Remember me
Forgot your username/password?
 
Print
Home>Articles

Mulligan Stew

By Bill James
August 17, 2011

            We have had several weeks now of overhyped if not entirely phony news. 

It is a peculiarity of the way that people think about ideas, as opposed to practical things, to assert values without limits.    In practical terms most people understand that if meat tastes good cooked at 400 degrees for 30 minutes, it will not taste better if you cook it at 800 degrees for 60 minutes.   In practice most people understand that if food tastes better with a little bit of salt, it will not taste twice as good with twice as much salt, or four times as good with four times as much salt.   Most people understand that if eight hours of sleep are good, sixteen hours would not be twice as good, and that if sleeping under two blankets is good, four blankets would not be twice as good.

 

            When it comes to ideas—about baseball or politics--people rarely understand this.   In politics it is customary to assert values as if they had no limits.   We have reached the economic snaggle that now confronts us, in my opinion, as a result of economic principles stated without limit—one by each side.   In the 1980s, 1990s and in the last decade, Republicans (and some Democrats) have expressed unlimited confidence in free trade.   International trade agreements are supposed to reduce costs and open markets.

            Well, yeah, but the problem is that free trade undermines existing domestic marketplaces.   Let us suppose that the cost of a new mattress is $900, and that the same mattress can be manufactured in Guam for $500 and transported here for $100, so that you can buy it here for $800 (with a $200 markup for the retailer.)   You save $100.

            Yeah, that’s great—but what happens to the people who worked in the mattress factory?   What has essentially happened to our economy in the last fifteen years, in my view, is that we have moved so aggressively to reduce international trade barriers that we have unraveled the structure of domestic marketplaces within which we all lived and worked.  It isn’t that free trade isn’t a good thing; it is, rather, that it is not an unlimited value.

            Democrats, for their part, have unlimited faith in government spending to stimulate the economy.   In early 2009, when our economy was in a terrible state and the Democrats were in control of congress and the Presidency, they settled on a huge economic stimulus package.

            The problem was, an economic stimulus is a remedy for a sluggish economy.   What we had in 2009 was not a sluggish economy; it was a fragile economy.   We wound up with an economic stimulus package that we couldn’t afford, and that was irrelevant to the real problem.  

The Republicans, then. . . and here we come to the phony news. . .the Republicans, or some sub-section of them, decided to force an economic "crisis" over what is normally a routine procedure, extending the debt limit.

            As an old person, I am hung up on an obsolete meaning of the word "crisis".  A "crisis" is, or was, an incident in which the life of something was threatened—a "critical" phase.  Critical condition.   Life-threatening.   I have a hard time seeing this as a crisis, because. . .what is at stake here?   The life of what?

            I have this problem a lot, since that meaning of the term "crisis" no longer controls the usage of the term in public discourse.   Anyway, the Tea Partiers created a phony economic crisis at this particular moment because this was the first moment that was available to them.

            I don’t fault them for this.   Their view of the situation is that an economic crisis is inevitable due to the Federal government’s out-of-control spending, and we’re better off having this economic "crisis" now, rather than later.    I don’t disagree with that.   We are better off dealing with this now, rather than later.  I don’t know that this was a great moment to have this confrontation, but. . .this is where we are.  What I disagree with is the perception that it’s a crisis.   It’s not a crisis.   It’s a. . .an impasse.   A confrontation.   But the perception that there was a terrible crisis created an opportunity for Sub-Standard and Worse than Poor to downgrade our bonds, which created a crazy week on Wall Street which was essentially a war between the naïve investors, who were panicked into selling stocks and buying dry goods and tinsel, and the sophisticated investors who realized that very little of substance had actually happened.

            This was followed by an even phonier news story, which was the Straw Poll in Iowa.   The Iowa Straw Poll bears exactly the same relationship to being elected President that being elected the Homecoming Queen in High School does to becoming a movie star.  What I don’t understand is why in the world anyone would put themselves in a position where defeat in this little farm state fundraiser would wipe them out of the larger contest.

