The Most Inane Comparison in the World

Apparently July is the emptiest of all months in the sporting universe. As proof, the only proof necessary, is the kerfuffle over the supposed theoretical victor in an altogether impossible basketball game between the original Olympic dream team of 1992 and today’s of 2012. This idiotic episode was prompted by a question posed a few weeks back to Kobe Bryant pondering who would win. Kobe, often regarded as a legendarily competitive athlete, answered in the somewhat hesitant affirmative. There are almost endless reasons why there is absolutely no way to know which team would win in this theoretical matchup, the first being the absence of time travel (required for resolution). Unfortunately, this unconditional fact was no deterrent whatsoever to many commentators determined to opine; leading to many unlistenable sports radio shows and unreadable sports news websites for almost a week. Recently, the argument mercifully jumped the shark with President Obama jumping on board to declare his support for the 1992 team, the conventional (yet still completely subjective and unprovable) answer given by most. This whole episode might seem to be innocuous and it could have been but the indignation displayed by some commentators with regard to a question without an answer, completely based on subjective feelings, was so stupid, inane and annoying that it begs for scorn. It wouldn’t prove anything but maybe Michael Jordan, who appears to have taken to retirement donut in hand, will lead the 1992 team back onto the court one more time in an attempt to end this national nightmare.

More "Fair" Claptrap

In silly, over-the-top, disconnected from reality overtly political statements for the day the President of the United States of America makes his pitch for raising tax rates on families with incomes more than $250,000 per year:

“Let’s not hold the vast majority of Americans and ourentire economy hostage while we debate the merits of another tax cut for thewealthy”

Taking the President’s words as literal, in his apparent understanding, Americans are supposed to think that because he supports raising taxes on a minority segment of the population, that those who do not think that raising anyone’s tax rates is economically sound are taking the rest of the population hostage because he will not support legislation maintaining all current tax rates. Seems a bit like projection.

The much derided “Bush” tax cuts of the early 2000’s are, as they have during President Obama’s entire misguided presidency, the object of much deranged scrutiny. Never mind that they have been the tax rates for nearly 10 years, actually resulted in increases in revenue collected year to year and maintained a progressive rate of taxation by income level (higher rates on higher income), these tax rates haunt political discussion like some kind of chupacabra of the fevered liberal mind.

The President was once asked if he would seek these kinds of increases even if they led to decreased revenue generation and he answered in the affirmative, under the auspices of “fairness”. Fairness being a word whose definition has been twisted to the point of being basically meaningless because it seems to mean anything to anyone. The plea to the majority is further discouraging because it illustrates a problem with direct democracy, don’t the minority of taxpayers deserve some kind of protection from confiscatory tax rates enabled by a majority? To some, there is no tax rate too high on and no problem that cannot be solved with other people’s money. How it is considered “fair” for one erstwhile “free” citizen to pay so much more, as a percentage of their lawfully earned gains, of the government’s activities than others is going to be a determining factor in this year’s election. Those who can conceive this as “fair” should not be surprised as the population of chupacabras shrinks; one wonders who or what they’ll blame next.

The Paying College Athletes Issue

University of South Carolina football coach Steve Spurrier is advocating paying studentathletes a stipend of $3,500 to $4,000 per year. It sounds pleasant enough but, no matter the good intentions behind the concept, just won’t work. It may be true that the SEC can afford such payments but it isn’t likely that it can work for every other division 1 school. Football makes a lot of money and from a purely free market perspective it does not seem fair that the athletes playing don’t get a taste of that cash. However, these are student athletes and they are provided scholarships for up to five years that cover almost every expense. Because they are students as well as athletes (I know, I know but this isn’t a discussion comparing the ratio between student and athlete, however important), the money made from college football is effectively incidental. That money can be used to support other sports and sporting initiatives providing many other students with opportunities they wouldn’t otherwise have.

