Some Mistaken Views of Economists was written by Judge Bhajarit Ninsanit (Thai: or Bhajarit Ninsanit ) . Firstly it was written as an essay on law & economic in class, however now a day it was translated and rewritten in Thai and published both in Thai and English in Dulphaha (Thai: ), a court of justice of Thailand magazine. A English version of this article is follow:
Introduction
In the class “Introduction to Legal Theory” offered as part of a special educational program from Kyushu University held in Bangkok leading to a diploma, students were introduced by the professor to some of the main arguments of law and economics. The class sought to demonstrate how these ideas can be usefully implemented in solving various real life legal problems, since law and economics has over the last twenty years emerged as the dominant theoretical approach to law in the United States and elsewhere.
One example discussed in the class to prove the relationship between law and economics was a bank robbery case. This example has the facts that an armed robber put his gun to the head of a bank customer and demanded the bank clerk to give the robber $500, but the bank clerk refused because of the bank policy. Then the thief shot the customer and walked out. The victim’s family sued the bank for damage in excess of $1,000,000.
Economists gave an answer to this problem based on 2 formulas from an ex ante, forward looking, perspective:
: 1. If the bank looses the case, in the future there will be more robbery or
: 2 But if the bank wins the case, in the future there will be less robbery.
Or it could be shown an economic approach in a chart as follow:
And the conclusion was “bank losses or win in the case shall be affect to robbery bank in the future.”
However, some of the students, especially amongst the judges, did not agree and felt that the answer cannot be acceptable to their common sense. The question comes up what happens in that theory - that answer is right or wrong. To answer this question we can prove by a mathematic method the same as economists and answer as follows.
Mathematical Thinking
In legal reasoning we are not thinking only of the legal rule or logic or economic or social or politics or history, but also everything; such as philosophy, and mathematics. The probability theory in mathematics- the probability of events or the probability theory that will be occur- which economists borrow to use in their science can help us to predict future event as same as economic.
In the robbery bank case, using ex ante thinking predicted the future only from the data that there would be a loss of $500 or payment for damages around $1,000,000. However, this does not predict the future as a whole in real life. The probability theory as a useful instrument can help us to talk about the future that shall occur in real life.
For the first formula that states:
: If the bank loses the case, in the future there will be more robbery.
It doesn’t calculate that fact that how often the robbery event might be and it cannot be guaranteed that the thief will not do both- get the money and kill the victim.
For more detail, if the robbery events have more frequency occurs and makes the bank loss their money over $1,000,000 with the compensate $0, or the situation is that the thief receives money from the bank and kills a bank’s customer which make both costs are loss money $500 plus payment for damage $1,000,000.
Many questions come up regarding what might happen between the bank giving money to the thief or not giving any money. The bank must think about this idea because it has an opportunity cost. It means that the real probability in our life that the bank will not give the money to the thief anymore. So that, the opportunity of the situation in the future in the situation if the bank loses the case shall have at least two probabilities:
: 1. It will be more robbery because the bank will send the money to all thieves or
: 2. It will not be more robbery because the bank will send the money any more.
In comparison with mathematicians, the economists give the answer that in the future there will be only one possible outcome but the mathematicians give the answer that in the future there will be two possible. This shows that the economists give the wrong result. Mathematicians will not have short eyes to look at future like economists but will recognize the existence of multiple possible outcomes.
Equally, in the second formula that states:
: If the bank wins, in the future there will be less robbery.
It isn’t the only one answer either. For the same reason, we cannot guarantee the events in the future. The opportunity in that situation in itself shall be two probabilities- still more robbery or less robbery because the frequency of robbery isn’t dependant on one thief but also many thieves in our society. A bank robber similarly likes to win a lottery prize, so that many thieves are still trying to rob the bank again and again. Moreover, it doesn’t calculate a fact that how much life shall be loss before the situation of less robbery occurs too. The answer that in the future there will be only one event is wrong again.
In the conclusion on the mathematicians’ thinking about the outcomes in the future do not only stop on one event, but also consider other events. The opportunities of these formulas still have at least two probabilities in each formula that always will be at least two events that may occur. Or you can say that “bank losses or win in the case shall not be affect to robbery bank in the future,” and a mathematical approach chart as follow:
The Problem with the Economic Perspective
In the economic philosophy we begin with assuming that every fact is fixed and the same or called “ceteris paribus ”; however, in real life it isn’t possible to control all factors and fix it the same all the time. It means when any one factor is changed the answer will be changed. Hence the problem on the economic philosophy is on the assumption. The assumption is an economists’ idea to think on something that it is true without having any proof, and it isn’t even real. Even if in our real life and law not only lawyers but also everyone would like to prove the truth before accepting it. This problem sometime is not a serious problem because the economists’ reason is the same as logic which not absolute.