            Normally, when people say "I don’t understand", it’s a rhetorical device, and what they really mean is that they think that you don’t understand, or they think those who disagree with them don’t understand.   In this case, I really don’t understand.   Everybody knows, I think, that the Presidential contest is not a sprint, it’s a marathon; everybody, at least, pays lip service to that idea.   What Pawlenty did is like going to a poker game, betting everything you have on the first hand of the night, and going home to mama if the cards don’t come in.   Why would anybody play it that way?   I don’t get it.

 

 

NCAA

 

            Let me make a suggestion to you.   I think the Federal government needs to step in and regulate the scheduling of college sports.   What I propose is a law, applying to every college or university that chooses to accept Federal money, prohibiting the scheduling of sporting events that occur more than 400 miles from the home campus of the college.

            Harsh?

            Think about it.   400 miles is a long way.   The Kansas Jayhawks, to pick an example at random, would have dozens and dozens of other colleges that they could schedules games against—dozens, if not hundreds.   They could play the University of Nebraska, Creighton, Kansas State, Emporia State, Fort Hays State, the University of Missouri, Southern Missouri, any schools in St. Louis, Wichita, Topeka, UMKC (Kansas City), Tulsa, all of the schools in Oklahoma, Iowa, Iowa State, the University of Arkansas. . . .dozens and dozens of schools that they could compete against.   They could put together an eight-team conference and not have to repeat a non-conference basketball opponent for ten years.

            The Athletic Director of the University of Kansas would squall like a stuck pig at being told that he could no longer schedule games against UCLA, USC, Duke or Texas, but the reality is that he would still have many, many options in putting together a schedule.   He would have to schedule some smaller schools, yes, and it would cost him quite a lot of money, yes.

            Which is the point.   But we’ll get to that in a minute.

            Kansas is a relatively sparsely populated area.   For every school that Kansas would have the opportunity to schedule, Ohio State would have three and UCLA would have five, simply because the population density is much higher there than it is in the Midwest.

            OK, you would have to make two exceptions in the rules.   First, for those schools which are in areas where the population is so sparse that we would in effect be limiting colleges to playing five games a year against their in-state rival, we would have to extend the 400-mile limit to, let’s say, 600 miles.  Extending the limit from 400 miles to 600 would more than double the area that was covered, creating a coverage area of 3800 square miles, which should enable even the University of Montana to have scheduling options.   Don’t harass me about the details; we can work that out later.

            Second, you would have to make an exception to allow the scheduling of a national championship series.

            This would, of course, force almost every existing college sports conference to disband.   The Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, Pac 10, Big East; they’d all be put out of existence.  The real question is why would we want to do this?

            Because college sports Athletic Directors have ceased to act in the best interests of their fans. 

            Look, when professional sports teams do things we don’t like, we accept that because those are, after all, private businesses with very rich owners who have invested many millions of dollars into their teams.   College sports teams are not private businesses, and they are not "owned" by their Athletic Directors.    Are they?   Am I wrong about that?

            Well, if college sports teams are not owned by their Athletic Directors, then why in the world would we allow those Athletic Directors to do whatever the hell they want to with the teams, regardless of whether the fans like it or not?  

            What the Athletic Directors want is to convert college sports programs into machines that will generate as much money as they can possibly generate.   The A.D.’s idea of "what is good for the program" is "whatever generates the most revenue for the program over the next three or four years, when I am in a position to benefit from those profits."

            What I am proposing, really, is that we assert as a nation that this is an intolerable idea.   A college sports team is not simply a money machine for the benefit of its managers.   It’s an extension of the University; it’s a part of the community; it is a representative of the state.   Telling the Athletic Directors forcefully that they cannot do whatever they want to do is a way of seizing control of the programs away from the Athletic Directors, and making those programs answerable to the public.

