchasers received a monthly energy credit for the energy produced that month by the unit of panels.

Vermont

The Boardman Hill Solar Farm opened in 2015.

Washington DC

Washington, D.C.’s largest solar canopy opened in April 2021 and serves 325 low-income households. It is located on a parking structure at Children’s National Research & Innovation Campus (RIC), on the former Walter Reed Army Medical Center campus. The capacity is 1,148 kW.

Controversy with utility providers in the United States

Utility providers in the U.S. have, at times, resisted the increase of distributed solar and community solar development. PV development can come in multiple forms, such as in community or individual rooftop projects. Such projects often rely on distributed generation (DG) to loop electricity from the source to the consumer. DG routes power more directly to the consumer because of its ability to circumvent utility providers. Utilities can opt to invest in and incorporate community solar into their business model, though only some have. Without aligning with community solar, the main concern for utility providers often stems from potential revenue losses.

Most utility providers pay fixed rates proportional to the electricity they generate and subsequently distribute to consumers. Traditionally, the consumer has also paid a fixed rate in order to receive utility-generated power. With DG systems, as opposed to paying this fixed rate, consumers have been increasingly able to pay a market rate for the volume of electricity they use. With consumers paying less than the traditionally-fixed rate, utility providers lose a portion of the revenue they would've received under traditional circumstances. With conventional forms of energy still maintaining the lion's share of power distribution in the U.S. (about 61% as of 2020), however, losses in utility revenue are generally small.

Electricity pricing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing 

 

Electricity transport via high-voltage line

Electricity pricing (also referred to as electricity tariffs or the price of electricity) can vary widely by country or by locality within a country. Electricity prices are dependent on many factors, such as the price of power generation, government taxes or subsidies, CO
₂ taxes, local weather patterns, transmission and distribution infrastructure, and multi-tiered industry regulation. The pricing or tariffs can also differ depending on the customer-base, typically by residential, commercial, and industrial connections.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Electricity prices generally reflect the cost to build, finance, maintain, and operate power plants and the electricity grid." Where pricing forecasting is the method by which a generator, a utility company, or a large industrial consumer can predict the wholesale prices of electricity with reasonable accuracy. Due to the complications of electricity generation, the cost to supply electricity varies minute by minute.

Some utility companies are for-profit entities and their prices include a financial return for owners and investors. These utility companies can exercise their political power within existing legal and regulatory regimes to guarantee a financial return and reduce competition from other sources like a distributed generation.

Rate structure

In standard regulated monopoly markets like the United States, there are multilevel governance structures that set electricity rates. The rates are determined through a regulatory process that is overseen by a Public Service Commission. In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) oversees the wholesale electricity market along with the interstate transmission of electricity. Public Service Commissions (PSC), which are also known as Public utilities commission (PUC), regulate utility rates within each state.

The inclusion of renewable energy distributed generation (DG) and advanced metering infrastructure (AMI or smart meter) in the modern electricity grid has introduced many alternative rate structures. There are several methods that modern utilities structure residential rates:

• Simple (or fixed) – the rate at which customers pay a flat rate per kWh
• Tiered (or step) – rate changes with the amount of use (some go up to encourage energy conservation, others go down to encourage use and electricity provider profit)
• Time of use (TOU) – different rate depending on the time of day
• Demand rates – based on the peak demand for electricity a consumer uses
• Tiered within TOU – different rates depending on how much they use at a specific time of day
• Seasonal rates – charged for those that do not use their facilities year-round (e.g. a cottage)
• Weekend/holiday rates – generally different rates than during normal times. among the few residential rate structures offered by modern utilities.

The simple rate charges a specific dollar per kilowatt hour ($/kWh) consumed. The tiered rate is one of the more common residential rate programs. The tiered rate charges a higher rate as customer usage increases. TOU and demand rates are structured to help maintain and control a utility's peak demand. The concept at its core is to discourage customers from contributing to peak-load times by charging them more money to use power at that time. Historically, rates have been minimal at night because the peak is during the day when all sectors are using electricity. Increased demand requires additional energy generation, which is traditionally provided by less efficient "peaker" plants that cost more to generate electricity than "baseload" plants. However, as greater penetration from renewable energy sources, like solar, are on a grid the lower cost, electricity is shifted to midday when solar generates the most energy.

An October 2018 study by UK energy supplier Octopus Energy demonstrated the benefits of time of use (TOU) tariffs in particular, with customers on its Agile price model found to have shifted electricity consumption out of peak periods by 28%, helping consumers save £188 per year compared to standard variable tariffs.

A feed-in tariff (FIT) is an energy-supply policy that supports the development of renewable power generation. FITs give financial benefits to renewable power producers. In the United States, FIT policies guarantee that eligible renewable generators will have their electricity purchased by their utility. The FIT contract contains a guaranteed period of time (usually 15–20 years) that payments in dollars per kilowatt hour ($/kWh) will be made for the full output of the system.

