Sunday, August 30, 2020

If You Are Up To Your Neck in Piss, and ...

... I'm about to throw a bucket of snot in your face, would you duck? In other words, who are you going to vote for/against for president?

The title and lead in for this post is from something my grandpa used to ask me often when I was young. He was full of pithy little sayings, questions, and aphorisms that were his way of teaching a lesson or making a point. He was a down-to-earth person with a keen ability to see through bullshit. Perhaps years on the road in his profession as a long-haul truck driver gave him this perspective. Incidentally, my one-time non de plume for this blog, Fonzy Shazam, is based partially on his CB handle, "Shazam". 

Answering the question of this post has a bit of question begging to it as it is not at all clear that you should vote. Your vote has no chance of affecting the outcome of the election. NONE. So I am approaching this from two directions:
  1. Your vote will signal ever so slightly support for a candidate. As we'll see, this will have a lot more value for some than others.
  2. We could consider this from the standpoint of voting as if your vote would determine the outcome.
As a libertarian I approach this from a decidedly different view than many, but I believe the trend toward independent thinking is undeniably growing. Team R and Team D are less and less appealing for a growing number of Americans. 

Libertarians are not uniformly behind their own candidate, which should be expected from open-minded thinkers. To this end the Soho Forum recently held a three-way debate considering who libertarians should vote for. It is well worth a listen. 

In fact there are two different elections going on for the presidency this year. This has been the trend, but I think (hope) it is at a critical inflection point. Trump and Biden are trying to see who gets naming rights to the bulldozer that will continue to run you over. Jorgensen is unfortunately not in contention to win that "prize". Instead she is proclaiming a message that there is another way--trying to earn enough support that libertarians can no longer be ignored (e.g., getting onto the debate stage despite the rigged system) and letting the uniformed know there has been a group here for a long, long time steadfastly supporting the principles the duopoly works against until they reluctantly must support. 

Now, on to the show . . . Rating the Three 2020 U.S. Presidential Contenders

I will try to be as concrete as I can on this evaluating the candidates along several critical dimensions. 

1) COVID pandemic: I think we have to start with the issue of the year since it is such an important issue relating directly to what we expect a state and its leaders to "solve". It is a 9/11-type moment in magnitude and reshaping of priorities. That does not imply there is very much the president can actually do about it, but there was a good deal in the actual case of 9/11 and the current case of the pandemic. I am working on another post with my advice for humans and their leaders in the upcoming next pandemic--yeah, I know; audacious post. It should be no surprise that my advice is largely for government to get out of the way. Therefore, I think the libertarian philosophy would best set an environment conducive for least harm in the event of a pandemic. Trump obviously can be evaluated directly since he was president during the pandemic. He failed this test doubling down rather than changing strategies. He did not stand up to (drain) the swamp as the FDA, CDC, et al. thwarted progress and solutions. He was on the wrong side of testing showing no understanding of how critical it is. He shifted in the wind reacting to democrats rather than charting a course of sensible policy and leadership. Whether you support these policies or not, he reflexively closed borders in a clumsy, late, and haphazard method, and he waffled on lockdowns sending very mixed messages. He politicized it and provoked divisiveness. In other words he Trumped it up. Biden on the other hand was . . . silent. He didn't have a definitive, detailed plan until well after most of the worst had passed, and what we do hear from him now is not good--a simple rehashing of failed generalities and banalities
Verdict: Jorgensen wins by default as her natural position on decentralization and free markets best positions the country in the event of pandemics. Trump edges Biden on policy as his base's position of opening up is better suited for where we are now in this pandemic. However, Biden is the better pick once we consider the standpoint of general public opinion on opening up and moving forward from here. Trump supporters already think the pandemic worry is overblown, and a Biden victory allows Biden supporters to agree.
Jorgensen>Biden>Trump