            Look, these people are acting as if what you and I think doesn’t matter at all.    If you’re a fan of University of Kentucky, the University of Kentucky Athletic Director absolutely could care less what you think about anything.    My question is, why are we putting up with that, when we don’t have to?

            We put up with it because we have entirely lost sight of the fact that these are, for the most part, public institutions, ultimately answerable to public policy makers.   I propose that we re-assert control over them.

            That wouldn’t be the last step, of course.   What we would need to do then would be to establish state boards, state by state, to govern to conduct of college sports.   I would also be in favor of state laws or federal laws prohibiting colleges from selling broadcast rights to their games—in essence, forcing them to allow open broadcasting by any interested party.   The point of it is to drain the swamp by pumping the money out of the system.

            But since college sports are a national operation, we can’t really gain control of the problem state by state without first breaking up the national operation.    I advocate seizing control of the scheduling, by federal law, as a first step to cleaning up college sports.

 
 

COMMENTS (36 Comments, most recent shown first)

bjames
If I could address those of you on the left of the pole spectrum for just a minute. . .would you agree that in the climate of the day it is the function of the Left to defend government action, in response to a political Right that reflexively argues against government? So it seems to me, at least; the Right argues against government action no matter clear it is that government action is needed.

Might it not seem, then, that the Left might be in search of examples of effective government? Well, here we have one; here we have as good an example as I can recall. Baseball was encouraging a particular lawless activity; this went on for a long time and baseball could not get its act together to address the issue. Government did not overreact; government did not over-legislate or rush into the situation before giving the industry every opportunity to deal with its own problems. But when the industry failed to deal with the issue, government told them that they must--not passing any legislation, not spending a lot of money, not sending a lot of people to jail. They simply told baseball that it was time to do what needed to be done--and baseball did.

And yet--I suppose simply because Congress has become SO unpopular--people write about this as if Congress was a bully that was beating up on poor little Mark McGwire, and as if it was somehow the fault of Congress that the situation got out of control before Congress took action. I would argue that this is counter-productive from the standpoint of the Left, that the productive approach would be to celebrate what Congress did here--or, at a minimum, to be fair about it.

I hope that I have been clear and consistent in opposing efforts to punish too harshly those who did wrong. I've never believed in that; I hope that nothing I said has been read that way. My view is that we need to face the mistakes that were made on the table and move on. I don't speak ill of Mark McGwire or Roger Clemens or any of them for the things they did.

But the other half of that is, they have to face up to their mistakes. We can't move on until they own up.
4:46 PM Sep 8th
 
bjames
And I apologize if I judged the comment harshly.
4:18 PM Sep 8th
 
Brian
Whether there was evidence that baseball had a steroid problem and whether there was evidence that McGwire used steroids are two completely different things. I'm not saying they couldn't or shouldn't hold hearings; that they couldn't wag their fingers at Selig, that they couldn't address the issue of the penalties. I just objected to the questioning of individual players as to the use of steroids in the past. I understand you disagree with me on that - just wanted to clarify and narrow our areas of disagreement.

I apologize that I didn't make more clear that my question about what Congress would have done was not part of any argument or part of any point I was trying to make. It was just a thought that occured to me and was interested me, but shouldn't, in retrospect, have been included in this discussion.
10:34 AM Sep 8th
 
bjames
The claim that Congress was acting on no information other than Jose Canseco's book is total and bizarre nonsense. In reality, there was tens of thousands of facts supporting the belief that there was widespread steroid abuse in baseball.

But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that that WAS the case. It is entirely appropriate, common and routine for governmental authorities to ask you tough questions based on an unsupported allegation. Suppose that a bank was robbed, and somebody said that you had robbed the bank. Do you not suppose that the police would come to your house and ask you, "Did you, in fact, rob the bank? Where were you when the bank was robbed? Do you have any witnesses?" Of course they would. Are you saying there is something wrong with that? If so, what?