Net metering is another billing mechanism that supports the development of renewable power generation, specifically, solar power. The mechanism credits solar energy system owners for the electricity their system adds to the grid. Residential customers with rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems will typically generate more electricity than their home consumes during daylight hours, so net metering is particularly advantageous. During this time where generation is greater than consumption, the home's electricity meter will run backward to provide a credit on the homeowner's electricity bill. The value of solar electricity is less than the retail rate, so net metering customers are actually subsidized by all other customers of the electric utility.

Price comparison by power source

Main article: Cost of electricity by source

The cost of electricity also differs by the power source. The net present value of the unit-cost of electricity over the lifetime of a generating asset is known as the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). LCOE is the best value to compare different methods of generation on a consistent basis.

The generating source mix of a particular utility will thus have a substantial effect on their electricity pricing. Electric utilities that have a high percentage of hydroelectricity will tend to have lower prices, while those with a large amount of older coal-fired power plants will have higher electricity prices. Recently the LCOE of solar photovoltaic technology has dropped substantially. In the United States, 70% of current coal-fired power plants run at a higher cost than new renewable energy technologies (excluding hydro) and by 2030 all of them will be uneconomic. In the rest of the world 42% of coal-fired power plants were operating at a loss in 2019.

Electricity price forecasting

Electricity price forecasting (EPF) is a branch of energy forecasting which focuses on predicting the spot and forward prices in wholesale electricity markets. Over the last 15 years electricity price forecasts have become a fundamental input to energy companies’ decision-making mechanisms at the corporate level.

Since the early 1990s, the process of deregulation and the introduction of competitive electricity markets have been reshaping the landscape of the traditionally monopolistic and government-controlled power sectors. Throughout Europe, North America and Australia, electricity is now traded under market rules using spot and derivative contracts. However, electricity is a very special commodity: it is economically non-storable and power system stability requires a constant balance between production and consumption. At the same time, electricity demand depends on weather (temperature, wind speed, precipitation, etc.) and the intensity of business and everyday activities (on-peak vs. off-peak hours, weekdays vs. weekends, holidays, etc.). These unique characteristics lead to price dynamics not observed in any other market, exhibiting daily, weekly and often annual seasonality and abrupt, short-lived and generally unanticipated price spikes.

Extreme price volatility, which can be up to two orders of magnitude higher than that of any other commodity or financial asset, has forced market participants to hedge not only volume but also price risk. Price forecasts from a few hours to a few months ahead have become of particular interest to power portfolio managers. A power market company able to forecast the volatile wholesale prices with a reasonable level of accuracy can adjust its bidding strategy and its own production or consumption schedule in order to reduce the risk or maximize the profits in day-ahead trading. A ballpark estimate of savings from a 1% reduction in the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of short-term price forecasts is $300,000 per year for a utility with 1GW peak load.

Electricity price forecasting is the process of using mathematical models to predict what electricity prices will be in the future.

Power quality

Excessive Total Harmonic Distortions (THD) and low power factor are costly at every level of the electricity market. The impact of THD is difficult to estimate, but it can potentially cause heat, vibrations, malfunctioning and even meltdowns. The power factor is the ratio of real to apparent power in a power system. Drawing more current results in a lower power factor. Larger currents require costlier infrastructure to minimize power loss, so consumers with low power factors get charged a higher electricity rate by their utility. Power quality is typically monitored at the transmission level. A spectrum of compensation devices mitigate bad outcomes, but improvements can be achieved only with real-time correction devices (old style switching type, modern low-speed DSP driven and near real-time). Most modern devices reduce problems, while maintaining return on investment and significant reduction of ground currents. Power quality problems can cause erroneous responses from many kinds of analog and digital equipment.

Phase balancing

The most common distribution network and generation is done with 3 phase structures, with special attention paid to the phase balancing and resulting reduction of ground current. It is true for industrial or commercial networks where most power is used in 3 phase machines, but light commercial and residential users do not have real-time phase balancing capabilities. Often this issue leads to unexpected equipment behavior or malfunctions and in extreme cases fires. For example, sensitive professional analog or digital recording equipment must be connected to well-balanced and grounded power networks. To determine and mitigate the cost of the unbalanced electricity network, electric companies charge by demand or as a separate category for heavy unbalanced loads. A few simple techniques are available for balancing that require fast computing and real-time modeling.

Compensation culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Compensation culture" (often shortened to "compo culture") is a pejorative term used to imply that, within a society, a significant number of claims for compensation for torts are unjustified, frivolous, or fraudulent, and that those who seek compensation should be criticised. It is used to describe a "where there's blame, there's a claim" culture of litigiousness in which compensation is routinely and improperly sought without being based on the application of legal principles such as duty of care, negligence, or causation. Ronald Walker QC defines it as "an ethos [which believes that] all misfortunes short of an Act of God are probably someone else's fault, and that the suffering should be relieved, or at any rate marked, by the receipt of a sum of money."

