Highly Linkable

Into the caves

Out on the shore

If you're looking for poetry, look elsemore.

Sumner illuminates the thing versus the thing that is done.

In Europe silver spoons aren't just a good idea, they're the law! Is a world of Ricky Stratton's really the progressive dream?

Insider trading as a parallel to prohibition.

It's Derby time; hence, it is julep time.

Football vs Basketball vs Soccer

Indulge me for a moment while I think a bit about the differences between these sports.

While there are plenty of fans of all three of these sports, I'm interested in thinking about why some people are strong fans of one or two but not all three. I believe quite a few people fit into this interest group. What about baseball and hockey? We'll get to that in a moment. Personally, I find football fascinating, basketball highly interesting, and soccer mildly entertaining. Wondering why got me to thinking . . .

I believe varying appreciation for these three sports ultimately comes down to a different appreciation for the marginal score--that is, the incremental or additional score. Soccer scoring is too infrequent to produce a sufficiently large enough fan interest from the marginal score alone. If you're watching soccer, it must be for more than just the occasional scoring. Basketball is on the opposite end of the spectrum where scoring is too frequent to produce a sufficiently large enough fan interest. If you're watching basketball, you must be watching it for more than just the frequent scoring. Football is in the middle where the marginal score all by itself becomes a sufficiently large driver of interest.

For these reasons we have support for soccer being called "The Beautiful Game". In basketball on the other hand fans are not looking for the marginal score; instead they're looking for the sensational score. So in a given game whether there are few points scored or many, points won't be the driver of how interesting it is the typical fan. The driver will be how many sensational plays there are from dunks to three-pointers to amazing assists. In football virtually every scoring play is an amazing sensational play. Soccer shares this quality except soccer has way too few points scored.

So, one's appreciation for each sport will relate to how one values marginal scoring--the more one values a marginal score, looks forward to the actual next score to take place, the more one will enjoy football since it offers the most value from scoring itself. As one fades from that peak, it depends on what else they look for to enjoy spectating. If one values more the flow and the back and forth of the game, one is more attracted to soccer. If one values more the impact and style of actually scoring, one leans toward basketball. Looked at this way I see golf and baseball very much like football. I see hockey (obviously, 'soccer on ice') very much like soccer as are gymnastics and wrestling. I see boxing and tennis very much like basketball (think punches equaling baskets made). More parallels could be drawn. Looking at my interest personally shows the limits of this theory. I definitely like basketball more than baseball or golf even though the latter two's close cousin, football, is king for me; so there is surely more going on to determine who is a fan of what. And I am not forgetting that some people are strong fans of all three football, basketball, and soccer.

Remember that my major implication is what type of fan is attracted to each of the three sports. It's why basketball fans may find soccer boring and soccer fans may find basketball redundant. Soccer games are usually not as close as the score would seem to indicate, and basketball fans find this particularly confusing. A lead in basketball is usually not as secure as it would seem, and for this soccer fans are confused. A football game can have nothing sensational leaving basketball fans wanting. On the other hand a football game can be filled with plays that make it seem that one team is throwing the contest. These games with too easy of scoring leave soccer fans wanting.

PS. I don't know and I don't care where Quidditch falls in this analysis.

Highly Linkable

Kojak. Bang! Bang!

Virginia Postrel gives us four questions courtesy of FIRE to ask prospective universities regarding their attitudes on free speech.

Federal land ownership looks like an epidemic outbreak (HT: Mungowitz):

Scott Sumner gives two posts on taxes that are both important examples of thinking like an economist. He then follows it up with a lesson on why it is all about consumption--not income--when it comes to inequality.

Bryan Caplan recently participated in a debate hosted by Reason on immigration (hopefully it will be up in video form soon at ReasonTV). As such, he is on an immigration posting roll. Each one is worth reading.