2) The Big Five: [spoiler alert: Jorgensen is much^10 better on all five issues than either Trump or Biden. She opposes and will fight to end the drug war, she will work for free markets in education, she will strongly support immigration expansion, she will be vastly better on taxation and war. So let me just evaluate the two others.]
Drug Prohibition - Most of all these dimensions are a competition for last place between Trump and Biden. This is no exception. Trump's behavior and policies and appointments have been a combination of don't care about it and please the base. This is not progress or hope for the future. Biden and Harris' histories on the drug war are atrocious. But just as Obama entered office opposed to gay marriage and then "evolved" on the issue, Harris has changed on marijuana. For what its worth the democrats' rhetoric is better than republicans. I want good, just policies, and beggars can't be choosers. Biden>Trump
Education - This one isn't close. Trump is much better than Biden. The better chance of meaningful education reform and support for local reform is under a Trump administration rather than a government school union/bureaucracy Biden administration. Trump>Biden
Immigration - This one is close, to many people's probably surprise, in a race to the bottom sense. Biden is not a strong immigration supporter. Trump is awful on immigration, but the equation is Trump hates immigration therefore Biden opposes hating immigration. Categorize this as trade below being issues that are no longer Biden priorities once Trump is out of office. Still, Biden gives us a chance to stop the bleeding. Biden>Trump
Taxes - Trump's base wants lower taxes which is totally unrealistic and inconsistent with the spending levels of the Trump presidency--presumably supported by the base. However, the sentiment of low taxes lends support for small government, which is good. Much better are the tax reforms that Trump signed into law such as a higher standard deduction and lower corporate rates (an issue Obama supported and couldn't get accomplished). Biden's tax instincts are not good--he wants to use taxes as a political tool--and his base's sentiment is downright scary. His actual plan is not progress as it has objectively bad public policy. Trump>Biden
War - I truly think Trump accidentally could be the meaningfully better candidate on this issue. His base holds him back. It is an accident because it is only his selfish version of America First that causes him to dislike American engagement abroad. However, he would still like to have every possible dollar spent growing the military and by extension the military-war-making-industrial complex. Biden believes with wide application America can and should guide the policies and actions of foreign nations and peoples, and he is willing to use force if necessary--with a low threshold for necessary. There are two facets at play here: who would reduce the risk of war more and who would reduce the incidence of war more. On the first point I believe it is a tie in general with Biden improving the tail risk (very low chance of a highly disastrous war). Similarly a dangerous new Cold War with China is less likely under Biden. On the second point I believe Trump gives us a chance to bring troops home and reduce engagements by virtue of his desires and the antiwar movement on the left that always goes into hibernation when a democrat is in office. This is a close one. When in doubt, reduce existential risk. Biden>Trump
Verdict: Jorgensen is the clear winner here as I stated before. Trump edges Biden since his wins were meaningfully different and magnitude matters.
Jorgensen>>>>Trump>Biden 

3) Court Appointments: Jorgensen would appoint judges who understand the Constitution and respect the limits of government power. Trump would seem to be much better than Biden, but we shouldn't seek liberal judges or conservative judges. We should seek judges who have consistent and good reasoning. Such judge candidates can be found with support on the left and the right. I do believe that Trump's nominated judges will come from a pool that is more aligned with those of Jorgensen. 
Verdict: This issue is overrated in importance. I myself have been guilt of this quite often. The judiciary largely goes where the zeitgeist leads. 
Jorgensen>Trump>Biden

4) Trade: As mentioned above, don't be too quick to assume an optimistic future for trade under a Biden presidency. He has generally not been good on this issue and the democrats/progressives have always been worse than republicans/conservatives--current clown show not withstanding. Biden's core base is allergic to trade. He and democrats currently are supporters of it only because Trump is against it and only to the extent they can score anti-Trump points. Ironically, Jorgensen would be the pro-manufacturing job candidate as her policies would grow our economy much more than either of the other two.
Verdict: The long sweep of history is in favor of free trade--popularly by poll and, more importantly, actually by behavior. Only one candidate in this race understands that and works to strengthen it.
Jorgensen>Biden>Trump