Economists must suppose the fact on one event to be a factor in their formula and predict the outcome that they think is the best. For example, in the bank robbery bank case if the bank loses the case it is assumed that in the future there will be more robberies. The economists look on the amount of lost money $500 and payment for damage $1,000,000 then they assume these facts, fix it, after that predict the future probabilities. Moreover, they draw a frame in their mind with the unstated assumption that the thief’s behavior is receiving money and go out without blighting the bank’s customers. They think the best answer is more robbery only one event that may happen. However, in real life the probability cannot fix on only one event it must be thinking on the opportunity of other possible events; such as:
: 1. The frequency: loss of money over $1,000,000 with compensation $0 or
: 2. The behavior: the thief receives money but still kills the bank’s customer.
These are very hard to control and fix all factors, so that the economists’ prediction is difficult to be the truth in real life. The probability theory in mathematics provides a better method to use in predicting the future than economic ideas. This example shows that the answer of the economists seems to be more of an imagining rather than a science and it is unacceptable because they cannot prove their reasoning in real life.
Based on this weakness- a problem on the assumption or ceteris paribus - in the economic perspective which limits the view of economists we can answer that the economists’ answer to accurately predict the outcome on the bank robbery case is wrong. For the reason that proved by mathematics, bank losses or win in the case shall not be affect to robbery bank in the future. And the ex ante view must be based on the probability theory in mathematic thinking more than on the more rigid view of economics.
Suggestion
Many times economists and lawyers are trying to explain law with economics but some reasoning doesn’t work because they have got some problems with their philosophical perspective. The question is how we should dissolve this problem. I’m strong recommending that if we would like to use other science instead legal science, an integrated science is the best way. When we think to use other sciences in law we must look at all sciences as a whole and integrate them before reaching any conclusion. Our legal mind will then say it is acceptable.
Conclusion
The idea that economics can be a usefully implemented in solving various real lives of legal problems isn’t an absolute idea. Furthermore, sometime it’s wrong in logic, philosophy, or reasoning and has many problems for the legal rule. The outcome given by economists sometime is incorrect because their problem on economic philosophy which has a problematic assumption. Or it called that the problem and mistake comes from ceteris paribus. Our legal mind will say yes and accept the reason as opinio juris only when it is acceptable as truth. Until then, we cannot accept economics as providing a theoretical approach to law.
Back to our class it isn’t surprising that some judges are not agreed with the economists’ answer. The reason is that economists rely on the wrong logic from the probability theory in mathematics. Furthermore, by applying other sciences in legal science; we should use integrated sciences for solving various real life legal problems and law, especially mathematics as same as economics.
Introduction
In the class “Introduction to Legal Theory” offered as part of a special educational program from Kyushu University held in Bangkok leading to a diploma, students were introduced by the professor to some of the main arguments of law and economics. The class sought to demonstrate how these ideas can be usefully implemented in solving various real life legal problems, since law and economics has over the last twenty years emerged as the dominant theoretical approach to law in the United States and elsewhere.
One example discussed in the class to prove the relationship between law and economics was a bank robbery case. This example has the facts that an armed robber put his gun to the head of a bank customer and demanded the bank clerk to give the robber $500, but the bank clerk refused because of the bank policy. Then the thief shot the customer and walked out. The victim’s family sued the bank for damage in excess of $1,000,000.
Economists gave an answer to this problem based on 2 formulas from an ex ante, forward looking, perspective:
: 1. If the bank looses the case, in the future there will be more robbery or
: 2 But if the bank wins the case, in the future there will be less robbery.
Or it could be shown an economic approach in a chart as follow:
And the conclusion was “bank losses or win in the case shall be affect to robbery bank in the future.”
However, some of the students, especially amongst the judges, did not agree and felt that the answer cannot be acceptable to their common sense. The question comes up what happens in that theory - that answer is right or wrong. To answer this question we can prove by a mathematic method the same as economists and answer as follows.