You have the right not to answer. If you didn't rob the bank, you can simply say that you didn't rob the bank; you were watching Charlie Rose at the time. In the hearings, Curt Schilling was asked tough questions; he said simply that he had never used steroids, he had never seen steroids in the clubhouse, he had never seen steroids. There was no evidence that this was untrue, and so it was not an issue that he had said this.

If Mark McGwire had not used steroids, he had the right to say so and walk away. McGwire's problem was not that Jose Canseco SAID that McGwire had used steroids; the problem was that it was true.
11:59 PM Sep 7th
 
bjames
What earthly difference does it make WHAT Congress might have done in a counterfactual universe? Suppose that a policeman tells you to get out of the way. Do you later ask what he would have done if you hadn't gotten out of the way? What's the point?

The fact is that what Congress DID do worked perfectly.
11:31 PM Sep 7th
 
Brian
This is not a rhetorical question....if baseball had not in the eyes of Congress, "taken care of the problem", what would Congress have done? I mean, I know they always threaten the anti-trust exemption when they feel baseball is not cooperative with their wishes, but what would they have done to solve the steroid problem?

My first thought is that they couldn't require drug testing, because Government drug testing, as opposed to employer drug testing, is considered a "search" under the 4th Amendment. But I could be wrong about that.


12:48 PM Sep 7th
 
Brian
My recollection was that Mcgwire was named as a steroid user by Canseco in Canseco's book; I thought Palmeiro was as well. My point is that if someone from Congress was asked, "What direct evidence do you have that McGwire used steroids?', at the time all they could say was, well, Canseco put it in his book.

Now to be fair, there was circumstantial evidence as well- the Andro, the homeruns, the appearance. But I think you really have to think through the precedent you set when Congress is allowed to subpoena citizens to ask them "did you ever?" questions. Think how that could be used against political opponents, for instance. Isn't that part of the reason, at least, that we have a Fifth Amendment?


12:35 PM Sep 7th
 
bjames
Brian represents it as being unusual that BASEBALL was asked to help enforce federal law.


2) It always seemed a little odd to me that Congress was outraged that Baseball didn't enforce Federal Steroid Laws. Couldn't Baseball be just as outraged that Congress was ineffective in preventing the manufacture and distribution of steroids?

In fact, far from being unusual, this is the universal policy, without which effective government would be totally impossible. Industries are ALWAYS asked to help clean up issues that they have helped to create. If you had a series of armed robberies of people leaving casinos, would you not expect that the casinos would be asked to help solve that problem? If you had a problem with carnival workers who are burglars and thieves in their off hours--which is, in fact, a very common problem--would we not expect the carnivals to help clean that up? In the 1970s there was a problem with hard-ass high school football coaches withholding water from players during training exercises, which led to the deaths of about two dozen high school athletes a year. Would you not expect high school athletic associations to get involved with helping to prevent that?

Baseball had CONTRIBUTED massively to this problem by paying baseball players millions of dollars, and then turning a blind eye to the fact that they were using steroids to help them do that. It was totally appropriate for congress to shake their bony hand at baseball and say, "OK, we've had enough of this. You guys are going to take care of this problem, or we are going to step in and take care of this problem." That's what they should have done, and that's what they did.

3:45 PM Sep 6th
 
bjames
Mr. James, so your argument is that after the 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 years of the home run explosion, a Congressional Hearing in March of 2005 solved the problem? I will admit that you know more about baseball than I do and you certainly know more than I do about what goes on behind the scenes, but I think you make my argument for me. If this your example of very, very good government, what is bad government?

Congressional oversight made an immense contribution toward solving the problem. We had a mess; people were diddling around refusing to deal with the issue. Congress stepped in, applied pressure and pushed the problem forcefully toward a solution.

An example of bad government would be red light cameras.
1:33 PM Sep 6th
 
bjames
1) Private citizens were hauled in front of Congress and asked incriminating questions based essentially on a book by Jose Canseco.