5) Regulation: I have no doubt that Jorgensen is the best on this issue. Her surrounding advisors and appointments would greatly advance the cause of shrinking government. I keep hearing that Trump is clearly better than is Biden. I do believe that, but . . . just how good is he really? Not so great it turns out. I continue to make downward adjustments to my priors on this one. And you don't have to look far to see problems.
Verdict: A Jorgensen administration would have a chance to significantly curtail the regulatory burden. Trump is beholden to interests that push against regulation more so than is Biden.
Jorgensen>Trump>Biden

6) Executive Orders: This is a mixed bag as I would expect a Jorgensen presidency would accomplish a lot by executive order, a practice I otherwise greatly oppose. However, I expect she would tend to respect the power and its actual constitutional limits. For the other two I err on the side of assuming more malpractice from Biden than Trump with Obama and the first four years of Trump as limited evidence. 
Verdict: The use and abuse of executive orders is a barometer on how much inappropriate power the administration is engaging in overall.
Jorgensen>Trump>Biden

7) Sanctity of Personal Choice: There may be no other issue for which Jorgensen distinguishes herself from the other two than this one. It is her core. To believe Trump champions this is to fall for the sham rather than looking more deeply into the actual behavior and action. But sadly Biden is even worse. His position is that government knows best. Technocrats can and should guide the economy and other public policy. Trump's penchant for industrial policy narrows the gap in this race to the bottom, but as low as he goes, he simply will find Biden there waiting for him.
Verdict: Libertarians don't make good, that is to say electable, candidates largely because they are such deep believers in the idea that government is not the solution. But I am grading on how well each candidate scores on the issue not on how their position affects their electability.
Jorgensen>Trump>Biden

8) The American Image (home and abroad): This is a very important issue, but it is widely misunderstood. When I see the protesters in Hong Kong waving American flags and signing the U.S. national anthem, I see the image of America as a shining city on a hill. People often confuse the concept of the American image abroad as meaning we must submit to the will of other nations' governments or we must forcefully exert our will on others. Likewise, people often confuse the image at home as meaning we must surrender our personal, moral autonomy or all be nationalistic xenophobes. In truth the idea is that we should have pride and hopefulness for our nation as a defender of virtuous principles, and we should project to the world the best possible example of what free markets and free minds can accomplish. We should champion the rights of minorities and the opportunity for all to be the best they can be with those limits being constantly elevated to higher potentials. Trump has tarnished the image abroad by not being a constructive or trustworthy partner with other nations' leaders. He has tarnished the image at home by not leading us toward peaceful resolutions of the conflict between the police state and those who have been its victims. I don't believe Biden is much better, but it wouldn't take a lot to improve our situation in both cases. And I do believe Biden would give the peaceful protesters epistemic cover to distance themselves from the violent protesters and other criminals. This includes many state and local politicians who have been to cowardly or incapable to lead.
Verdict: The image needs improvement, and it will not be made better through divisiveness and control. See the next item for more.
Jorgensen>Biden>Trump

9) Persuasion versus Demonization: Don't fall victim to the low-level thinking that is easily swayed by pleasantry (or normalcy) over content. Just because Trump is gruff, rude, and unbecoming doesn't make him wrong (or right). Both major party candidates are looking to have their way with you. It probably shouldn't factor in that one will buy you dinner first while the other says, "Just get in the van." Note how Trump in a lame duck term and possibly facing more impeachment threat has pluses and minuses relative to Biden who will have a “mandate from the American people” and a desire to make his mark, God help us. As for Jorgensen, she is of an ideological core that holds persuasion in high exultation. The nonaggression principle doesn't just mean you don't hit people to get your way. It also means you need to win hearts and minds to advance the truth.
Verdict: Biden calls people names, but Trump is good at it. Both encourage hostility. 
Jorgensen>Biden>Trump