The notion of a compensation culture has also been conflated with health and safety legislation and excessively risk-averse decisions taken by corporate bodies in an apparent effort to avoid the threat of litigation.

The phrase was coined in an article by Bernard Levin in London's The Times newspaper dated 17 December 1993. The article, largely a polemic against the welfare state, carried the sub-heading: "We may laugh at ludicrous court cases in America, but the compensation culture began in Britain and is costing us dear."

Media myth

The term is especially used in tabloid journalism and by advocates of tort reform to describe a perceived legal climate with regard to torts in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Lord Dyson, the third most senior judge in England and Wales, has dismissed the existence of a compensation culture in the UK as a false perception and a "media-created myth." James Hand, writing in the Journal of Law and Society, observed that sensationalist stories about compensation awards "evidently make for good copy; national newspaper articles concerning the compensation culture have increased exponentially since the mid 1990s," while statistics conversely demonstrated "a broad decline" in the number of claims during the same period.

Research published in 2006 examined the data held by the Compensation Recovery Unit, a government agency which enabled the state to recover from tort damages any social security benefits paid as a result of an accident or disease. This found "no evidence that the tort system has been flooded with an increasing number of personal injury claims in recent years" and concluded that "the number of claims [had] been relatively stable since at least 1997–1998," the first year for which statistics were available. George Monbiot, a British writer and political activist, said: "Compensation culture has usurped political correctness, welfare cheats, single mothers and New Age travellers as the right's new bogeyman-in-chief. According to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Conservative Party and just about every newspaper columnist in Britain, it threatens very soon to bankrupt the country."

A Better Regulation Commission (BRC) report published in 2004 concluded that there was no compensation culture in the UK. The commission also found that the myth of the compensation culture was largely perpetuated by the media. Janet Paraskeva, then The Law Society's chief executive, commented: "Ironically, it seems that those who most decry the possibility of a compensation culture are probably responsible for perpetuating the belief that there is one – resulting in more and more of the bizarre decisions by schools and local authorities that journalists are so quick to mock." One analyst put it more bluntly: "Loose talk of a 'compensation culture' no doubt helps to sell the very sorts of newspapers that purport to despise it most."

Levin's 1993 article related the details of several personal injury claims which had succeeded in the United States, and warnings of 'American-style litigiousness' arriving in the UK were common in many articles in the domestic media during the late 1990s. This coincided with vigorous lobbying in the United States by special interest groups and business organisations in support of product liability reform which would place restrictions on laws allowing consumers to sue companies for damages caused by faulty products.

False perceptions and fear of litigation

Kevin Williams, writing in the Journal of Personal Injury Law, said: "The fact that there may be no objective proof that we live in an increasingly 'blame and sue' society is beside the point when an 'urban myth' to the contrary is said to have taken hold. Thus, whatever the actual likelihood of being the target of litigation, many increasingly believe themselves to be at heightened risk of being unfairly sued." The 2004 BRC report came to the same conclusion, stating that the myth of a compensation culture in the UK was "a commonly held perception" which created an exaggerated fear of litigation and led to organisations becoming excessively risk-averse and "over cautious in their behaviour." However, research commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in 2008 to assess "the extent to which disproportionate health and safety management occurs" found that "most organisations do not report the examples of excessive [health and safety management] quoted in the media" but still perceived "a problem with risk aversion" in the UK in general. This, according to Sally Lloyd-Bostock, a professor of Law and Psychology, demonstrated that even the "perceptions of the effects of perceptions" were not based on evidence but instead on what Marc Galanter, professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, dubbed "anecdotes, atrocity stories and unverified assertions" perpetuated by the media.

Common Sense, Common Safety, a 2010 report by Lord Young of Graffham to the Prime Minister reviewing "health and safety laws and the growth of the compensation culture" also found "there is no end to the constant stream of misinformation in the media" and that the "overriding opinion" of the organisations questioned (including the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, Families Against Corporate Killers, the Police Federation of England and Wales and the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management) was that "the health and safety agenda had been hijacked by the tabloid press, whose reports often contributed to misinterpretation and misunderstandings by regularly exaggerating and ridiculing instances which in reality have little or nothing at all to do with health and safety." The "broad consensus" of these groups was that "they did not believe there was a growing compensation culture in the UK" but that there was a "public perception of one that stifles opportunities and leads business to take an overcautious attitude when attempting to interpret health and safety regulations in the workplace."

Lawsuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit 

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties (the plaintiff or claimant) against one or more parties (the defendant) in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff (a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions) who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the defendant. A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

A lawsuit may involve resolution of disputes involving issues of private law between individuals, business entities or non-profit organizations. A lawsuit may also involve issues of public law in the sense that the state is treated as if it were a private party in a civil case, either as a plaintiff with a civil cause of action to enforce certain laws, or as a defendant in actions contesting the legality of the state's laws or seeking monetary damages for injuries caused by agents of the state.