Mathematical Thinking
In legal reasoning we are not thinking only of the legal rule or logic or economic or social or politics or history, but also everything; such as philosophy, and mathematics. The probability theory in mathematics- the probability of events or the probability theory that will be occur- which economists borrow to use in their science can help us to predict future event as same as economic.
In the robbery bank case, using ex ante thinking predicted the future only from the data that there would be a loss of $500 or payment for damages around $1,000,000. However, this does not predict the future as a whole in real life. The probability theory as a useful instrument can help us to talk about the future that shall occur in real life.
For the first formula that states:
: If the bank loses the case, in the future there will be more robbery.
It doesn’t calculate that fact that how often the robbery event might be and it cannot be guaranteed that the thief will not do both- get the money and kill the victim.
For more detail, if the robbery events have more frequency occurs and makes the bank loss their money over $1,000,000 with the compensate $0, or the situation is that the thief receives money from the bank and kills a bank’s customer which make both costs are loss money $500 plus payment for damage $1,000,000.
Many questions come up regarding what might happen between the bank giving money to the thief or not giving any money. The bank must think about this idea because it has an opportunity cost. It means that the real probability in our life that the bank will not give the money to the thief anymore. So that, the opportunity of the situation in the future in the situation if the bank loses the case shall have at least two probabilities:
: 1. It will be more robbery because the bank will send the money to all thieves or
: 2. It will not be more robbery because the bank will send the money any more.
In comparison with mathematicians, the economists give the answer that in the future there will be only one possible outcome but the mathematicians give the answer that in the future there will be two possible. This shows that the economists give the wrong result. Mathematicians will not have short eyes to look at future like economists but will recognize the existence of multiple possible outcomes.
Equally, in the second formula that states:
: If the bank wins, in the future there will be less robbery.
It isn’t the only one answer either. For the same reason, we cannot guarantee the events in the future. The opportunity in that situation in itself shall be two probabilities- still more robbery or less robbery because the frequency of robbery isn’t dependant on one thief but also many thieves in our society. A bank robber similarly likes to win a lottery prize, so that many thieves are still trying to rob the bank again and again. Moreover, it doesn’t calculate a fact that how much life shall be loss before the situation of less robbery occurs too. The answer that in the future there will be only one event is wrong again.
In the conclusion on the mathematicians’ thinking about the outcomes in the future do not only stop on one event, but also consider other events. The opportunities of these formulas still have at least two probabilities in each formula that always will be at least two events that may occur. Or you can say that “bank losses or win in the case shall not be affect to robbery bank in the future,” and a mathematical approach chart as follow:
The Problem with the Economic Perspective
In the economic philosophy we begin with assuming that every fact is fixed and the same or called “ceteris paribus ”; however, in real life it isn’t possible to control all factors and fix it the same all the time. It means when any one factor is changed the answer will be changed. Hence the problem on the economic philosophy is on the assumption. The assumption is an economists’ idea to think on something that it is true without having any proof, and it isn’t even real. Even if in our real life and law not only lawyers but also everyone would like to prove the truth before accepting it. This problem sometime is not a serious problem because the economists’ reason is the same as logic which not absolute.
Economists must suppose the fact on one event to be a factor in their formula and predict the outcome that they think is the best. For example, in the bank robbery bank case if the bank loses the case it is assumed that in the future there will be more robberies. The economists look on the amount of lost money $500 and payment for damage $1,000,000 then they assume these facts, fix it, after that predict the future probabilities. Moreover, they draw a frame in their mind with the unstated assumption that the thief’s behavior is receiving money and go out without blighting the bank’s customers. They think the best answer is more robbery only one event that may happen. However, in real life the probability cannot fix on only one event it must be thinking on the opportunity of other possible events; such as:
: 1. The frequency: loss of money over $1,000,000 with compensation $0 or
: 2. The behavior: the thief receives money but still kills the bank’s customer.
These are very hard to control and fix all factors, so that the economists’ prediction is difficult to be the truth in real life. The probability theory in mathematics provides a better method to use in predicting the future than economic ideas. This example shows that the answer of the economists seems to be more of an imagining rather than a science and it is unacceptable because they cannot prove their reasoning in real life.
Based on this weakness- a problem on the assumption or ceteris paribus - in the economic perspective which limits the view of economists we can answer that the economists’ answer to accurately predict the outcome on the bank robbery case is wrong. For the reason that proved by mathematics, bank losses or win in the case shall not be affect to robbery bank in the future. And the ex ante view must be based on the probability theory in mathematic thinking more than on the more rigid view of economics.
