Leon “Chip” Greenblatt III became a cult hero among traders years ago when he stood up to the Chicago Stock Exchange in a battle over his unorthodox strategy of selling more shares than existed in a bankrupt steel company.

Not long after, Mayor Richard Daley branded him a “slum lord” after a downtown high-rise he owned threatened to rain down pieces of its terra-cotta facade on vehicles and pedestrians.

Last year, he received a six-figure bill for civil contempt stemming from his bankruptcy case involving a landfill venture that converted foul-smelling garbage into energy in the form of methane.

Now, the so-called bad boy of Chicago arbitrage may have gone too far.

Greenblatt has provoked the wrath of Richard Posner, the heavyweight judge from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, who had sided with him in his stock-speculation gambit in the late 1990s.

At the time, Posner ruled that Greenblatt and his partners had found a legitimate moneymaking angle, despite their likely status as “reckless gamblers, sharpies, wise guys, exploiters of loopholes, even violators of the letter and spirit of the rules.”

Greenblatt’s latest effort to seize an advantage, however, fell flat with the judge. In a May 19 opinion, Posner blasted it as “phony,” “bogus,” “frivolous” and “a palpable misuse of bankruptcy,” with “no purpose other than to beat taxes.”

Right on cue, the much-anticipated Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf are scheduled to make their production-run debuts at dealerships across the country this fall. It’s a milestone in the jostling for green-minded consumers between electric models and hybrid-electrics that rely more heavily on gas, such as the Toyota Prius.

And then there’s hydrogen.

No, really, there is.

It’s easy to forget that hydrogen-fuel-cell cars have been around for decades in one experimental form or another. General Motors Co. has a nice one — a roomy Equinox with a rear exhaust port for its only emission: water vapor.

Turn the key and it purrs to life. Push the accelerator, and it takes off, just like a “real” car. It can hit 105 mph on the GM test track without breaking a sweat. Then it attaches to a pump at a hydrogen fueling station on the site, and it’s ready to go in about the same time as filling a gas tank.

Yet hydrogen stands to be the big loser as the Volt, Leaf and similar electrics take the stage.

It’s impractical to believe that America will build more than one new fueling infrastructure all at once. Battery-recharging stations will come first.

Out of favor in the White House, hydrogen will have to wait, maybe forever.

“You have to pick a technology,” said David Whiston, auto equity analyst at Morningstar Inc. “Electric is what you will see in the next decade.”

At GM, Mark Vann is keeping the faith. An engineer who spearheads fuel-cell projects, Vann points out that most major automakers still maintain hydrogen programs. GM has logged 1.4 million miles on its fleet of 120 hydrogen-powered vehicles.

“We obviously have a lot invested,” he said.

The pros and cons of these technologies are debated all the time, but it comes down to pleasing the car shopper, who naturally wants all the convenience of traditional gas engines at a good price.

Hydrogen fuel cells cost a ridiculous amount of money, and the filling stations cost even more. But the price is coming down as engineers figure out how to use less platinum and fewer parts. Compared with the state-of-the-art electrics, hydrogen goes longer distances, scales up into bigger vehicles and recharges in no time, Vann said. Germany and Japan see big potential for fuel cells, he said. California and Hawaii like them too.

Without broader political support, however, it may not matter.

But this pizza’s different, as it has been in Domino’s stores across the U.S. since late December. The 9,000-unit chain took a big chance, not only reformulating its signature product for the American market but also disparaging its long-standing recipe in a straight-talk marketing campaign.

The old crust? “Cardboard,” the company admitted in its ads. The old sauce? “Ketchup.” The staff? Weary of customers trashing the food.

The risk paid off. Despite rumblings in the marketing world about another New Coke-style flop in the making, sales at domestic stores open more than a year soared 14.3 percent in the first full quarter after the new recipe debuted. Domino’s marketing push helped lift the pizza market as a whole, and the halo effect appears to be continuing into the summer.

As of last week, the test-kitchen cooks in Ann Arbor were working on new recipes for Domino’s stores in some of its 60-plus foreign markets.

Will other brands adopt the “We Stink” marketing theme? Probably not, but some companies facing widespread customer cynicism about their products or services should think about it, said Mac Brand, a consultant in Chicago for Bellwether Food Group Inc.

“The one that comes to my mind is the airlines,” he said. “You can’t do candor all the time, but once or twice, it works.”

BP, are you listening?

Domino’s owes at least some of its success to timing. Its campaign dovetailed with a national mood of discontent over Wall Street bailouts and layoff-prone employers. Americans were ready to hear a big company express a little humility.

“Times are tough. Most of us are disappointed with the actions of business and other institutions,” said marketing guru Willard “Bill” Bishop, of Barrington. Domino’s, he said, conveyed the message, “We’re one group that knows that.”

The company also tapped into a countrywide craving for intense flavors, in everything from chewing gum to tortilla chips. The mint is getting mintier these days; the spice spicier.