Conducting a civil action is called litigation. The plaintiffs and defendants are called litigants and the attorneys representing them are called litigators. The term litigation may also refer to the conducting of criminal actions (see criminal procedure).

Etymology

The word "lawsuit" derives from the combination of law and suit. Suit derives from the old French "suite, sieute" meaning to pursue or follow. This was in term derived from the Latin "secutus", the past participle of "sequi" meaning to attend or follow.

Similarly, the word "sue", derives from the old French "suir, sivre" meaning to pursue or follow after. This was also derived from the Latin word "sequi".

Rules of procedure and complications

Rules of criminal or civil procedure govern the conduct of a lawsuit in the common law adversarial system of dispute resolution. Procedural rules arise from statutory law, case law, and constitutional provisions (especially the right to due process). The details of each kind of legal procedure differ greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and often from court to court even within the same jurisdiction. It is important for litigants to be aware of all relevant procedural rules (or to hire competent counsel who can either comply with such rules on their behalf or explain the rules to them), because the litigants ultimately dictate the timing and progression of the lawsuit. Litigants are responsible for obtaining the desired result and the timing of reaching this result. Failure to comply with procedural rules may result in serious limitations that can affect the ability of one to present claims or defenses at any subsequent trial, or even lead to the dismissal of the lawsuit altogether.

Though the majority of lawsuits are settled before ever reaching trial, they can still be very complicated to litigate. This is particularly true in federal systems, where a federal court may be applying state law (e.g. the Erie doctrine, for example in the United States), or vice versa. It is also possible for one state to apply the law of another in cases where additionally it may not be clear which level (or location) of court actually has jurisdiction over the claim or personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or whether the plaintiff has standing to participate in a lawsuit. About 98 percent of civil cases in the United States federal courts are resolved without a trial. Domestic courts are also often called upon to apply foreign law, or to act upon foreign defendants, over whom they may not even have the ability to even enforce a judgment if the defendant's assets are theoretically outside their reach.

Lawsuits can become additionally complicated as more parties become involved (see joinder). Within a "single" lawsuit, there can be any number of claims and defenses (all based on numerous laws) between any number of plaintiffs or defendants. Each of these participants can bring any number of cross claims and counterclaims against each other, and even bring additional parties into the suit on either side after it progresses. In reality however, courts typically have some power to sever claims and parties into separate actions if it is more efficient to do so. A court can do this if there is not a sufficient overlap of factual issues between the various associates, separating the issues into different lawsuits.

The official ruling of a lawsuit can be somewhat misleading because post-ruling outcomes are often not listed on the internet. For example, in the case of William J. Ralph Jr. v. Lind-Waldock & Company (September 1999), one would assume that Mr. Ralph lost the case when in fact, upon review of the evidence, it was found that Mr. Ralph was correct in his assertion that improper activity took place on the part of Lind-Waldock, and Mr. Ralph settled with Lind-Waldock.

Cases such as this illustrate the need for more comprehensive information than mere internet searches when researching legal decisions. While online searches are appropriate for many legal situations, they are not appropriate for all.

Procedure

The following is a generalized description of how a lawsuit may proceed in a common law jurisdiction:

Pleading

Main article: Pleading

A lawsuit begins when a complaint or petition, known as a pleading, is filed with the court. A complaint should explicitly state that one or more plaintiffs seek(s) damages or equitable relief from one or more stated defendants, and also should state the relevant factual allegations supporting the legal claims brought by the plaintiffs. As the initial pleading, a complaint is the most important step in a civil case because a complaint sets the factual and legal foundation for the entirety of a case. While complaints and other pleadings may ordinarily be amended by a motion with the court, the complaint sets the framework for the entire case and the claims that will be asserted throughout the entire lawsuit.

It is likewise important that the plaintiff select the proper venue with the proper jurisdiction to bring the lawsuit. The clerk of a court signs or stamps the court seal upon a summons or citation, which is then served by the plaintiff upon the defendant, together with a copy of the complaint. This service notifies the defendants that they are being sued and that they are limited in the amount of time of a reply. The service provides a copy of the complaint in order to notify the defendants of the nature of the claims. Once the defendants are served with the summons and complaint, they are subject to a time limit to file an answer stating their defenses to the plaintiff's claims, which includes any challenges to the court's jurisdiction, and any counterclaims they wish to assert against the plaintiff.

In a handful of jurisdictions (notably, the U.S. state of New York) a lawsuit begins when one or more plaintiffs properly serve a summons and complaint upon the defendants. In such jurisdictions, nothing must be filed with the court until a dispute develops requiring actual judicial intervention.