10) Federal Reserve Appointments: This is the issue the Libertarian Party is weakest on--perhaps the only significant weakness. My hope is it is more rhetoric than ideology. End The Fed is a power banner message but an empty policy. I agree that in a much-closer-to-perfect world we would have free markets in money. But we cannot get there with simplistic destruction like I think we actually could when it comes to say the Department of Agriculture among so many examples. I don't think she would in fact end the Fed. I think she might bring meaningful reform and openness if not some deregulation to move duties out of its domain. Trump and Biden are nearly the same in this regard as most appointments here are out of the macroeconomic professional class (as good or bad as that group is on average).
Verdict: I fear a radical appointment from Jorgensen. 
Biden=Trump>Jorgensen

Weighing all of the above and anything left out, consider the difficulty each candidate would face in getting their agenda executed. If they require legislative action, then it is less likely the bad things they would do actually get accomplished. As always their rhetoric is much, much greater than their capabilities or true desires. For example, if Trump had his way he would spend all of his time and effort playing golf and giving speeches (and tweeting). He doesn't care about you. And neither does Biden. 

Overall Verdict: Don't waste your vote. Voting for one of the current failures is a waste of your time and a waste of an opportunity to affect change. 
Jorgensen is the clear winner. A vote for her will not elect her. But neither will a vote for Trump or Biden. However, a vote for her strikes another blow against the two parties, and on the margin that matters a lot. One more drop of water in the ocean for Trump or Biden changes nothing. If I vote as if the vote will determine the outcome, my answer is the same. If you make me vote for Trump or Biden in the real world election where I cannot affect the outcome, I would vote for Biden as I prefer the signal of change. If you make me vote for Trump or Biden in a hypothetical where my vote does determine the outcome, I would vote for . . . if it is gun to my head, I might just say "open fire", but otherwise I reluctantly vote for Trump with the hope that the choice causes significant improving change within the Democratic Party or a chance for libertarians to gain a large new group of supporters (left and right).


P.S. This analysis is independent of ways in which the candidates might benefit me personally (as any meaningful analysis like this should be). For example, Biden would likely be good for my personal tax situation by removing the SALT cap, good for my home value and quality of life by subsidizing higher education including the university I live right next to, and good for my job by making taxes more complex which as an investment professional provides me job security. 

P.P.S. If Biden turns out to be mentally unfit for office, much of this become moot. 

P.P.P.S. Sumner has his own list.

P.P.P.P.S. Some asides: 
Thankfully, it isn’t Sanders
I recently summarized the thing I most like and the thing I most dislike about the Trump presidency as such: I most like that it has greatly accelerated the demise of the two-party system in America. I most dislike that it fosters and strengthens the fear and loathing of "the other" in all its many, hideous connotations. Notice that I am referring to the Trump presidency rather than Trump himself. To arrive at these I am using a comparative lens. While I like the tax policy and judicial appointments, these would have largely been very similar if not better sold in a different Republican administration. I detest the separation of families, deportations, and killing of many, many foreigners, but these were the case in the Obama administration as well. One must always ask as compared to what. Is the two-party prison in which we dwell really just giving us a “decision” between the bully you know and the bully you’ve forgotten?

Friday, August 21, 2020

Eulogy for my father-in-law

In loving memory of Robert Douglas:

The annual Fourth of July firework show in the backyard at my house was not the most extraordinary show you’ll ever see. It featured two kids: one of them my son and one of them my father-in-law. I always thought the basic goal was to try to set my backyard on fire and at the same time joyfully attempt to see who could be rushed to the emergency room first. Of course, it was really just two pals having a great time together like they always did.

Thank you for coming today to this celebration of the life of Robert Douglas. Today we remember a man who always showed us nothing but love. A man who made up for what he didn’t possess with the gift of being there for us in countless ways. A man who was Always Present.