Suggestion
Many times economists and lawyers are trying to explain law with economics but some reasoning doesn’t work because they have got some problems with their philosophical perspective. The question is how we should dissolve this problem. I’m strong recommending that if we would like to use other science instead legal science, an integrated science is the best way. When we think to use other sciences in law we must look at all sciences as a whole and integrate them before reaching any conclusion. Our legal mind will then say it is acceptable.
Conclusion
The idea that economics can be a usefully implemented in solving various real lives of legal problems isn’t an absolute idea. Furthermore, sometime it’s wrong in logic, philosophy, or reasoning and has many problems for the legal rule. The outcome given by economists sometime is incorrect because their problem on economic philosophy which has a problematic assumption. Or it called that the problem and mistake comes from ceteris paribus. Our legal mind will say yes and accept the reason as opinio juris only when it is acceptable as truth. Until then, we cannot accept economics as providing a theoretical approach to law.
Back to our class it isn’t surprising that some judges are not agreed with the economists’ answer. The reason is that economists rely on the wrong logic from the probability theory in mathematics. Furthermore, by applying other sciences in legal science; we should use integrated sciences for solving various real life legal problems and law, especially mathematics as same as economics.
Gloria Alexandra (born November 20) is an American actress, raised until the age of 21 in Lima, Peru, of Spanish and English descent.
Her most recent appearances are in Tweaksville and A Beautiful Life.
Background
Alexandra began training in theatre and performing arts, including ballet, piano, and choir. After High School she attended business school, but relocated to Los Angeles, California, to pursue a career in the entertainment industry, concentrating on acting. After arrival in Los Angeles she attended several acting schools, studios, colleges and workshops while working as an actor and performer.
Career
Alexandra has appeared in various films including Desert Saints (opposite Kiefer Sutherland) as his girlfriend, victim. and the latest an independent film A Beautiful Life. Her television work includes roles on Angel, Ally McBeal, The X Show, La Corte Familiar, Jose Luis Sin Censura, Secretos and many others.
According to her personal Myspace page, her motto is: "Be Kind, Love Life, Believe in your Dreams and Persevere".
Filmography
;As actress
* La corte familiar (2 episodes, 2001) (TV) as Marta Ibagaza, Zoila Castro
* Ally McBeal (1 episode, 2002) (TV) as Singer
* Desert Saints (2002) as Maria Lopez
* Angel (1 episode, 2002) as Lornette
* La Corte del Pueblo (1 episode, 2004) as Plaintiff
* Slavery and the Making of America (1 episode, 2005) as Reenactor
* Divorcio U.S.A. (1 episode, 2005) as Lina Gallegos
* 12 Corazones (2 episodes, 2005-2006) as Scorpio, Aquarius
* Secretos (2 episodes, 2004-2006) as Wife, Estela Molina
* Sin Tapujos (1 episode, 2007) as Hypnotized Dancer
* José Luis Sin Censura (2 episodes, 2006-2008) as Model, Dancer
* A Beautiful Life (2008) as Stripper
;Stunts
* Desert Saints (2002)
* Dog the Bounty Hunter (1 episode, 2006)
;Herself
* The X Show (2 episodes, 1999-2000) as contestant
* Dog the Bounty Hunter (1 episode, 2006) as Aquil's Translator
;Stand-in
* The Big Tease (1999)
* Daredevil (2003)
Her most recent appearances are in Tweaksville and A Beautiful Life.
Background
Alexandra began training in theatre and performing arts, including ballet, piano, and choir. After High School she attended business school, but relocated to Los Angeles, California, to pursue a career in the entertainment industry, concentrating on acting. After arrival in Los Angeles she attended several acting schools, studios, colleges and workshops while working as an actor and performer.
Career
Alexandra has appeared in various films including Desert Saints (opposite Kiefer Sutherland) as his girlfriend, victim. and the latest an independent film A Beautiful Life. Her television work includes roles on Angel, Ally McBeal, The X Show, La Corte Familiar, Jose Luis Sin Censura, Secretos and many others.
According to her personal Myspace page, her motto is: "Be Kind, Love Life, Believe in your Dreams and Persevere".