If the defendant chooses to file an answer within the time permitted, the answer must address each of the plaintiffs' allegations. The defendant has three choices to make, which include either admitting to the allegation, denying it, or pleading a lack of sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation. Some jurisdictions, like California and Florida, still authorize general denials of each and every allegation in the complaint. At the time the defendant files an answer, the defendant also raises all "affirmative" defenses. The defendant may also assert counterclaims for damages or equitable relief against the plaintiff. For example, in the case of "compulsory counterclaims," the defendant must assert some form of counterclaim or risk having the counterclaim barred in any subsequent proceeding. In the case of making a counterclaim, the defendant is making a motion directed towards the plaintiff claiming that he/she was injured in some way or would like to sue the plaintiff. The plaintiff in this example would then receive some amount of time to make a reply to this counterclaim. The defendant may also file a "third party complaint", which is the defendant's privilege to join another party or parties in the action with the belief that those parties may be liable for some or all of the plaintiff's claimed damages. An answer from the defendant in response to the claims made against him/her, can also include additional facts or a so-called "excuse" for the plead. Filing an answer "joins the cause" and moves the case into the pre-trial phase.

Instead of filing an answer within the time specified in the summons, the defendant can choose to dispute the validity of the complaint by filing a demurrer (in the handful of jurisdictions where that is still allowed) or one or more "pre-answer motions," such as a motion to dismiss. It is important that the motion be filed within the time period specified in the summons for an answer. If all of the above motions are denied by the trial court, and the defendant loses on all appeals from such denials (if that option is available), and finally the defendant must file an answer.

Usually the pleadings are drafted by a lawyer, but in many courts persons can file papers and represent themselves, which is called appearing pro se. Many courts have a pro se clerk to assist people without lawyers.

Pretrial discovery

Main article: Discovery (law)

A pretrial discovery can be defined as "the formal process of exchanging information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they'll present at trial" and allows for the evidence of the trial to be presented to the parties before the initial trial begins. The early stages of the lawsuit may involve initial disclosures of evidence by each party and discovery, which is the structured exchange of evidence and statements between the parties. Discovery is meant to eliminate surprises, clarify what the lawsuit is about, and also to make the parties decide if they should settle or drop frivolous claims and/or defenses. At this point the parties may also engage in pretrial motions to exclude or include particular legal or factual issues before trial.

There is also the ability of one to make an under oath statement during the pretrial, also known as a deposition. The deposition can be used in the trial or just in the pretrial, but this allows for both parties to be aware of the arguments or claims that are going to be made by the other party in the trial. It is notable that the depositions can be written or oral.

At the close of discovery, the parties may either pick a jury and then have a trial by jury or the case may proceed as a bench trial. A bench trial is only heard by the judge if the parties waive a jury trial or if the right to a jury trial is not guaranteed for their particular claim (such as those under equity in the U.S.) or for any lawsuits within their jurisdiction.

Resolution

Main articles: Trial, Judgment (law), and Settlement (litigation)

Usually, lawsuits end in a settlement, with an empirical analysis finding that less than 2% of cases end with a trial. It is sometimes said that 95% of cases end in settlement; few jurisdictions report settlements, but empirical analysis suggests that the settlement rate varies by type of lawsuit, with torts settling around 90% of the time and overall civil cases settling 50% of the time; other cases end due to default judgment, lack of a valid claim, and other reasons.

At trial, each person presents witnesses and the evidence collected is recorded. After this occurs, the judge or jury renders their decision. Generally speaking, the plaintiff has the burden of proof in making his claims, however, the defendant may have the burden of proof on other issues, such as affirmative defenses. The attorneys are held responsible in devising a trial strategy that ensures they meet the necessary elements of their case or (when the opposing party has the burden of proof) to ensure the opponent will not be able to meet his or her burden.

There are numerous motions that either party can file throughout the lawsuit to terminate it "prematurely"—before submission to the judge or jury for final consideration. These motions attempt to persuade the judge, through legal argument and sometimes accompanying evidence, that there is no reasonable way that the other party could legally win and therefore there is no sense in continuing with the trial. Motions for summary judgment, for example, can usually be brought before, after, or during the actual presentation of the case. Motions can also be brought after the close of a trial to undo a jury verdict contrary to law or against the weight of the evidence, or to convince the judge to change the decision or grant a new trial.

Also, at any time during this process from the filing of the complaint to the final judgment, the plaintiff may withdraw the complaint and end the whole matter, or the defendant may agree to a settlement. If the case settles, the parties might choose to enter into a stipulated judgment with the settlement agreement attached, or the plaintiff may simply file a voluntary dismissal, so that the settlement agreement is never entered into the court record.

The decisions that the jury makes are not put into effect until the judge makes a judgment, which is the approval to have this trial information be filed in public records. In a civil case, the judge is allowed at this time to make changes to the verdict that the jury came up with by either adding on or reducing the punishment. In criminal cases the situation is a little different, because in this case the judge does not have the authority to change the jury decision.