The most important reason though, is relative economics. UNM’s (36,322 students) University Stadium holds 40,094, with an average attendance in 2010 of 21,338. The most expensive individual tickets are $27. The University of Michigan’s (42,716 students) Michigan Stadium holds 109,901 and it costs $100 to get on a list to “beeligible to be offered individual game tickets” (in English this means one pays $100 to be able to purchase tickets if they are available), which I think answers the average attendance question. Notice a difference? The UNM football program doesn’t make enough to support paying its players; no doubt it’s not the only division 1 football team in the country in this situation.

And what of the loss of completion stemming from football teams unable to compete under this change and is it fair to not offer the same arrangement to other sports? Paying college athletes is a contentious argument and there are serious arguments in support of it. However, on balance it would be detrimental to college sports and unnecessarily blur the line between amateur and professional.

The Dogmatic Corporate Speech Police...

George Will’s latest column in the Washington Post examines the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a state ban of corporate political campaign contributions in defiance of the US Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. Because of US Supreme Court precedence and the absence of any changes to the first amendment of the United States Constitution the Montana decision is unconstitutional and will be struck down on appeal. Will’s column is interesting in that it introduces Montana's issue to many who wouldn’t otherwise know about it. More interesting is the comments on the article. There are many people unhappy with the Citizens United decision and the biggest reason is that some claim that corporations do not have a right to free speech because corporations are not people and that the right to free speech in the first amendment is an individual and not collective right. This line of thought is a distinction without a foundation. The first amendment of the constitution reads in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing there about individual or collective rights, simply that congress shall (a legally binding word) make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Besides that, what is a corporation other than a group of people? If there is a desire to change the first amendment to divide rights between individuals and groups then those opposed to corporate personhood can try it (good luck with that), otherwise they have no validity. Just because they don’t like corporate speech doesn’t change that it’s speech.

The Danger in made up Conceptions

Being partisan as I am the President’s shtick on private equity and Mitt Romney’s work within that industry does nothing more than incite eye-rolling. However, I am starting to think that as the President’s campaign seems to coalesce about the notion that Romney is unfit to be President because of his work in private equity that more and more people will tire of this shtick as well. I think this because the President’s notion consists of simple invective statements repeated very often that require listeners to be uncurious and accepting. Over time it’s reasonable to think that many of these listeners will eventually be introduced to competing assertions and even seek them out.

They might wonder why it is that the President’s campaign is centered about the qualifications of his opponent and not about what it is that he has done over his term to deserve re-election and what policies he would pursue in a second term and how they would benefit the citizens of this country. Additionally, they might wonder qualifications the President has to credibly discuss the machinations of private equity and Romney’s record in the industry?

Next, they might contemplate the President’s conceptualization of private equity. How could any business make money by bankrupting companies? The simplistic idea of loading on debt and then exiting might seem believable but how exactly would that work and why would any lender continue to issue debt to a company that took out loans and then defaulted? It might be infuriating to learn that private equity firms focus on profit and not on the number of jobs created. But then consider, what is profit; crudely defined as revenue minus costs? How can profit even exist without some good or service being sold by a company invested in by private equity? And how could those goods or services exist without employees creating and managing them? At best the President might be able to convince some that job creation is incidental to business plans. This view does not change the fact that jobs result from offering more services and goods (which is how profits increase). They might learn that private equity firms target declining businesses and wonder what would happen to those businesses if not invested in by private equity. They might wonder how a declining businesses can continue without investment and contemplate the affect on jobs should a declining business cease to exist.

After thinking about business and determining that it just doesn’t make any sense for a company to make money by bankrupting companies over and over again. After coming to the conclusion that business make money by selling things and that those things require workers to offer and create them. They might consider Mitt Romney as a successful businessman who led a private equity firm, Bain Capital, which still exists and has invested in many businesses that are still around today making money by selling things to people that are made by other people. Finally, once they realize these things they might just realize that the President’s campaign is implausible.