Filmography
;As actress
* La corte familiar (2 episodes, 2001) (TV) as Marta Ibagaza, Zoila Castro
* Ally McBeal (1 episode, 2002) (TV) as Singer
* Desert Saints (2002) as Maria Lopez
* Angel (1 episode, 2002) as Lornette
* La Corte del Pueblo (1 episode, 2004) as Plaintiff
* Slavery and the Making of America (1 episode, 2005) as Reenactor
* Divorcio U.S.A. (1 episode, 2005) as Lina Gallegos
* 12 Corazones (2 episodes, 2005-2006) as Scorpio, Aquarius
* Secretos (2 episodes, 2004-2006) as Wife, Estela Molina
* Sin Tapujos (1 episode, 2007) as Hypnotized Dancer
* José Luis Sin Censura (2 episodes, 2006-2008) as Model, Dancer
* A Beautiful Life (2008) as Stripper
;Stunts
* Desert Saints (2002)
* Dog the Bounty Hunter (1 episode, 2006)
;Herself
* The X Show (2 episodes, 1999-2000) as contestant
* Dog the Bounty Hunter (1 episode, 2006) as Aquil's Translator
;Stand-in
* The Big Tease (1999)
* Daredevil (2003)
Russ Nagy is an American composer and adjunct music instructor at the Capital University Conservatory of Music in Columbus, Ohio. Nagy resides in Hilliard, Ohio, with his wife Sandy; they have two children, Phil and Emily Nagy. Nagy studied composition at the Cincinnati Conservatory of Music, where his major instrument was actually the bass trombone, although he is now thought of more for his keyboard performances and his compositions.
Russ Nagy has written a diverse catalog of music, much of which has been in a partnership with his brother Joel being his primary lyricist. They have published works that can be found through Beckenhorst Press and through Gracewood Publishing. The most famous of their work being children's choral anthems.
Along with their vast array of anthems, band orchestrations, and chamber settings the Nagys also have three published musical theatre selections: Tetelestai, Benedictus, and Christmas Rose. These shows are owned by the non profit parent group Tetelestai Inc. While Christmas Rose and Benedictus were performed limited times during the Christmas season at Upper Arlington Lutheran Church, Tetelestai has enjoyed a rich history of performances over its 35 year history.
Tetelestai is the greek word for "it is finished", the last words that the Gospel of John attributes to Jesus Christ during his crucifixion. Tetelestai the musical tells the story of the last week of Jesus Christ's life on earth. This musical was written in 1975 and bears many of the signature elements of popular American music of the time. Although many would call Tetelestai a rock opera, this is not truly what the show is. By musical standards jazz, rock, folk, and musical theatre stylings are fused together to create the musical textures of the show. Also not true to operatic stylings is the show's use of dialogue, where as a true "opera" has no speech, Tetelestai includes a significant amount of spoken word. Tetelestai has toured all over the United States, appearing throughout Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Florida, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.
Tetelestai and Cleveland Performing Arts Ministries
Although originally debuted in Columbus, Ohio. Tetelestai has been performed by Cleveland Arts Ministries since 1978. While the Columbus casts of Tetelestai have had years of dormancy, CPAM's performances have been an annual spring event.
Vacation bible school songs and memory verse songs.
Nagy has published a vast catalog of faith bases children's music. These include the albums "We Follow Jesus", "Nothing but the Truth" and "Scripture Songs" all recorded with Dulcy Delcamp as the primary vocalist.
In 2005, Russ' published works reached total sales of over one million.
Russell Nagy is also known for his "Sticky Hooks" series - songs for the elementary classroom. He has also written electronic scores for LeapPad scholastic products.
Russ' Production credits include:
*Earl Wild: "Variations on an American Theme; Gershwin: Concerto in F" 1993 Assistant Producer
*Stéphane Grappelli: "How Can You Miss?" 1989 Producer
*McCoy Tyner: "Live at the Musicians Exchange Cafe" 1987 Producer
Russ Nagy has written a diverse catalog of music, much of which has been in a partnership with his brother Joel being his primary lyricist. They have published works that can be found through Beckenhorst Press and through Gracewood Publishing. The most famous of their work being children's choral anthems.
Along with their vast array of anthems, band orchestrations, and chamber settings the Nagys also have three published musical theatre selections: Tetelestai, Benedictus, and Christmas Rose. These shows are owned by the non profit parent group Tetelestai Inc. While Christmas Rose and Benedictus were performed limited times during the Christmas season at Upper Arlington Lutheran Church, Tetelestai has enjoyed a rich history of performances over its 35 year history.