Always there to be a friend to his kids and especially his grandkids, Tyler, Nicholas, Eva, Max, and Elise. He wanted nothing more than to experience life with them and to be their companion. In spirit he was truly just an overgrown kid in so many good ways. He had a big imagination, playfulness, and a love for toys. So many toys. Boxes and boxes and boxes and boxes of toys. If you could think of a unique toy from history, and I mean any time in history, he had one of them. And if he had one of them, he actually had several of them. While some were in mint condition stored away waiting to one day be sold, in most cases they were not perfect. As Max liked to say, “all of papa’s stuff is just a little bit broken.” A pristine, brand-new toy right out of the box is ideal. But that is not reality. Reality is being able to play with the toy you have and use your imagination to fill in for that which is missing. Having the toy that is slightly broken is better than not having a toy at all. Being there matters. Present and imperfect is infinitely better than absent and completely gone. 

Robert was a wise man of few words. But when he spoke, it was meaningful. He had seen a lot of life. He was accomplished, well traveled, scholarly, and street smart. He was a collector of many treasures of an astonishing variety. He had an eye for quality and great instincts for trade—an arbitrageur and bargain hunter extraordinaire. Truly a renaissance man. 

He was a dreamer. His wondering, optimistic mind always hopeful for what might be next. It led him to many dead ends and dreams left unfulfilled. But it also took him on many adventures. Each one starting with little more than a hopeful destination and a willingness to try something new. Such is the life of a wandering writer, which he very literally was. He left behind many journals, poetry, screenplays, and an unfinished novel we hope to publish someday soon. 

As much as he wanted to take that trip around the world completing travels he had begun decades ago and as much as he wanted to do so many, many other things that he was not too proud to ponder aloud, economic reality constrained him. But another inertia kept him moored as well—loyalty to his children and a desire to always be a part of their lives. Always present. 

He was not ever in any way a complainer. His toleration of pain was matched with his toleration of the worst conditions. When he traveled with us on vacation, he happily would volunteer for the worst bed or couch to sleep on, the chore of babysitting at night after a long day on the beach, and any other sacrifice to make sure he was doing his part and never in the way. He had a strong desire to always be needed and helpful. This desire included small kindnesses like driving grandkids to practice and patiently keeping watch. It also included selfless acts of great generosity. When Eva’s father, Brian, was diagnosed with cancer, Robert immediately without hesitation volunteered to do anything April needed including moving to Chicago to be there directly and permanently to help. 

Robert wandered long to find a home. He served honorably in the United States Army. He worked for the U.S. Foreign Service as a translator and codebreaker. For many years he taught at various public and private schools. Entrepreneurially, he tried his hand at professional photography, one of his many skills, owning and operating a studio and engaging in many freelance projects with large clients. There were many other endeavors. All had their moments, but none were the right fit. Some combination of discontent or an itch for something new would send him along a new path.

At the age of 70 he finally found his place at All Saints Catholic School. For the first two years he taught grammar and English. This year finally and for the first time he was embarking on teaching literature, one of his many passions. He was greatly looking forward to it. This was one of his dreams coming true. 

I think he knew that he was in really bad shape this past week. He emailed April early last Friday morning saying that he was going to need help leaving school that day. Later in the emergency room she asked him why he hadn’t just asked her to come get him right away that morning. He said it was because he wanted to see all of his students before going away. We’re not sure if he meant to see them once more expecting to return after a while or one last time forever. 

The limits of life are hard. One papa only has so many chances to be with five grandchildren. Robert did the best job he could to give his time and his love to his kids and grandkids. I’d like to think that now he gets the endless pleasure of being able to be witness, to be silently present with all of his grandkids all of the time not having to make any sacrifices among them but being able to just watch them live life. He will forever be in our hearts and always present.


Friday, August 7, 2020

What To Root For

In late summer every football fan begins to dream about the season to come with aspirational hopes for one's team and general excitement for what autumn will bring. That is every normal late summer. 

But this is 2020. So, here we go. 

I am torn as to what I should want to see happen. On the one hand I do not think cancellation of the season is the prudent choice from a health perspective. I would rather see options kept alive as the developing situation continues to play out. And this is strengthened by two underlying convictions as controversial as they may be: the health risk is generally minimal and people should have the liberty to choose for themselves what risk they wish to face. 