Domino’s added garlic to the crust and red pepper to the sauce. It ditched a previous cheese topping that came in little chunks for a stretchier shredded mozzarella with a touch of provolone.

The recipe came together over two years, said spokesman Chris Brandon: “We tried a little bit of everything.”

In the test kitchen, staffers were still at it last week.

At least $163 million in agricultural disaster aid had been paid as of mid-May, with more on the way.

Nothing new about that, right? When it comes to government spending, Americans have gotten used to big numbers.

Here’s the surprise: Although Illinois also flooded during 2008, the state’s farmers have collected $7 million so far from the same disaster-aid program that showered dollars on Iowa, which suffered soggier conditions but also benefitted from quirks in how the payments were calculated.

Before loyal Illinoisans cry foul, consider this: Hardly any Midwest farmers took a financial beating during 2008. And hardly anyone believes the actual losses reached $709 million, the total disbursed through the so-called SURE program as of May 18.

Farmers had a banner year, in fact, with their incomes soaring to record highs. Prices were strong, the crops huge and as for government subsidies: Wow!

Those checks have kept coming despite year after year of robust income on the farm, with most of the payments going to the biggest and wealthiest operators.

“It’s this layer cake we’ve created, this maze of programs one on top of the other that puts out big amounts of money year after year,” said Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group, a farm-subsidy watchdog. “It’s really more of a guaranteed income than it is a safety net.”

Farmers know all too well the money doesn’t go straight into their pockets. They use it to run their businesses, and U.S. consumers benefit from cheaper commodities as a result. Keeping the farm sector stable and secure is a national priority, and by many measures American subsidies amount to less than those in other Western nations.

Kicking off a listening tour in Iowa this year ahead of the 2012 farm bill, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn, suggested that new funding would be tough to come by, but he promised to explore using “the money we have to create a better farm safety net.”

As it stands, the system has evolved into a never-ending buffet.

As co-owner of J. Lawrence Homes LLC, Wozniak is among the few builders still putting up new construction in once-sizzling Joliet.

During the boom times that made Will County a real estate hot spot, the three-bedroom single-family houses for sale in his Silver Leaf community would have commanded an additional $50,000, he said.

Those times are gone. And even after three years of steep declines in one of the worst real estate recessions ever, some experts say prices have yet to hit bottom.

This week, a string of indicators will be released that could show some of the strongest activity since the housing crash began.

Don’t be fooled.

At least part of the action stems from homebuyers rushing to take advantage of federal tax credits that expired at the end of April, a program that got the market moving, but inevitably shifted sales forward.

Now that the government tax giveaway has ended, watch for the market to level off or dip through the summer. A housing recovery depends on the economy bouncing back, and by most forecasts the buying and selling of real estate will remain rocky for a long time to come.

“We’re likely to bounce around at the bottom for this year and next,” predicted Chris Huecksteadt of the Metrostudy housing research firm in Chicago. He said he expects “ups and downs” but no upward trend in prices.

That should come as no surprise, said Erik Hurst, an economist at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. Averaged over long periods that often encompass booms and busts, housing prices generally clock in about flat, he said.

“We should not be looking to see big returns on housing,” Hurst said. “Over time, house prices don’t rise.”

They especially don’t rise when nobody’s moving. One lingering consequence of the economic meltdown is what demographer Kenneth Johnson describes as “cautious migration.”

One sign shows a smiling couple on vacation with the slogan, “For the Perfect Little Getaway.”

Another shows a mother snuggling a baby: “For all the Little Things.”

And, of course, there’s a brightly dressed shopper clutching a bag of clothes: “When you Just Have to Have it.”

Yes, when you have to have it, Chicago-based PLS Financial Services Inc. will fork over cash on the spot — for a very high price.

That helps explain the smaller sign on the counter at PLS urging its loan customers to take action against lawmakers in Washington: “Stop the politicians from taking away your right to the personal financial service you enjoy in this store.”

As financial reform lurches toward a messy conclusion on Capitol Hill, the payday loan industry is feeling the heat.

A new consumer protection agency is taking shape as part of the financial overhaul legislation, potentially with sweeping powers that have put a scare into everyone, from the nation’s biggest bankers to the clerks who help fill out the loan applications at car dealerships.

At least some Beltway watchers expect Senate action on the proposed measure later this week, amid a flurry of proposed amendments. An earlier version passed the House.

Payday loans occupy a special corner in the punishment cell of consumer protection. The business has boomed for more than a decade, despite near-constant complaints about its alleged status as the biggest rip-off since Bernard Madoff met Charles Ponzi.

The payday loans at stores such as PLS typically last only a couple of weeks. A customer pays about $30 to borrow $200 for that short period.

It adds up quickly. Spread over a year, the customary fees can translate into interest rates of as much as 700 percent.