Appeal

Main article: Appeal

After a final decision has been made, either party or both may appeal from the judgment if they believe there had been a procedural error made by the trial court. It is not necessarily an automatic appeal after every judgment has been made, however, if there is a legal basis for the appeal, then one has the right to do so. The prevailing party may appeal, for example, if they wanted a larger award than was granted. The appellate court (which may be structured as an intermediate appellate court) and/or a higher court then affirms the judgment, declines to hear it (which effectively affirms it), reverses—or vacates and remands. This process would then involve sending the lawsuit back to the lower trial court to address an unresolved issue, or possibly request for a whole new trial. Some lawsuits go up and down the appeals ladder repeatedly before final resolution.

The appeal is a review for errors rather than a new trial, so the appellate court will defer to the discretion of the original trial court if an error is not clear. The initial step in making an appeal consists of the petitioner filing a notice of appeal and then sending in a brief, a written document stating reason for appeal, to the court. Decisions of the court can be made immediately after just reading the written brief, or there can also be oral arguments made by both parties involved in the appeal. The appellate court then makes the decision about what errors were made when the law was looked at more closely in the lower court. There were no errors made, the case would then end, but if the decision was reversed, the appellate court would then send the case back down to the lower court level. There, a new trial will be held and new information taken into account.

Some jurisdictions, notably the United States, but prevalent in many other countries, prevent parties from relitigating the facts on appeal, due to a history of unscrupulous lawyers deliberately reserving such issues in order to ambush each other in the appellate courts (the "invited error" problem). The idea is that it is more efficient to force all parties to fully litigate all relevant issues of fact before the trial court. Thus, a party who does not raise an issue of fact at the trial court level generally cannot raise it on appeal.

When the lawsuit is finally resolved, or the allotted time to appeal has expired, the matter is res judicata, meaning the plaintiff may not bring another action based on the same claim again. In addition, other parties who later attempt to re-litigate a matter already ruled on in a previous lawsuit will be estopped from doing so.

Enforcement

When a final judgment is entered, the plaintiff is usually barred under the doctrine of res judicata from relitigating any of the issues, even under different legal theories. Judgments are typically a monetary award. If the defendant fails to pay, the court has various powers to seize any of the defendant's assets located within its jurisdiction, such as:

• Writ of execution
• Bank account garnishment
• Liens
• Wage garnishment

If all assets are located elsewhere, the plaintiff must file another suit in the appropriate court to seek enforcement of the other court's previous judgment. This can be a difficult task when crossing from a court in one state or nation to another, however, courts tend to grant each other respect when there is not a clear legal rule to the contrary. A defendant who has no assets in any jurisdiction is said to be "judgment-proof." The term is generally a colloquialism to describe an impecunious defendant.

Indigent judgment-proof defendants are no longer imprisoned; debtor's prisons have been outlawed by statute, constitutional amendment, or international human rights treaties in the vast majority of common law jurisdictions.

Research in law, economics and management

Scholars in law, economics and management have studied why firms involved in a dispute choose between private dispute resolution—such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration—and litigation.

Etymology

During the 18th and 19th centuries, it was common for lawyers to speak of bringing an "action" at law and a "suit" in equity. An example of that distinction survives today in the codified text of the Third Enforcement Act. The fusion of common law and equity in England in the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 led to the collapse of that distinction, so it became possible to speak of a "lawsuit." In the United States, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) abolished the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity in federal practice, in favor of a single form referred to as a "civil action."

In England and Wales the term "claim" is far more common; the person initiating proceedings is called the claimant.

American terminology is slightly different, in that the term "claim" refers only to a particular count or cause of action in a lawsuit. Americans also use "claim" to describe an extrajudicial demand filed with an insurer or administrative agency. If the claim is denied, then the claimant, policyholder, or applicant files a lawsuit with the courts to seek review of that decision, and from that point forward participates in the lawsuit as a plaintiff. In other words, the terms "claimant" and "plaintiff" carry substantially different connotations of formality in American English, in that only the latter risks an award of costs in favor of an adversary in a lawsuit.

In medieval times, both "action" and "suit" had the approximate meaning of some kind of legal proceeding, but an action terminated when a judgment was rendered, while a suit also included the execution of the judgment.

Financing

Particularly in the United States, plaintiffs and defendants who lack financial resources for litigation or other attorney's fees may be able to obtain legal financing. Legal financing companies can provide a cash advance to litigants in return for a share of the ultimate settlement or award. If the case ultimately loses, the litigant does not have to pay any of the money funded back. Legal financing is different from a typical bank loan in that the legal financing company does not look at credit history or employment history. Litigants do not have to repay the cash advance with monthly payments, but do have to fill out an application so that the legal financing company can review the merits of the case.