That is flatly untrue. They were hauled in front of Congress and asked embarrassing questions because they were participating in practices that were marginally illegal if not outright illegal. That has NOTHING to do with Canseco. All Canseco did is tell the truth.
1:30 PM Sep 6th
 
mauimike
Brain, you made very good arguments. Much better than I.
7:30 PM Aug 26th
 
glkanter
My recollection of baseball's banning of steroids goes like this:

Prior to 2003 there was no testing. Hence, no policy.

The anonymous testing that has since identified many players was a 'threshhold' test. If more than 5% of the players tested positive to an announce, scheduled test, a testing and penalty program would commence.

About 7% of the players tested positive.

The penalty for a player's first positive test was, I believe, counseling.

And that's where the Feds got involved. Baseball got embarrassed for such a dinky penalty.

Right after the hearings, both sides agreed to suspensions for the 1st offense.
6:40 PM Aug 25th
 
Brian
The objections:
1) Private citizens were hauled in front of Congress and asked incriminating questions based essentially on a book by Jose Canseco. While people may not feel sorry for the players that were humiliated that day, it seems wrong. Imagine if Congress was reviewing other drug laws and just started isssuing subpoenas to celebrities to ask who had used cocaine. No, it's not exactly the same thing, but it is all covered under the Fifth Amendment. I believe it was a misuse of their subpoena power.

2) It always seemed a little odd to me that Congress was outraged that Baseball didn't enforce Federal Steroid Laws. Couldn't Baseball be just as outraged that Congress was ineffective in preventing the manufacture and distribution of steroids? Baseball's big problem was an inability to test for HGH. What did Congress offer to assist in that regard? I don't remember anything.

3) Why just Baseball? Congress didn't push The NBA and NFL nearly as hard. Does anyone think the NFL doesn't have a PED problem? And then there's Hollywood as well. Re-thinking my earlier example, why weren't actors who have "worked out" to get big for a role also brought in front of Congress.

4) In my opinion, The harsher penalties that came as a result of the hearings have little to do with what progress there is. Names were going to be named starting in 2004 anyway. That and minor league testing have been larger factors in reducing use than whether a suspension is 15 or 50 games.

5) The problem is nowhere near solved. As use declines, those who do use will get even more of a benefit from a more uneven playing field. Thus the incentive to use will again be increased.

6) I predict the theater of those hearings will slow the legalization of PEDs whose benefits outweigh any side effects. What Congressman would want to take that on?

I don't deny that the hearings temporarily pushed things along in baseball to a policy that was better than the one in place at the time. And they put the problem on a stage where players were more embarassed to use. But I don't think the ends justified the means.
1:12 AM Aug 25th
 
Brian
Actually, the hearings I had in mind when I made the comment were the 2nd set of hearings - the Roger Cemens hearings. And it was just something I pictured that might be funny, not really an argument against your proposal. My argument was more that Congress coud make even more of a mess of scheduling than the NCAA could.

But I do have some comments about the 1st steroid hearings, because I do think they were ill-conceived. I'll put them in another post.
12:30 AM Aug 25th
 
mauimike
Mr. James, so your argument is that after the 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 years of the home run explosion, a Congressional Hearing in March of 2005 solved the problem? I will admit that you know more about baseball than I do and you certainly know more than I do about what goes on behind the scenes, but I think you make my argument for me. If this your example of very, very good government, what is bad government?
12:58 AM Aug 24th
 
bjames
With regard to the steroid hearings. . . the steroid hearings successfully pressured a divided baseball world into making agreements to get rid of the steroids. Are you unhappy about that? Did you want to bring the steroids back?

If I understand Brian's objection, it is that the steroid hearings were not good theater. No, they weren't--but they were very, very good government.
11:30 PM Aug 23rd
 
evanecurb
Left out number five.

5. Stop spending so darn much money on the military (not now, but during peacetime). We can do very well during peacetime with half or less of the budget we've had. Much of the benefit of our spending accrues to other nations (out NATO allies, South Korea, Japan, and Israel, to name a few). Why? We don't need to do this. This can also be done gradually and appropriately, rather than in a hurry.
9:51 PM Aug 20th
 
evanecurb
First of all, I love the idea of regional college sports. The old ACC and Southwest Conferences were much better than the current ACC and new non-existent SWC (with the exception that Va. Tech should have been included in the ACC all along, the old ACC that stretched from College Park, Maryland, to Columbia and Clemson, SC, was a great regional league).