Note that there is a wide gulf between being completely back to a regular football season and no football season whatsoever. Minimal fans with abundant spacing and many other procedures can be a prudent compromise. No fans initially with potentially many or full fan attendance later in the season is also a possibility (keep your options alive). 

The pandemic is not completely understood, but we know A LOT more about it today than 6 months ago. And we are a lot further along all the curves including toward herd immunity. In just about every action we take we are potential externalities for our fellow man. And do remember that those run in both flavors (positive and negative externalities) and to many varying degrees. Magnitude matters. 

Are we so certain that this disease is too misunderstood, too deadly or otherwise too harmful, too contagious, and simply too terrible for people to make their own choices about exposure? For many people the answer to that question is yes, which raises interesting questions about many other activities and diseases. I do not believe the evidence supports this point of view. If we cannot have football in any manner, then how different should the rest of our lives be? Trust me, I know how some are willing and eager to answer that question. 

My threshold for the use of force is much higher than that. Like Bryan Caplan, "I accept a strong presumption in favor of human liberty. You cannot rightfully shut businesses and order people to 'stay at home' out of an 'abundance of caution'. Instead, the burden is on the advocates of these policies to demonstrate that their benefits drastically exceed their costs..."

Who am I to say an elderly man living with terminal cancer should not come to a football game? I am referring to a specific, very devoted fan and personal friend. I believe he should have the freedom to make that choice. I am a strong believer in freedom, fair dealing, and justice. 

Deciding for others is an invitation for injustice. Unfair bargaining is a method of unfairly restricting the freedom of others. All of which brings me to the other hand . . . The players.

The general data for the typical college age-person shows very low health risk associated with COVID. While particular individual players very certainly have underlying conditions or other circumstances like close contact with at-risk people, most do not. For those that do, accommodation and excuse from the risk is very much the right thing to do. 

It is not the player's health risk per se that I believe gives rise to an "other hand" concern, but rather it is the general injustice of players not being compensated with the added burden of a health concern bringing this disparity into sharp relief. 

Most people when confronted with this idea ask the wrong question--"Why should we pay players?" The correct question is the opposite--"Why should we NOT pay players?" The default presumption in a free society is that people should be paid for their labor. If you want the services of another person, you should expect to do so by reaching a mutually agreeable arrangement.

"But the players have agreed to play, and they are paid. Haven't you of scholarships?" is the typical response. That response is as wrong as it is common. That "agreement" is made repeatedly in a very one-sided deal between the individual player on one side and a very powerful buyer of services on the other--college universities. These colleges act in concert under the rubric of a pure cartel organization--the NCAA. This is not a pejorative, emotional charge nor is it name calling. It is a very well established factual depiction. And the power and extent of the NCAA is supported explicitly and implicitly by government action at every level. This shouldn't be a surprise as cartels do not withstand the inevitable forces of competition and free markets without state support.

As a cartel the NCAA and its member institutions conduct themselves as a single buyer of college athlete services--the technical term for this is monopsony. This affords them considerable economic power and leverage, which they use to enforce an arrangement that is very good for themselves at the expense of the athletes. The reason why college football and basketball programs are limited to what they can provide athletes is because doing otherwise would unleash that terrible scourge upon the Earth unto the halls of college sport purity--the free market with its evil property rights and competition. More specifically, the athletic departments and universities and all those who individually benefit financially from the current arrangement would have to share. 

The most succinct way to explain why athletes are not currently paid what they are worth is to simply ask why would NCAA regulations on what athletes can earn be necessary if they were currently earning their market wage. The more detailed way is to do the economic analysis as sports economist Dr. David Berri among others have done repeatedly

About those scholarships . . . There are two very strong arguments against the common refrain that they’re getting a college education. The first is that that college education is something they could attain anyway and do so with little to no expense. Most of these players would be eligible for need or merit-based scholarships as well as grants that would cover the cost of college. The second is that that college education is in fact not worth very much to many of them. For many people college is not the right decision. We push way too many people through the college system inside and outside of sports. For many a different route through trade school or other education or flat out immediate pursuit of a job would be a better option.