Legal financing can be a practical means for litigants to obtain financing while they wait for a monetary settlement or an award in their personal injury, workers' compensation, or civil rights lawsuit. Often, plaintiffs who were injured or forced to leave their jobs still have mortgages, rent, medical expenses, or other bills to pay. Other times, litigants may simply need money to pay for the costs of litigation and attorneys' fees, and for this reason, many litigants turn to reputable legal financing companies to apply for a cash advance to help pay for bills.

Defendants, civil rights organizations, public interest organizations, and government public officials can all set up an account to pay for litigation costs and legal expenses. These legal defense funds can have large membership counts where the members contribute to the fund. Unlike legal financing from legal financing companies, legal defense funds provide a separate account for litigation rather than a one-time cash advancement, nevertheless, both are used for purposes of financing litigation and legal costs.

There was a study conducted in the Supreme Court Economic Review that shows why litigation financing can be practical and beneficial to the overall court system and lawsuits within the court. This study concluded that the new rules that were set for litigation financing actually did produce more settlements. Under conservative rules, there tended to be fewer settlements, however under the older rules they tended to be larger on average.

Legal financing can become an issue in some cases, varying from case to case and person to person. It can be beneficial in many situations, however also detrimental in others.

Capitalism in America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_in_America 

 

Capitalism in America

Cover of the first edition (hardcover)
Author	Alan Greenspan Adrian Wooldridge
Audio read by	Ray Porter
Cover artist	Colin Campbell Cooper
Country	United States
Language	English
Subjects	Capitalism Economic history of the United States
Publisher	Penguin Press
Publication date	October 16, 2018
Media type	Print (Hardcover, Paperback) Digital (ebook, Audiobook)
Pages	486
ISBN	978-0-7352-2244-1
OCLC	1099606050
Dewey Decimal	330.973
LC Class	HB501 .G6454 2018

Capitalism in America: A History is a 2018 book written by former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan and Adrian Wooldridge, political editor at The Economist. The book traces the economic history of the United States since its founding and the authors argue that America's embrace of capitalism and creative destruction has given the nation's economy a superior edge.

Shortlisted for the 2018 Financial Times and McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award, Capitalism in America received generally positive reviews from critics. It was applauded for its engaging and accessible writing style but critiqued for its one-sidedness.

Background

At age 92, Alan Greenspan co-wrote Capitalism in America during a period of economic recovery, growing deficits, rising costs of entitlement programs, inflation, populism, and China's growing economic dominance. During his tenure as the Federal Reserve chair, Greenspan preceded over a period of economic prosperity and was seen as a "rock star" by investors, politicians, and other central bankers, but his reputation worsened following the global financial crisis. Adrian Wooldridge is the political editor at The Economist and author of nine previous books. He previously wrote the Schumpeter column and currently writes the Bagehot column at The Economist. The book was written during a time where capitalism was viewed unfavorably among American millennials.

Content

The book traces the economic history of the United States from the Founding Fathers to the election of Donald Trump and provides a case in favor of capitalism.

The three major themes of the book include productivity (output per hours worked), creative destruction, and politics. Creative destruction—a term coined by political economist Joseph Schumpeter in his 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy—is defined as the "process of industrial mutation…that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one." In Greenspan's words, creative destruction "is the process by which people do two things: they continuously invest, but the investment is displacing older equipment. But more importantly, it engenders unemployment, and it's the process which unfortunately is a necessary condition for growth and standards of living."

The authors' thesis is that America (more than any other nation) was willing to embrace creative destruction, thus allowing the country to be reborn or reconfigured multiple times. As a result of this embrace, America, for example, produces 25% of the world's GDP despite being only 5% of the global population and accumulates 20% of newly registered patents per year.

A chart showing the rise of GDP per capita in America, indicating a higher standard of living.

 

A chart showing the increase in granted patents in America, demonstrating greater innovation.

Summary

The book starts out with a thought experiment, imaging if the World Economic Forum in Davos was held in 1620 and the superpowers during that time speculating which nation will dominate in the future.

The authors begin to describe a post-1776 American economy, a land abundant with natural resources and alternating boom-and-bust cycles. The authors emphasize the difference between the agrarian, slave-holding states in the South and the Northern industrial states.

Following the Civil War, the authors write about the surge of immigrants in America and express admiration for various business tycoons such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller: "These great entrepreneurs earned their place in history not by inventing new things but by organizing them."

During the Progressive era, the authors write about trust-busting, the creation of the Federal Reserve System, female suffrage, and other aspects of that period. The authors lament ballooning consumer debt and restrictive immigration laws.

Next, the authors speak of the causes of the Great Depression (such as the Smoot–Hawley Act) and criticize the leadership of FDR. The authors contend that the New Deal centralized power in Washington by creating numerous new alphabet agencies and unfunded social security entitlements. The authors believe the Great Depression ended with the massive military production during World War II.