But what unintended consequences do we create when we such revenue out of college sports? Does this hurt the non-revenue sports? Does it cause student fees to increase? I don't know, but it is worthy of consideration.

With respect to the economic and political stuff, I believe that I do understand what needs to be done, and I don't understand why people don't accept it.

1. People are living longer, so old age benefits such as social security and medicare need to reflect that. Raise the age at which benefits begin. It can be done gradually instead of immediately.
2. Taxes. Yes, taxes. My personal preference is to go back to the pre-2003 federal tax income tax rates, which seemed to work fine. I would also tax fat, sugar and salt, just as we currently tax alcohol and tobacco. And marijuana should be legalized and taxed as well.
3. Free trade is indeed a good thing. Everyone benefits in the long run. It's the short run that is painful. Protectionism is always a losing proposition in the long run. If the lowest priced mattress made somewhere in the world sells for $800, then guess what, the price of a mattress just went to $800, and there's not a whole lot you can do about it.
4. The one thing I never hear regarding economic growth is how immigration to this country has always been associated with economic growth. Let's let more people in instead of keeping them out. They will find jobs, pay taxes, and create demand for housing, food, and other domestically produced goods.


9:47 PM Aug 20th
 
mauimike
Mr. James, about, "crisis." H.L. Mencken, stated it well, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with and endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

This is how it applies today. The left says, "if we don't do something about climate change the world is going to end". The right says, "if we don't stop the Muslims, Russians, Chinese etc., they will come here to destroy us."

Their solution; trust us, give us your money, your freedom, your ability to think for yourself and we'll protect you.

Different words, same game.
10:00 PM Aug 19th
 
sansho1
LOL -- could you imagine the uproar if the postal service "turned a profit"? Setting aside for a moment that profit isn't the goal of the postal service, wouldn't that be put forward as proof that we were being purposely overtaxed? The same people who decry the federal government for being inefficient would then complain that the federal government is enacting punitive taxation, and demand rebate checks.
7:08 PM Aug 19th
 
mauimike
Thank you Brain. jdw, about one hundred and fifty years ago they fought a Civil War to end slavery and give Black Folks equal rights. About 620,000 men were killed. No one know how many were wounded. It was such a success that a 100 years later they had to pass voting right acts and civil rights laws. That's an example of a good result?

The postal service, never made a profit and it is one again on the way to bankruptcy. I think UPS, Fed-Ex etc., are doing fine.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are ponzi schemes that will bankrupt the country sooner or later. Were watching a race to see if entitlement programs or the Empire will cause the final breakdown.

The interstate highway system. I've used it a lot. Last year they closed down the interstate in Oklahoma, while I was driving through, there was a giant sink hole. It's a mixed bag.

Clean air, I might give you that one the air has improved in SoCal during my life time.​
6:43 PM Aug 19th
 
Brian
jdw:

So, mauimike expresses a thought that the federal government has a poor history of solving problems. You list a number of examples to the contrary, which is entirely appropriate. Some of those reasonable people might differ as to their effectiveness. But then here comes a slavery reference. Because mauimike expressed a conservative thought, he must be in favor of owning slaves. Since he doesn't favor expansive federal government, he must be a racist. The "go-to" reference for those sitfling conservative ideas. That comment was extremely offensive. You owe an apology. If you think you were being clever or witty or even funny, you were not
3:01 PM Aug 19th
 