What Basketball Strategy Can Tell Us About the Growth of Government

I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. Constitution and federal government structure. As foresightful as the founders were, they failed to appreciate the tenacity and momentum of government's reach for power. Allow me to illustrate with an analogy:

Some time ago basketball coaches realized there was a strategy they could employ to give them a systematic edge over opponents. What they realized was that while physical contact to gain an advantage over the opponent is generally prohibited in basketball, not all fouls as such were called. What's more, the referees exhibited reluctance to call fouls beyond a certain threshold. So a game with 100 fouls in it would only result in perhaps 40 fouls being called (40%) whereas a game with 50 fouls in it might result in as many as 30 fouls being called (60%). Therefore, a team that was naturally more aggressive would have an advantage as aggression escalated--sure they'd be called for fouls more often, but they would also get away with more fouls and they would create a more disruptive environment more suited to their style of play. To take the strategy further these aggressive teams would be built to accommodate the more aggressive style having athletes with more strength than finesse. As a result the officiating landscape of college basketball shifted to the favor of the aggressive teams. Because this was an emergent and unforeseen development, it can be said the rulemakers in basketball failed to appreciate the risk of this.

Similarly, the founders failed to appreciate how more and more government would overrun the checks and balances system created to prevent undesired government growth. Ultimately it is the role of the Supreme Court to prevent government behavior that is prohibited by the spirit or letter of the Constitution. And generally the hallmark cases brought to and decisions made by the court have been to limit government encroachment of freedom. But as the landscape of legislative spending and action and executive regulatory zeal has developed in favor of more not less, liberty has given ground. To wit, when we are debating if Obamacare imposes a fee or a tax, we have already lost.

The implications of this are sobering. We cannot depend on the Supreme Court to undo that which we as a society have evolved to allow--that is, a belief that government rightly and pragmatically provides solutions. Reversing the tide of government growth requires both changing our understanding of the role of government as well as recognizing that stronger impediments to government growth are needed.

Cross posted at www.liberty.me. 

PS. This topic dovetails with the highly recommended recent Econtalk with Steven Teles discussing the "Kludgeocracy".

Highly Linkable

Let me axe you a question. Have you seen this yet? Welcome to the world of tomorrow!

Remember, its self-proclaimed goal is to be the most transparent administration in history. Perhaps he meant transparently self serving.

Bryan Caplan on Michael Huemer making the moral case for civil disobedience of unjust laws including lying about intending to and acting to thwart their existence.

Perhaps civil disobedience is all the Bag Man is up to as he compensates college football players. Somebody needs to do more for them it seems as even the NCAA is making some desparate changes.

The pace of change is moving rapidly now as I believe the tide of popular opinion is reaching a tipping point. Our side has the true moral high ground. Most people have chosen to ignore the arguments up until now, but that is quickly changing. I can hear so many beginning to say, "Well, I have always thought college athletes deserved more [clumsily define 'more']. It is just that until now [clumsily offer a justification for past injustices] . . ."

Fortunately, there is plenty of money in college athletics (Alabama's football program has higher revenues than any NHL team and 26 of 30 NBA teams) just as there is plenty of profit in non-profit universities.

And just for good measure in closing this sports-heavy link post, Northwestern's Pat Fitzgerald is in a battle with Kentucky's John Calipari to be the worst NCAA spokesman.

The Truth About the Consequences of Limitations

Channelling Andy Rooney . . . Have you ever noticed how the large street signs for businesses remain long after the business it advertised has gone out of business? Sometimes the sign remains even if the building itself is destroyed? You ever notice that? You wonder why? Here's why...

Let me put the Ouija Board up before I stop trimming my eyebrows and start being insensitive and cranky. 

Now on to my answer.

There are at least two reasons at work in most communities, and they are related. First, putting up signs costs money. When a business operation ceases, the owners of the existing property probably hope to replace it with or sell it to a new business operation. That business will likely want a sign; so taking one down, which isn't free, just to put up another, also not free, is inefficient. 

Second, putting up signs costs money--no, I'm not being redundantly repetitive as I restate that again. In the second case I have in mind an artificial cost: a legal permit to put up a sign.