After the end of the war, the authors attribute America's golden age to presidents Truman and Eisenhower and, in particular, applaud Eisenhower's formation of the Interstate Highway System. The authors view the Johnson administration as the precursor to the stagflation of the 1970s.

The authors assert that the "Age of Optimism" began with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, who implemented union-busting, deregulation, and mass tax cuts during his tenure. However, the authors criticize Reagan for tripling the nominal national debt. They give praise to Bill Clinton for reducing the debt and implementing welfare reform. The book delves into the rise of Silicon Valley and the origins of Apple, Google, and other major tech corporations.

In the book's account of the financial crisis, the authors blame the crash on the growth of derivatives and securitization combined with subprime mortgages in a financially complacent environment. Greenspan counterargues that his Fed's low-interest rates in 2003-2005 contributed to the housing bubble.

A graph showing the increase of mandatory spending (entitlements) as a percentage of the federal budget.

Near the end, the authors argue that America is in decline. They point to slowed productivity, dwindling business dynamism, weakened labor mobility, and higher business concentration as evidence for the decline. The authors blame the decline on overregulation and the growth of entitlement spending. The authors recommend America move away from a defined-benefit system and towards a Swedish-style defined-contribution plan while indexing the age of retirement to rising life expectancy as solutions to combat the decline.

Reception

Accolades

Capitalism in America was shortlisted for the 2018 Financial Times and McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award, and was included in the Financial Times' list of best economics books of the year. The book was also included on lists of the best business books of 2018 by Business Insider and Mint. Capitalism in America was a CNN book of the week and The Guardian book of the day. According to EBSCO, Capitalism in America was the third best-selling title of the year in the business and economics category.

Reviews

Ronald Reagan attending Alan Greenspan's swearing-in ceremony for chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

Writing in The American Conservative, American economist Mark Skousen called Capitalism in America "the best summary of American exceptionalism since John Chamberlain revealed the remarkable story of The Enterprising Americans in 1963", as well as "required reading for anyone who cares about life, liberty, and prosperity in America". Financial economist Felix von Meyerinck labeled it "a valuable addition to the financial history literature".

Of frequent praise was the writing style. British economist and journalist Liam Halligan called it "businesslike but culturally savvy", highlighting the care and skill in covering social trends. Economics professor Robert J. Gordon praised the book's presentation of American history as vivid, insightful, and of the high standard of a work from The Economist. In the view of Goldman Sachs strategist and economist Abby Joseph Cohen, "It's extremely well-written. It is an absorbing read."

Critics found the presentation of ideas engaging, The Times columnist Gerard Baker calling it a "compelling and well-documented single-volume history." Meyerinck attributed it to the author's ability to condense several sources and documents in a "very well written" book, and Publishers Weekly credited it to the fast pace at which its several "fun facts" were presented. Skousen and American economist Deirdre McCloskey analogized the content as "spark[ling]" with quotes and statistics, "a stylistic device that academic histories often overlook". For McCloskey and British philosopher Alan Ryan, the most exciting-to-read parts of the book were its biographies and entrepreneurs and innovators. Wrote Ryan, "The bare recital of their names is enough to conjure up an image of a world remaking itself, taking on the form it still essentially possess." Also brought up was the book's ability to present complex ideas in a manner accessible to all readers. British economist Diane Coyle argued the book successfully makes it case "with some wonderful insights into business history".

A graph showing the increase of income inequality in the United States between various income groups.

Although American economist Edward Glaeser stated Capitalism in America would change the minds of some Bernie Sanders supporters, James B. Stewart of The New York Times suggested it could offend supporters of Donald Trump and "the resurgent left among Democrats." Commonly criticized was the one-sidedness of the book. Argued Baker and American historian Christopher Phelps, Capitalism in America never mentioned increased inequality and concentration of wealth in the hands of big companies as factors in the current issues the authors brought up. The book also failed to present the nuances of capitalism, such as its many incarnations, the limits of self-regulating markets, and how democratic institutions make up for market failures, as well as other North American nations with natural resources and political and economic structures similar to the United States. Ryan felt the book was "somewhat given to fantasy" and overlooked the "injustice" of a capitalistic system: "The gales of creative destruction, after all, don't only undermine the fortune of slow-moving entrepreneurs but also throw innumerable workers and their families on the scrapheap." Meyerinck noted that the book does grant the need for a level-playing level that allows any entrepreneur to compete, but gives no solution towards how to do it, or even an opinion on whether the United States market met that criteria.

The book was also criticized for its simplistic framing, such as of capitalism as an economic system instead of a complex social order, as well as the main issue simply being progress versus those trying to stop it. Argued American historian Kim Phillips-Fein, "what was at stake was always the question of who would benefit from economic change and the kind of social order it would make possible. By framing the issue as a simple resistance to technology and growth, Greenspan and Wooldridge sidestep the underlying questions about democracy, equality, and freedom that are at the heart of this long-standing struggle."