Tetelestai is the greek word for "it is finished", the last words that the Gospel of John attributes to Jesus Christ during his crucifixion. Tetelestai the musical tells the story of the last week of Jesus Christ's life on earth. This musical was written in 1975 and bears many of the signature elements of popular American music of the time. Although many would call Tetelestai a rock opera, this is not truly what the show is. By musical standards jazz, rock, folk, and musical theatre stylings are fused together to create the musical textures of the show. Also not true to operatic stylings is the show's use of dialogue, where as a true "opera" has no speech, Tetelestai includes a significant amount of spoken word. Tetelestai has toured all over the United States, appearing throughout Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Florida, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.
Tetelestai and Cleveland Performing Arts Ministries
Although originally debuted in Columbus, Ohio. Tetelestai has been performed by Cleveland Arts Ministries since 1978. While the Columbus casts of Tetelestai have had years of dormancy, CPAM's performances have been an annual spring event.
Vacation bible school songs and memory verse songs.
Nagy has published a vast catalog of faith bases children's music. These include the albums "We Follow Jesus", "Nothing but the Truth" and "Scripture Songs" all recorded with Dulcy Delcamp as the primary vocalist.
In 2005, Russ' published works reached total sales of over one million.
Russell Nagy is also known for his "Sticky Hooks" series - songs for the elementary classroom. He has also written electronic scores for LeapPad scholastic products.
Russ' Production credits include:
*Earl Wild: "Variations on an American Theme; Gershwin: Concerto in F" 1993 Assistant Producer
*Stéphane Grappelli: "How Can You Miss?" 1989 Producer
*McCoy Tyner: "Live at the Musicians Exchange Cafe" 1987 Producer
J. Stalin, real name Jovan Smith, is a rap musician from the Cypress Village housing projects in West Oakland. He is also the Owner of Livewire Records, President of Town Thizzness ENT, which is a sub-division of the late Mac Dre's Thizz ENT.
Biography
J. Stalin claims in an interview that he was born into poverty and earned money as a child by selling candy bars on the BART trains. Around age 13, he began recording and selling rap music. As a youth he sold drugs in his local housing projects and spent eleven months on parole for drug selling.
Musical career
Although young and boyish-looking, J-Stalin adopted a tough rapper persona. He references Joseph Stalin in his stage name because they shared the same initials, and "he was short like me, but he was always smashin' on everybody." In a recent interview he remarked about his home and lifestyle, "This is West Oakland, man. This is the bottoms right here." He went on to say that the crime rate in his neighborhood was so high, the city had remodeled the housing units in his housing project to remove the back doors so that criminals could not escape from home raids by the police.
J. Stalin's first widely released performances arose when a DJ Daryl, a local recording studio owner, placed him on a track he was recording., Beeda Weeda , Keak Da Sneak and San Quinn, E-40, The Luniz, The Team, The Frontline, Mob Figaz, Yukmouth, Numskull, Shock G, and others. As of 2006 he had released roughly 7 mixtapes and had four releases scheduled for 2007. Mekanix and Zoo Entertainment released "On Behalf of the Streets" in early May 2007. J. Stalin is the President of Town Thizzness, and the owner of Livewire Records. He is also the front man in his group, Livewire Da Gang. The Livewire Gang consists of many artists from various neighborhoods in North, East, and West Oakland. Some of these artists include, Shady Nate, Jay Jonah,Philthy Rich,Stevie Joe, Lil Rue, Lil Blood, Ruben Stunner, R.O.B., Ronald Mack, Kiwi, HD, Major D,K-Stacks and Mayback.