Because high-minded people don't like "ugly" signs that help people navigate to places they'd like to go including places they may not realize they want to go until they see the sign (but I digress), the high-minded people impose limitations on signs and billboards. This has the intended effect of reducing the signs that "blight" our view. The also has the unintended effect of encouraging signs to remain standing even after they don't serve an advertising purpose and are presumably maximizing blight including promoting false information... (Sorry, kids. That wasn't a sign for a Happy, Fun Burger. That was a sign for where a Happy, Fun Burger used to be.) 

I had been thinking about this phenomenon recently when I came across this Megan McArdle article on how limiting divorce may limit marriage in an undesirable way. She adeptly points out that limiting exit can limit entry, which means many couples will not take the generally beneficial step of formal marriage. 

We can say this about the sign permit effect: If you make signs and billboards difficult to put up, you'll make them difficult to take down as well. The unintended consequence of limiting signs coming up is that they will tend to stick around after their use life negating the purpose of the original limitation. We can generalize this to include things like marriage and employment, another issue McArdle brings up: If you make things artificially difficult, you risk discouraging the good versions and encouraging the bad versions of that thing. 

PS. One quibble with a point Megan makes in her last paragraph. She writes, "As conservatives are fond of noting, societies, like economies, are very complex organic systems. We do not understand them, much less control them with a few simple tweaks." I would say conservatives are fond of noting this when it serves their particular purposes. While libertarians recoil at the idea of tweaking society with near-ubiquitous consistency, conservatives are far too tolerant of tweaks in the "right" direction. 

How Big is the Middle?

Two recent Scott Sumner posts on inequality (this one and this one) got me thinking about this thing we like to call "middle class" as well as the two classes that bookend it, rich and poor.

The middle class has two interesting characteristics: just about everyone seems to think they themselves are in it, and no one seems to think a public policy action has a chance if it negatively affects it. As much as we might wish to dismiss these two bits of conventional wisdom, there are reasons to believe they are true. First off, they tend to be a bit self fulfilling as our self identification is a key factor to determine the groups to which we belong (you are who you think and say you are). Additionally, if most everyone thinks actions negative to the middle class will be defeated, then those actions will have a harder time finding support.

Second, most distributions that describe socioeconomic class tend to be shaped like the normal bell curve. In a standard normal distribution, just one standard deviation captures ~68% of the population. Two SD capture ~95% of the population. Just how much deviation from the mathematical average should we accept before we jump to the extreme categories truly rich and truly poor? To answer that we probably need a good definition of what are rich, middle class, and poor. Allow me to offer my suggestion.

My definition of socioeconomic class hinges on the scarcity of two good proxies for wealth: time and money. The rich are those who have no scarcity of money or of time. The poor are those who have a scarcity of both time and money. The middle class are those who have a scarcity of one or the other, but not both or neither. Obviously this casts most of American society in the middle class category. I believe that is a feature not a bug for reasons consistent with the arguments above among others.

Those in the middle class may and probable do vacillate between having money in relative surplus and having time in surplus. Consider this a bit of a middle-class trap. It takes a surge in one or the other to escape to the penthouse, but it likewise takes a dramatic turn of bad fortune to descend to poverty's doorstep. This coupled with the enormous absolute wealth America's middle class commands is a testament to just how good we have it.

To defend my definition I ask you to think about it from the standpoint of a person being asked to do something for a charity. A rich person will make time if the event is to their liking. Otherwise, they'll just write a check. A poor person has basically no options to offer help. A middle class person will tend toward doing for charity what they have the relative surplus in. Obviously as that changes over time, their charitable acts must change too. As an aside, this change presents a difficulty for the charities that grow accustom to a particular person's help. It also shows how poorly suited corporate charity initiatives are for large employee bases. A financial "suggestion" to donate to United Way or a plan for everyone to sing "If I Had a Hammer" with Habitat for Humanity are nice for the company PR ad but bad for the employees and by extension the charities they aim to support.