Brian
If the discourse from the steroid hearings are a guide, I'm not sure that I'm looking forward to a bunch of floor debates on NCAA scheduling. And don't think getting Congress involved will make things more fair. The exceptions placed in these bills at the urging of lobbyists will not be based on fair sports scheduling principles. Also, just wait until the next big contoversial bill is passed because a school is allowed outside of its zone to play Notre Dame and the Senator from that state has a sudden change of heart ...
11:49 AM Aug 19th
 
slemieux99
Leaving aside the strange distinction between a "sluggish" and "fragile" economy -- the Great Recession entailed both, and I don't see what macroeconomic consequences flow from the distinction -- it should be noted that on a net level there was very little, if any, net stimulus. Federal stimulus spending was largely canceled out by pro-cyclical spending cuts and tax increases at the state level.
11:36 AM Aug 19th
 
jdw
mauimike:

Social Security, Medicare and Medicade are all things that the Federal Government "touched" (created in this case) that have made things better.

Our postal system was one of the best in the world for 200 years.

The interstate highway system was one of the best in the world. Most of the issues with it now are due to funding issues, partially in upkeep but much more in terms of a lack of funding over the past 30 years in things to reduce commuter traffic on them (i.e. light rail / subway / super trains).

The Clean Air Act was tremendous, unless you're one of the people who would like to go back to the days when lakes were on fire.

Well... we should be honest and admit that the Federal Government finally took care of the Slavery issue when the Southern Oligarchy (and plenty of others) would have been happy to keep that going for another hundred years. Now perhaps you think the Fed screwed up on that one and folks in this country should be able to own slaves, but I think you'd have a tough time finding a lot of support for that.

There's a seven things in a minute. I suspect plenty of other posters can up with others. Government no doubt has screwed up a lot of things. But only the obtuse think that anarchy is an acceptable alternative.
11:30 AM Aug 19th
 
greggborgeson
Bill, I think your characterization of Democrats as big spenders and Republicans as concerned about the deficit is supported to some extent by party rhetoric -- but hardly by the facts. For the last 40 years, Republican administrations have increased deficits far more aggressively than Democrats. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/jfrankel/RepubDemoSwitchMIR-rSS.pdf
8:01 AM Aug 19th
 
mauimike
You want the federal government to fix the NCAA. Do you have any evidence that any thing the federal government has touched, has made things better in the long run? Anything?
12:45 AM Aug 19th
 
glkanter
When it comes to Politics and Finance, Bill James is one Hell of a great Baseball Analyst.
9:19 PM Aug 18th
 
jdw
Oh the irony:

www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hUA-NknPP0jLq2ezog_v_cUuLgpw

"US bond yields have been falling since the beginning of the month and have sharpened their drop, paradoxically, since Standard & Poor's lowered the country's credit rating a notch from AAA on August 5."

Paradoxically? People wanted the S&P downgrade to have meaning so badly that they're confused when it has no meaning, and instead people are fleeing to bonds.
7:15 PM Aug 18th
 
jdw
The comment that the downgrade caused the stock market problems is funny. When money flew out of the market, where did it go? It got parked in US T-Bills, which drove already low T-Bill rates even lower.

The "market" doesn't think there's a problem with US Federal Debt. The market woke up to the fact that there's a growth issue, and austerity in the face of slowing growth is insane. So it moved money out of the place impacted by lack of growth (corporate stocks) and into something they felt was safe (US federal debt):

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/aaauuuggghhh-market-commentary-edition

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/its-a-growth-scare

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/downgrade-downgraded

The comments on the stim, and Democrats, is even funnier.

It's a sad commentary on the state of political discourse when even smart people like Bill end up buying talking points rather than actually looking at what's happened. This is akin to the old "Ryan pays for his contract by drawing more fans" meme... except role reversal.
4:52 PM Aug 18th
 
stevebogus
Regarding the stock market, the volatility is not due to "naive investors" but by the professionals who trade every day. These are the money managers who handle large investments for other people, the hedge funds, the day traders, options players, etc.