Many customers, in fact, don’t stop there. It’s not uncommon to renew these short-term loans repeatedly rather than pay off the principal when the checks come through.

And so begins a cycle of exploitation and dependency, to hear critics tell it.

To hear Bob Wolfberg tell it, however, so begins a triumph of capitalism, efficiently satisfying a consumer need.

AIG?

Yes, all through the financial meltdown and the revelations about American International Group Inc.’s disastrous derivatives trading, the jerseys of England’s Manchester United displayed those three tall black letters across the chest.

Now that’s about to change, raising the hopes of fans who want more sweeping changes as well.

Starting June 1, Chicago’s Aon Corp. will take over what is arguably the most prominent walking billboard in sports, at a cost of $80 million over four years.

A new “Aon” jersey won’t debut until mid-July, after all the hoopla from the impending World Cup dies down.

The deal comes amid fan discontent with Man U controlling shareholder Malcolm Glazer, the Florida billionaire who also owns the National Football League’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Glazer’s acquisition of the “Red Devils” put the team deep in debt. Restive followers have been pushing for a new owner, and some have called on sponsors to intervene.

Into this high-stakes drama steps Aon, the insurance broker that traces its roots to W. Clement Stone, who famously put his “positive mental attitude” to work selling policies.

Uberfan Sean Bones of the Manchester United Supporters Trust warns that the value of Aon’s sponsorship could fall. “It’s something they have to look at very seriously,” he said.

Aon has spent the past year developing its Man U marketing strategy, and it has no plans to intervene in running the team, said spokesman David Prosperi.

“It’s not our place to weigh in,” he said. “We didn’t do it because of the owners or because of one or two great players. What they represent in the global market transcends everything else.”

“I cannot explain for the life of me why our shares would be down 3 percent right now,” replied Brenda Barnes, chief executive of the Downers Grove-based food company.

Who can explain the market these days?

When the shares of leading companies trade briefly for a penny before snapping back within minutes to their original values, something’s fishy.

But you knew that.

Last week’s “flash crash” that sent the Dow Jones industrial average on its biggest ever intraday point drop provided a timely reminder of why Main Street loves to hate Wall Street. It may not be a rigged game, but it’s a rare workaday citizen who would be surprised if it is.

In this hostile atmosphere, financial reform is taking shape on Capitol Hill. You might think the prevailing ill will would spell big trouble for the nation’s financiers, especially if the market goes ballistic again this week.

She’s heading straight to graduate school, hoping another degree will help her launch a successful career when the economy eventually improves.

“The job market is just so bad,” the 22-year-old psychology major said. “There are some jobs available, but competition is just unbelievable.”

Does she wonder if grad school will pay off? “Every day,” she said.

MacPhail’s decision to postpone full-time employment makes good economic sense, according to new research showing that college students who graduate in recessions fare much worse on the job than equally qualified counterparts who finish in good times.

The difference between the recession-challenged Class of 1982 and the fortunate Class of 1989 turned out to be more than $100,000 in earnings over 17 years. Every percentage point increase in the national unemployment rate — now 9.7 percent — costs the typical graduate 6 or 7 percent in wages as they start their careers.

Beyond the lack of immediate job opportunities, hard times complicate the efforts of new graduates to get ahead, said Lisa Kahn, the Yale University economist behind the research.

Faced with slim pickings, these grads are less likely to find a good first job out of school, she said. They may receive less training or advancement opportunities as employers pinch pennies in response to the downturn.

On top of that, they tend to stick with their first jobs rather than leaving for potentially better ones. “When you’re young, you should move for better pay and better opportunities,” Kahn said.

Could be they’re risk-averse. Could be their skills weren’t developed. Could be better jobs were elusive.

But for whatever reason, their timing hurts them, Kahn said: “They’re unlucky. It’s interesting to the extent that pure, random luck affects your career.”

Gasoline prices at the pump, climbing for months, have inched up in recent days as the disaster unfolded. A bigger jump could be in store as the summer driving season and improving global economies keep the pressure on.

“The market is underestimating how high it could go in a short period of time,” said Bill Powers, editor of the Powers Energy Investor newsletter in Chicago. “Gasoline prices will go up. We can move a fair amount closer to $4 a gallon by the end of the summer.”

In relation to daily U.S. oil production of more than 5 million barrels, direct losses from the BP well amount to a trickle. Whether it’s losing 5,000 barrels a day, as the government estimates, or 25,000 as some analysts contend, the amount makes no material difference in such a vast marketplace.

It’s the side effects that count.

Already, federal officials have called for a temporary halt to new offshore drilling. That could expand into a moratorium as investigators identify causes of the spill. More stringent regulations for existing wells appear likely, and the cost of insurance and rig rates has soared.

As the oil slick spreads, neighboring production and refining facilities could be shut down. Tankers may be diverted from local ports, potentially disrupting crude oil shipments out of Louisiana and Texas.