J. Stalin Discography
Studio Albums
*2006: On Behalf of the Streets
*2006: The Real World: West Oakland
*2007: DJ Fresh Presents: The Tonite Show (with Beeda Weeda)
*2008: Gas Nation
*2009: The Real World: East & West Edition (with Mayback)
*2009: Giants & Elephants (with Guce)
*2010: Prenuptial Agreement
*2010: The Anullment
*2010: Women & Money (with Lil Kev)
*2010: The Real World: Part 3
Mixtapes
*2006: Stamp of Approval: The Mixtape
*2006: R.N.B. Mixtape
*2006: Demolition Men Presents: Early Morning Shift (Mixtape Magazine Edition)
*2007: Warning Shots Vol.1 (Mixed by DJ Edit)
*2007: Demolition Men Presents: Early Morning Shift (EMS Mixtape Vol.2) (with Shady Nate)
*2008: Welcome to da Slap House
*2008: Warning Shots Vol.2
*2009: Prenup: The Leak
*2010: Demolition Men Presents: Early Morning Shift (EMS Mixtape Vol.3) (with Philthy Rich)
Livewire Da Gang Discography
Studio Albums
*2007: Pay Ya'Self or Spray Ya'Self (Stalin, Shady, Jonah)
*2009: Livewire Radio
*2009: Livewire The Empire
*2009: Livewire Radio 2
*2010: Livewire Radio 3
Mixtapes
*2008: Murder Fa Hire: The Hop Out (HD, Lil Blood, Ronald Mack, Lil Rue)
Music Videos
*2009: Try Again Tomorrow
*2009: Rock Day
*2010: D-Boy Blues
*2010: Stop My Shine
*2010: Everyday my Birthday
Biography
J. Stalin claims in an interview that he was born into poverty and earned money as a child by selling candy bars on the BART trains. Around age 13, he began recording and selling rap music. As a youth he sold drugs in his local housing projects and spent eleven months on parole for drug selling.
Musical career
Although young and boyish-looking, J-Stalin adopted a tough rapper persona. He references Joseph Stalin in his stage name because they shared the same initials, and "he was short like me, but he was always smashin' on everybody." In a recent interview he remarked about his home and lifestyle, "This is West Oakland, man. This is the bottoms right here." He went on to say that the crime rate in his neighborhood was so high, the city had remodeled the housing units in his housing project to remove the back doors so that criminals could not escape from home raids by the police.
J. Stalin's first widely released performances arose when a DJ Daryl, a local recording studio owner, placed him on a track he was recording., Beeda Weeda , Keak Da Sneak and San Quinn, E-40, The Luniz, The Team, The Frontline, Mob Figaz, Yukmouth, Numskull, Shock G, and others. As of 2006 he had released roughly 7 mixtapes and had four releases scheduled for 2007. Mekanix and Zoo Entertainment released "On Behalf of the Streets" in early May 2007. J. Stalin is the President of Town Thizzness, and the owner of Livewire Records. He is also the front man in his group, Livewire Da Gang. The Livewire Gang consists of many artists from various neighborhoods in North, East, and West Oakland. Some of these artists include, Shady Nate, Jay Jonah,Philthy Rich,Stevie Joe, Lil Rue, Lil Blood, Ruben Stunner, R.O.B., Ronald Mack, Kiwi, HD, Major D,K-Stacks and Mayback.
J. Stalin Discography
Studio Albums
*2006: On Behalf of the Streets
*2006: The Real World: West Oakland
*2007: DJ Fresh Presents: The Tonite Show (with Beeda Weeda)
*2008: Gas Nation
*2009: The Real World: East & West Edition (with Mayback)
*2009: Giants & Elephants (with Guce)
*2010: Prenuptial Agreement
*2010: The Anullment
*2010: Women & Money (with Lil Kev)
*2010: The Real World: Part 3
Mixtapes
*2006: Stamp of Approval: The Mixtape
*2006: R.N.B. Mixtape
*2006: Demolition Men Presents: Early Morning Shift (Mixtape Magazine Edition)
*2007: Warning Shots Vol.1 (Mixed by DJ Edit)
*2007: Demolition Men Presents: Early Morning Shift (EMS Mixtape Vol.2) (with Shady Nate)
*2008: Welcome to da Slap House
*2008: Warning Shots Vol.2
*2009: Prenup: The Leak
*2010: Demolition Men Presents: Early Morning Shift (EMS Mixtape Vol.3) (with Philthy Rich)
Livewire Da Gang Discography
Studio Albums
*2007: Pay Ya'Self or Spray Ya'Self (Stalin, Shady, Jonah)
*2009: Livewire Radio
*2009: Livewire The Empire
*2009: Livewire Radio 2
*2010: Livewire Radio 3
Mixtapes
*2008: Murder Fa Hire: The Hop Out (HD, Lil Blood, Ronald Mack, Lil Rue)
Music Videos
*2009: Try Again Tomorrow
*2009: Rock Day
*2010: D-Boy Blues
*2010: Stop My Shine
*2010: Everyday my Birthday