There are many other bad arguments made in defense of the system that we know. These include:

What will happen to the schools who can't afford to pay? and This will just mean that football ends at many places and only the biggest programs will survive. While a radical change may and probably will result in a lot of disruption, the market is more dynamic than its opponents' imaginations. Plenty of room exists for true amateur and other types of football aside from a professional college league. And it is very wrong to assume that Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and other blue bloods in football as well as Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, and other blue bloods in basketball would benefit from a world where direct, open payments were able to be made to players. These programs benefit the most from a limit on the very important competition dimension of wage compensation. Alabama does not hurt for the top talent in football. Paying players would be a pure expense for them with little to no incremental benefit. Oh, and are you soooooo sure players aren't already being paid in many cases. Black markets of illicit payments to athletes are alive and thriving in this world of prohibition. And they do so with all of the horrible consequences associated with black markets.

How will they be paid? Will it be a free-for-all? Will players make different amounts? I don't know and I don't have to solve this problem to be correct about much higher compensation being the rightful world to strive for. I don't know how much the local grocery employee should make. I don't know how much the CEO of Exxon should make. Hell, I am not quite so certain about how much I should make. The market is a marvelous process that reveals this knowledge to us and constantly refines it. Let the market work.

No one wants to see college kids make that type of money. While this is not true as professional sports, entertainment in general, and many other areas of life attest--IT DOESN'T MATTER. An unfair deal is not made fair because a beneficiary (direct or indirect) prefers it. 

They aren't worth that much. Supposing you have ignored the vast research in this area including that referenced above, let me give you a simple example using a different sport as this will also defeat some of the false arguments that relate to worries about other sports and athletes. At my favorite university, The University of Oklahoma, Patty Gasso is an extremely good coach of the extremely good OU softball team. Coach Gasso makes about $1.2 million per year for her services. Of her many talents, two of them relate directly to athletes--recruitment and player development. So I ask, how good do you think Gasso's OU softball team would be if she were required to randomly pull her players from the pool of all female OU students and how well would the team do if the women selected to play were redrawn at random before each game? More to the point, how much would Coach Gasso be paid in this hypothetical? To the degree players add value above random replacement we get some idea about the added value talented players bring and are worth.

Title IX completely disallows this in fact or in economic result. This is Myth #6 in economist Andy Schwarz's 13 Excuses, Not Reasons: 13 Myths About (Not) Paying College Athletes

There are other bad arguments. Many play upon our biases and jealousies. These too must be called out for what they are. Two wrongs don't make a right. Frustration that there are great rewards for great, rare talents is common but unjustifiable. There is no reason or virtue in adhering to the rules of the past when those rules are revealed to be wrong for today.

Simply put, any argument justifying the current arrangement must address the central question--why should we NOT pay college athletes.

If ever there were a season to make a change, this is it. Beyond the pandemic and all the economic and health disruptions, we of course are in the midst of an opportunity to take a major leap forward in the name of justice. Perhaps 2020 will eventually come to be remembered as the year when significant racial progress started. When old institutions were challenged and remade. When we realized it doesn't just have to be this way because it has always been this way. 

This is another example of my theory that the pandemic has accelerated already present trends. In this case we may be witnessing some version of the universities of the Power 5 conferences separating themselves from the NCAA and beginning of the dissolution of the NCAA cartel. Let us hope a new cartel does not rise in its place. My optimism for change is tempered and I know that any new result will be with its flaws. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Don't forsake progress for the fear or even the certainty that change will be flawed.

Perhaps a lost season is not required. Compromise with true pre-commitment to reform could be a way out. Let the universities call the players bluff, but also let the universities come back to the table with solutions. Make them put up contractual commitments, earnest money, and public promise of specific and explicit change. The road map at this point of the journey is quite blurry and very undecided. The most we can expect is to have a destination, boundaries for the eventual route to be found, and a burning of the bridge of retreat once the journey begins.

That is what I am rooting for.

I stand with the players.