The pros trade every day and react to every bit of news, trying to find an edge. Many are "chart readers", trying to discern buy and sell signals in the price action of a stock or in the market in general. They are in competition with each other, because if you lag behind the "averages" people will start to withdraw their money, you don't get your bonus, and may lose your job. When the news is good there is a rush to buy, and when the news is bad there is a race for the door. The "home gamers", as Jim Cramer calls them, are not driving these price swings, the guys in charge of big money are. While there are certainly people in these positions who do take the longer view and don't need to trade furiously, there are also a bunch of gunslingers out there trying to make money fast.


1:51 PM Aug 18th
 
mskarpelos
I have stopped watching college athletics entirely. I can no longer in good conscience support the corruption and hypocrisy which now suffuses big college sports, although I make no moral judgments on those who do. Mine is a personal decision, not a call to action by example.

I went to Berkeley as an undergrad and went to graduate school at Wisconsin, so I used to root for those schools, but I started having second thoughts when I read Rick Telander's The Hundred Yard Lie. What tipped me over the edge, however, was Alabama footbal coach Nick Saben, in the aftermath of the Reggie Bush scandal, calling sports agents "pimps" with the obvious implication that players like Reggie Bush were whores. This coming from a man who left the Miami Dolphins in the middle of his contract for more money from the University of Alabama. The hypocrisy was so bad, I couldn't take it any more, and frankly I haven't missed either college football or college basketball.
12:12 PM Aug 18th
 
studes
peterrunger: Very little of the stimulus went to "bankers." You may be thinking of TARP.
9:22 AM Aug 18th
 
peterunger
Politics, and also economics: I don't know how apt it is to Use the word "crisis" to characterize the current situation of very high unemployment, and underemployment, with about 25 million Americans wanting to work full-time and unable to find full-time jobs. And, it matters little whether honors should go to those who would use this word, or to those who would withold it. But, the situation is a very bad one, and protractedly so, with no end in sight. It's probably the worst economic situation, for the largest proportion of Americans, since before I was born, since before 1942.

The stimulus applied might possibly have been large enough, though probably not. More importantly it was not of the right Sort. Better to spend hundreds ofr billions putting millions of people to work upgrading our deteriorating infrastructure, as Roosevelt did, than giving most of the bucks to the likes of bankers. What's more the bankers and there buddies don't spend most of there earnings on necessities, on Fairly labor-intensive products, like Kraft produces, and like Proctor and Gamble, etc. In that way there is a Strong multiplier effect, each dollar given to, e.g., a person improving airplane runways gets spent on stuff that means fewer layoffs for many other workers, in the extant private sector, who in turn Also spend away, in an economically stimulating way. This Keynes got right, as America's experience proved, before Roosevelt started worrying about balancing the budget, circa 1937, and had us go down again, happily saved by all the Work needed to prosecute World War II successfully - building tanks, and planes, and ships, etc.

Among current American economic writers, probably Paul Krugman is the best to read on this serious business, whether it be properly called a crisis or not. Probably been going on to long now to be properly called a crisis anymore, but that just means it may be Worse than a mere temporally pretty short crisis-event.
8:51 PM Aug 17th
 
Trailbzr
On politics: As someone said on a blog I read "Politicians won't cut spending until there's a train wreck; so while we still have some control, let's steer it into the soft grass and not wait for the chemical plant."

Monday was the 66th anniversary of V-J Day, so we're theoretically three months into the baby boomer retirement era. As that group transitions from taxpayers to government consumers, we're at the beginning of a new era of politics, and should treat it like one.
6:46 PM Aug 17th
 
77royals
It alwasy drove me nuts that in Missouri, with


University of Missouri
UMKC
Missouri State
St Louis
Norwest Missouri
University of Central Missouri
Truman State
Southeast State

All Div I or Div II powerhouses, that we don't have a yearly Missouri tournament. What could be better for basketball in Missouri?


But the AD's won't do it because their aren't enough big names, or they don't get the big money to travel to other areas.

They are all publicy funded universities. They should by law have to have a tournament every year.


6:09 PM Aug 17th
 
 
©2024 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Powered by Sports Info Solutions|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy