My six-month term as Baseball Czar Topic

Well I don't think we're ever going to agree on the whole issue of public/private ownership splits. And your whole premise is garbage -- in general, every time something gets privatized the service goes down the toilet.  - Not my experience at all.  In every jurisdiction in which I have had experience, privatization has led to more efficiency and less cost.  And I have worked with literally hundreds, in my job capacity prior to getting into the wine business.

90% of the time it's inherently less efficient because you have to add a profit margin, something is going to give. First, services wouldn't be privatized if the cost was more.  Also, privatization is more efficient because they have to figure the profit margin into a cost that is less than what it takes for government to provide the service.  Basic math.

Privatization works when you need to cover an area that isn't neatly covered by any functioning governmental authority. For instance, waste collection in my area is privatized because companies can cover all of the nebulous area that is "East County" with relative ease, but that's multiple cities and unincorporated areas that can't really be handled by any single government authority well. This is where privatization works. It doesn't work in too many other cases.  Given the information you supply here, it seems the County government could have provided the services yet it chose not to do so. I doubt it did so because it was more expensive to privatize.  Also, you bring up the economies of scale argument: it's cheaper for private companies to provide services cross-jurisdictional than it is for individual jurisdictions to provide said services. Thank you for helping to make my point.

On player salaries in general, the point isn't to limit player salaries per se, it's to ensure the competitive nature of the game. Teams that outspend other teams by too much skew the competitiveness. Simple math.  Regardless of the point or 'simple math', limiting player salaries will weaken the game.   And, as has been shown, it takes a lot more than money to build a successful team and be competitive.

Putting all countries into the draft is a good way to guarantee that those countries rarely if ever have players get into MLB. Scouting internationally is more expensive and teams won't pay for the expense of it if they have to pay players at the same rate. A couple of teams might cover an area but only because of near-exclusivity of being the only ones there.  On the one hand you want to level the playing field by limiting salaries; on the other, you want only the teams that put the money into foreign research to be able to secure these players.  Which is it?  Also, with all due respect I find it laughable to say that the great pool of talent in Latin America would "rarely if ever ... get into MLB."  On the one hand you have the Yasiel Puig story: a friend called a scout who called the Dodgers - hey you gotta see this kid.  On the other, make it so teams are still rewarded for investing in foreign development but they can't tie it up.  Maybe expand the 40-man roster to 50 or 60 with the additional numbers (or most of them) set aside for foreign amateurs (that way a team doesn't just tie up more existing minor league talent, making the Rule 5 draft moot). 

That Lasorda gambit is already illegal by the current rules of MLB, unless Valenzuela started that inning or finished that inning in RF. "A player may not move between pitcher and a position other than pitcher twice in the same inning."  I know, and I think it sucks.

My only issue with five seconds for replay was that it was too arbitrary. Why not six or four? A chance to think helps too. The point is not to slow the game to "maybe" replay the call. (One can make a similar case for the pitch clock, admittedly, but the timing is fairly long.)  I chose five because we live in a Base 10 world and five is half of 10.  Also, it's five seconds after the stoppage of play which does give the manager a little more time.  Still, I'm not married to five.  I just don't want to give the manager time to look at multiple replays before deciding.

TOC Phase Two is a 6-or-7-day event. Day 1: Round of 8. Day 2: 4 1-loss teams, 4 no-loss teams. Day 3: Elimination games for the 4 one-loss teams (Undefeated teams get a bye). Day 4: 2 1-loss teams, 2 no-loss teams. Day 5: Elimination game for 2 1-loss teams (Undefeated team gets a bye). Day 6: Finals. Day 7: If necessary final (if the 1-loss team won on day 6). (Phase One is similar as a 3-day event as we only need to drop down to two teams, don't need a champion of it)  No off days after the tourney starts?  So the WS participants get a small break before Phase Two then play up to seven straight days?  Doesn't sound good to me, if you can even get them to play.  You said players have the option of playing.  If I'm a pitcher coming off the World Series under contract or entering free agency with a solid year behind me and nothing to prove - all but probably 1 or 2 of the staff - I'm skipping the TOC to rest: better than facing third-rate talent and both risking injury after a long season and cutting down on my R&R time.  If I'm a batter with a similar situation plus I se the pitching staff isn't playing, I'm out too.

Baseball is not football. One game: anything can happen. Netherlands has beaten the DR twice in WBC events. The weak leagues have to play Phase One of the TOC. The six teams that go directly to Phase Two are all at least AA-level, except maybe the Caribbean team as those vary wildly from year-to-year (and if you're worried about stability flip it with Mexican League as it is a AA/AAA-level league), and especially given the drain of energy for the MLB teams, they might not automatically win. Can see moving this event to March as well, however, though players on national teams would have hard choices to make some years. Obviously as the leagues around the world continue to grow and adapt the format would be in flux, I just posted the format for what's likely for the current world situation.  I still don't see where any of f this is motivation for players coming off a grueling season and an emotional WS to want to participate.  If anything, it is a disincentive: anything can happen, so I'm going to win the WS only to lose to the Netherlands because my SP had a bad day?  No thanks.

Obviously, under my system the issue of minor league unionization isn't really relevant as it's still all controlled from the major league level. However, with international growth players that get too unhappy with the state of their salary at the level they're at might go shopping their talents to another country, which would likely have a similar union structure, but possibly more money as they'd be at that country's top level and directly within their own negotiations.  Most foreign leagues do not allow many non-native players on their rosters, so currently the USA is the only viable market for non-Major League talent.
 
8/8/2015 2:55 AM (edited)
Services are privatized because companies go into city offices and feed them bullshit about how they can provide the same service for less cost. It almost never works out that way.

And no, in my example the whole point is that the County can't do the same thing -- because, you know, there's East, North, South, and the City, and that means ridiculous driving fleets and such. You have different company divisions that can just focus on their own areas. The company we use doesn't even operate in north county AFAIK. So, yes, privatization works when you have nebulous regional areas that lack a jurisdiction. That's really the ONLY time it works. Any time else you lose efficiency to profit. (Public service: Service provided = Service cost. Privatized: Service provided = Service cost - money not put into the service so the company can profit. In a simple system this will hold. It's only when you have complex systems that make the costs operate strangely, such as the regional areas, where it won't hold.)

You keep saying limiting player salaries will weaken the game without providing a whit of evidence for it. But I forgot how poorly the NFL with its strict salary cap is doing, it's not like it's the most profitable sports league in the world or anything...

If you don't understand how and why the international scouting system works then I don't really have time to go into details about it, or at least that should be a completely separate thread. And I did say "rarely", presumably Puig would still have been found.





You get off days by winning games. If you don't lose than Day 3 and 5 are both off days. (Of course only one team of the eight will manage that.) (And of course, lose twice and you're done.) Also this is presumably neutral site and all being played at 1 stadium or 2 nearby stadiums, so travel isn't an issue.

Obviously, playing more games is good because you earn more money that way. Especially on a % of cap system, the more you play the more your cap expands since it's on a per-game basis. But it's it's really a huge issue, like I said, play this in March then, like all the other internationals. And players have options for playing internationally. Presumably team peer pressure and stuff would keep people playing through the TOC, which is not an international event per se, but rather has teams from different leagues.

While the foreign limitation is there, it's not zero, and it will violate IBAF anti-discrimination policy to be set too low under my administration anyway. The opportunities won't be universal, but they will be there.
8/8/2015 3:31 PM
Posted by uncleal on 8/8/2015 3:31:00 PM (view original):
Services are privatized because companies go into city offices and feed them bullshit about how they can provide the same service for less cost. It almost never works out that way.

And no, in my example the whole point is that the County can't do the same thing -- because, you know, there's East, North, South, and the City, and that means ridiculous driving fleets and such. You have different company divisions that can just focus on their own areas. The company we use doesn't even operate in north county AFAIK. So, yes, privatization works when you have nebulous regional areas that lack a jurisdiction. That's really the ONLY time it works. Any time else you lose efficiency to profit. (Public service: Service provided = Service cost. Privatized: Service provided = Service cost - money not put into the service so the company can profit. In a simple system this will hold. It's only when you have complex systems that make the costs operate strangely, such as the regional areas, where it won't hold.)

You keep saying limiting player salaries will weaken the game without providing a whit of evidence for it. But I forgot how poorly the NFL with its strict salary cap is doing, it's not like it's the most profitable sports league in the world or anything...

If you don't understand how and why the international scouting system works then I don't really have time to go into details about it, or at least that should be a completely separate thread. And I did say "rarely", presumably Puig would still have been found.





You get off days by winning games. If you don't lose than Day 3 and 5 are both off days. (Of course only one team of the eight will manage that.) (And of course, lose twice and you're done.) Also this is presumably neutral site and all being played at 1 stadium or 2 nearby stadiums, so travel isn't an issue.

Obviously, playing more games is good because you earn more money that way. Especially on a % of cap system, the more you play the more your cap expands since it's on a per-game basis. But it's it's really a huge issue, like I said, play this in March then, like all the other internationals. And players have options for playing internationally. Presumably team peer pressure and stuff would keep people playing through the TOC, which is not an international event per se, but rather has teams from different leagues.

While the foreign limitation is there, it's not zero, and it will violate IBAF anti-discrimination policy to be set too low under my administration anyway. The opportunities won't be universal, but they will be there.
Privatization.  Then I guess my experience with, as I said, hundreds of jurisdictions, are the exceptions, not the rule.

County vs. Privatization.  Since I don't know your jurisdiction I cannot speak to specifics as to why a private company can provide county-wide services when the County can't but since it supports my position I won't delve too deeply.  Of course, I could offer the current situation my mother faces, where the City just took over the Water Company and immediately raised rates because they couldn't supply the same services at the same price.  But I guess that's an exception too.

Salary Cap and Salary Limits.  Two different things.  Players are allowed in the NFL to make as much as they can within the cap.  And I thought I explained talent drain rather eloquently in a previous post, so I shan't repeat it here.  Also, don't forget the NFL has the advantage of not needing huge scouting and player development departments, as the NCAA does that for them so that adds dramatically to their profitability.  And wouldn't you rather see more of that profit go to the players?

International scouting.  Please feel free to educate me, as I don't agree with your position one whit.

TOC.  OK, maybe you get off days.  You still don't offer a compelling reason for participation.
8/8/2015 3:45 PM
Since baseball seems to be cruisin' for a return to the Olympics why do we need a TOC?
8/8/2015 4:03 PM
Posted by slotterhodge on 8/8/2015 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Since baseball seems to be cruisin' for a return to the Olympics why do we need a TOC?
TOC is completely different.

Olympics are national teams. As is the WBC. Olympic competition is small and runs during the season and doesn't have MLB players playing in it. The WBC runs during Spring Training and does have the stars play.
8/9/2015 6:13 PM
Posted by pinotfan on 8/8/2015 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by uncleal on 8/8/2015 3:31:00 PM (view original):
Services are privatized because companies go into city offices and feed them bullshit about how they can provide the same service for less cost. It almost never works out that way.

And no, in my example the whole point is that the County can't do the same thing -- because, you know, there's East, North, South, and the City, and that means ridiculous driving fleets and such. You have different company divisions that can just focus on their own areas. The company we use doesn't even operate in north county AFAIK. So, yes, privatization works when you have nebulous regional areas that lack a jurisdiction. That's really the ONLY time it works. Any time else you lose efficiency to profit. (Public service: Service provided = Service cost. Privatized: Service provided = Service cost - money not put into the service so the company can profit. In a simple system this will hold. It's only when you have complex systems that make the costs operate strangely, such as the regional areas, where it won't hold.)

You keep saying limiting player salaries will weaken the game without providing a whit of evidence for it. But I forgot how poorly the NFL with its strict salary cap is doing, it's not like it's the most profitable sports league in the world or anything...

If you don't understand how and why the international scouting system works then I don't really have time to go into details about it, or at least that should be a completely separate thread. And I did say "rarely", presumably Puig would still have been found.





You get off days by winning games. If you don't lose than Day 3 and 5 are both off days. (Of course only one team of the eight will manage that.) (And of course, lose twice and you're done.) Also this is presumably neutral site and all being played at 1 stadium or 2 nearby stadiums, so travel isn't an issue.

Obviously, playing more games is good because you earn more money that way. Especially on a % of cap system, the more you play the more your cap expands since it's on a per-game basis. But it's it's really a huge issue, like I said, play this in March then, like all the other internationals. And players have options for playing internationally. Presumably team peer pressure and stuff would keep people playing through the TOC, which is not an international event per se, but rather has teams from different leagues.

While the foreign limitation is there, it's not zero, and it will violate IBAF anti-discrimination policy to be set too low under my administration anyway. The opportunities won't be universal, but they will be there.
Privatization.  Then I guess my experience with, as I said, hundreds of jurisdictions, are the exceptions, not the rule.

County vs. Privatization.  Since I don't know your jurisdiction I cannot speak to specifics as to why a private company can provide county-wide services when the County can't but since it supports my position I won't delve too deeply.  Of course, I could offer the current situation my mother faces, where the City just took over the Water Company and immediately raised rates because they couldn't supply the same services at the same price.  But I guess that's an exception too.

Salary Cap and Salary Limits.  Two different things.  Players are allowed in the NFL to make as much as they can within the cap.  And I thought I explained talent drain rather eloquently in a previous post, so I shan't repeat it here.  Also, don't forget the NFL has the advantage of not needing huge scouting and player development departments, as the NCAA does that for them so that adds dramatically to their profitability.  And wouldn't you rather see more of that profit go to the players?

International scouting.  Please feel free to educate me, as I don't agree with your position one whit.

TOC.  OK, maybe you get off days.  You still don't offer a compelling reason for participation.
Part of the issue here is that you're accepting the "same service" where no such thing actually exist. In general, the services vary in quality, and usually to the private company's detriment, because the workers are paid much less (esp. once benefits get factored in) and treated like **** in comparison. The jobs created is an important part of the provided service and often overlooked.

Oh, I see what you're saying on the salaries now.... ehhh. The only reason for the limit is because too much money on an individual player is a good way for a team to get screwed over. It's not really a major point here. The minimum and the team cap itself are more important.

*sigh* I will try this, but I am not convinced I can explain this well enough to make sense.

There are basically two parts to any scouting. One is the desire to find the next superstar. Everyone does it, but this is as much luck as anything else. Part of this is finding the player, part of this is the right development factors. It's ultimately a crapshoot. Scouting departments will be on the look to do this, but it isn't by any means the department's bread and butter, because its simply unreliable. Scouts that claim to have found the next Babe Ruth (or even Matt Holliday) get eyerolls and/or knowing smiles in response.

Most scouting is simply trying to find players that have potential. They might not even have Major League potential, but that doesn't necessarily matter. Someone that's close can always surprise you. You want someone that you see something that can be developed. Given the crapshoot nature of scouting, you are going to do this in the most cost-effective manner possible. Sure, the only way to make you don't miss a star is to "scout everything", but as I said, that's a luck based thing and isn't the point. So it's all about cost-benefit. International scouting costs way more than domestic scouting, because travel costs, higher cost of paying someone to live far away, especially with the talents to speak the language as well, the scarcity of internet in the developing world (and most scouting these days is latin america), the contract complexity of international relations, and a few other reasons. The reason it's profitable to do is because the players exist out of the draft and can be signed for considerably less than a drafted prospect in 90% of cases, especially if you're one of only a few teams in a particular area.

If you put these players in the draft the signing requirement becomes just as much as domestic signings and the costs associated with scouting them remain identical (much higher than domestic signings), as such, it becomes way less cost-effective to scout these areas, and you might find teams carving out areas of exclusivity just to look for those stars, and not going after each other's territories much because it makes it harder on both teams. This ultimately depresses the pipeline to the MLB by the reduction of competition. Now, with my world league system, amateur international signings might become less of a factor as players that have that kind of potential start playing in their own domestic or nearby international professional leagues quickly, and go through posting from there.

(It should also be noted that the costs of development internationally are also much higher for similar reasons as scouting.)
8/9/2015 6:47 PM
A couple other changes:

1 - do away with 'bullpens' that are in the field of play.  Put those suckers behind walls, and keep the warm-up pitchers mounds away from the field of play.

2 - do away with the 'don't assume a double play' when determining errors.  Leave it up to the scorer whether the double-play would have been made, thereby determining whether it's an error or a fielders' choice.  We let the scorer determine hits and errors now; especially with instant replay, determining whether or not the double play would have been completed absent an errant throw is simple enough.
8/14/2015 11:04 PM
From today's NY Times: The author senses some of the problems I hope to address as Baseball Czar:

 
 

In Sharing Baseball's Joys, Mourning Something Lost

NY Times  August 30, 2015
 

With our road trip just days away, I was having second thoughts. Was this going to be too much baseball? I asked my son. “No such thing as too much baseball!” he answered. I smiled. We were ready.

The last time I did this, a number of concrete, cookie-cutter stadiums still dotted the country, Pete Rose’s legend was still untainted and Barry Bonds was still a skinny kid making a name for himself in Pittsburgh. That was the summer of 1987, when two buddies and I set off in a rusted-out Chevy station wagon, determined to hit every baseball stadium we could between New York and California.

This would be a truncated version: eight games in eight days, covering five cities, six stadiums and 1,800 miles from Washington, D.C., to Chicago and back. I would have to do all the driving this time; my traveling companions — my two young sons — aren’t old enough to drive. My wife, a psychologist, looked at me as if I’d lost my mind, the appeal of cruising the Rust Belt in search of baseball games somehow lost on her. But the boys, who had been tracking potential pitching matchups for weeks, couldn’t wait. “Stadium hot dogs and hamburgers for a week!” screamed Andrew, 12, as we loaded into the car.

I wanted them to remember this trip years from now in happy Technicolor tones, the same way I remembered my own postcollege trek. But beneath the Norman Rockwell veneer, I knew that the game itself had changed in the three decades since then, and not always for the better.

Fans of the Home Team Wherever

“You’re a long way from home,” the woman at the ticket window in Cincinnati said as she glanced at my driver’s license. Indeed we were, but for the next three hours, the boys bled Cincinnati red, whooping it up like fans at a W.W.E. match as two bench-clearing brawls erupted. Wherever we were, we adopted the home team as our own, leaving our Nationals colors at home. (Not hard, the way the Nats have been playing.) In Milwaukee, we were die-hard Brewers fans for a night, schmoozing with the former slugger Gorman Thomas as he peddled barbecue sauce. In Chicago, the boys hollered along with the White Sox fans as a bases-loaded walk won the game in extra innings. In Cleveland, we were Indians converts, as the Tribe pummeled the Twins with 17 runs. And by the time we got to Pittsburgh, they were proud “Bucs” in new Andrew McCutchen T-shirts, as “Cutch” homered.

On my ’87 trip, I’d scribbled game highlights in a bound journal; now, Matthew, 14, wrote them up in real time, posting them on his website for friends back home. The parks had changed significantly since then, too. Gone were the soulless, multipurpose stadiums so common in that era, replaced by architectural marvels like Miller Park in Milwaukee and PNC Park in Pittsburgh. These weren’t mere stadiums; they were veritable theme parks, with whiffle-ball fields, “fun zones,” batting cages, pitching contests and almost anything a kid could want if he got bored with the game. Missed a play while off shagging whiffle balls? No worry: catch the replay on the Jumbotron in center field. “You know, when I was growing up,” I said at one game, “the stadiums didn’t even have ——”

“No, not again,” the boys broke in.

They lapped it all up. The passion for baseball that my father had passed down to me as a kid, taking me each summer to Yankee Stadium near his boyhood home in the Bronx, I was now passing on to my own children. “I decided,” Andrew announced in Milwaukee, “that in 30 years, I’m going to take you and my kids on a baseball trip just like this!”

Yet as I took all this in, I realized there was something lost, something intangible, and it was the innocence of the game itself. Even at their age, my boys seemed more jaded about the game than I had ever been in watching Don Mattingly and Orel Hershiser back in ’87. They had become jaded by the steroid scandals, by the inflated salaries, by the pampered athletes, by the selling of the game to corporations that paid millions to slap their names on all those beautiful new stadiums. Take me out to U.S. Cellular Field, anyone?

It’s a bit facile to look back on a simpler, less tarnished time in baseball. The truth is there has always been shame and disgrace in the game, whether it was the 1919 Black Sox scandal, the decades-long ban on black players, or the occasional dust-up in my youth over spitballers. But the notion that something deeply corrosive had eaten away at today’s game became unavoidable as I examined the game through my sons’ eyes.

In the Black Sox scandal almost a century ago, in which players conspired to fix the World Series, a boy’s plaintive plea — Say it ain’t so, Joe — resonated so deeply because fans were shocked to discover their heroes were cheating. Now the surprise for my kids is to find the players who are clean.

At every stop, we watched someone tainted by performance-enhancing drugs, whether it was the Brewers’ Ryan Braun, the Reds’ Marlon Byrd or the White Sox’ Melky Cabrera — the kids knew about all of them and freely aired their suspicions about others. “Must be on steroids,” they would say of a hitter showing surprising pop. Or “His shipment hasn’t come in,” they would say of a slumping hitter batting .198 while making $15 million.

Outside the park in Milwaukee, we stopped at Hank Aaron’s statue. Hammerin’ Hank broke Babe Ruth’s hallowed homer mark when I was a kid. I told the boys how clearly I remembered Al Downing serving up the pitch that led to No. 715. “Aaron should still be considered the home run champ, not Barry Bonds,” Matthew remarked as we gazed up at the statue. Sadly, he had never known the lightning-fast, five-tool Bonds I remembered. The only Bonds he knew was the bulked-up one accused of doping his way to 762 home runs.

In Cincinnati, we walked past a mural of the Big Red Machine, the best team of my youth. There was Pete Rose. My kids know him because of his 4,256 hits — but they also know him because he was the guy who bet on baseball. “He should still be in the Hall of Fame — lots of guys cheat and get in the Hall,” Andrew said matter-of-factly. Cynical as it was, it was hard to argue with his rationale.

For all the controversies, the kids still had their heroes — at least until we got to Wrigley Field.

A Hard Lesson

Andrew had idolized Buster Posey, the San Francisco Giants catcher, ever since he came back from a season-ending injury in 2011 to win the Most Valuable Player Award the next year. A pair of Cubs-Giants games we would see at Wrigley Field were marked on Andrew’s calendar for weeks, and he came to the park in one of his Posey jerseys and Giants cap, waving an orange sign he made reading: “Posey for Prez!”

It wasn’t a good night for the Giants, with Posey flying out to seal a loss. Afterward, Andrew waited excitedly at a hideaway in the stadium where I’d heard visiting players sometimes emerged after showering to catch the bus. Sure enough, 20 minutes later, a tall, bearded man walked out alone. “Mr. Bumgarner!” Andrew yelled. “Can I get your autograph?” Smiling, Bumgarner, the M.V.P. of last year’s World Series signed balls and caps for Andrew, Matthew and three other boys nearby. Four other Giants soon followed and did the same. Then came Posey, security guards at his side. “Mr. Posey! Mr. Posey!” Andrew yelled. “Could I get your autograph?” I held the “Posey for Prez!” sign over his head. The All-Star waved him off. He always seemed to be smiling in his commercials, but now he just looked annoyed as he walked away. “Maybe he’s just having a bad night,” I offered.

The next day, after another Giants loss, Andrew was back at the same spot, waiting and hoping for a different result. Again, Posey walked right past the handful of boys pleading for an autograph. He didn’t even look up this time. “What a jerk,” Andrew said. I was still holding his “Posey for Prez!” sign. Andrew grabbed it out of my hand, crumpled it up and stuffed it into a garbage can outside Wrigley.

Somewhere amid the trash was a life lesson for a crushed 12-year-old about the way heroes can disappoint us. But that could wait for another day. We had a game the next night in Cleveland, 350 miles away, and we needed to hit the road. The Indians were giving away Michael Brantley bobbleheads, and we wanted to get there early.

8/30/2015 7:12 AM
And without having time to get into all the issues that pinotfan raises, let me address this part of his argument above:

"Well I don't think we're ever going to agree on the whole issue of public/private ownership splits. And your whole premise is garbage -- in general, every time something gets privatized the service goes down the toilet.  - Not my experience at all.  In every jurisdiction in which I have had experience, privatization has led to more efficiency and less cost.  And I have worked with literally hundreds, in my job capacity prior to getting into the wine business.

90% of the time it's inherently less efficient because you have to add a profit margin, something is going to give. First, services wouldn't be privatized if the cost was more.  Also, privatization is more efficient because they have to figure the profit margin into a cost that is less than what it takes for government to provide the service.  Basic math."

His second argument is easy to refute: privatization in SOME cases may take place because there are savings or efficiency gains - that is because there are rational public policy choices that in THAT situation might warrant privatization of something or other. Maybe. But we know that many public policies are the result of effective lobbying by effective lobbies and that powerful business interests are THE more effective lobbies, and so it is impossible to ignore the likelihood that most privatization happens because some powerful business lobby sees an opportunity for profits and pressures and funds law makers to make that happen. In fact, based on Milton Friedman's doctrine that the only social responsibility of management is to make profits for shareholders, were it possible to make profits by successfully lobbying for the privatization of some public services otherwise managed quite reasonably well in the public interest by civil servants, it would immoral for business NOT to lobby to make that happen EVEN at the cost of screwing taxpayers. 

As for the first point, NO private insurance company in the world is able to provide medical insurance at the low cost and efficiency of Medicare. Anywhere. NO private business is as secure as Social Security which in fact has trillions in its fund. Of the Fortune global 500, over 100 companies are Chinese state owned businesses. The most stable investment funds in the world are all Sovereign Funds of countries like UAE, Norway and so on. 

Governments invented writing, math, civilization itself, they built the pyramids and the Great Wall of China which are both still standing (what is the privately constructed anything that is oldest in the world? Good trivia question) and which STILL provide incomes from tourism and related services to the people in those countries thousands of years later, just as do the Cathedrals of medieval Europe mostly constructed by city-state governments over centuries providing work and artistic beauty for centuries. The US government (quite unjustly) conquered and made possible settlement by European-descendents of the continent, built the railroads linking the continent, tied the country together with the Postal Service from the Pony Express on (who will deliver grandma's mail to rural Montana if there is no profit in doing so I wonder? She better pay for AOL if she wants any contact with the outside world I guess), passed the HOmestead Act, provided land to the Land Grant colleges to create public universities in the whole West, built the Erie Canal to link the Great Lakes with the Atlantic, ended slavery, held the country together through the Great Depression with the New Deal so that many who oppose government programs are probably alive today only because their ancestors had food and shelter thanks to government programs, passed the GI Bill and later the National SEcurity student aid system to fund mass college education, won two World Wars and the Cold War, went to the moon, built the interstate highway system, brought electricity to the whole Southeast with the Tennessee VAlley Authority (ingrates all vote GOP now but watch TV and have air conditioning), funded the research that led to both the Internet and Silicon Valley, rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan, and by the way started the whole privatized, free trade, globalization thing (no corporation could have made that happen). 

Yet there are still people who are convinced that "the government can't do anything right".   Amazing victory of propaganda by private interests. Amazing. 




8/30/2015 7:30 AM
Great post, italyprof!
8/30/2015 11:56 AM

Ah Italyprof, King of the Straw Man Argument.  I NEVER said or even intimated that government has no role and that there aren’t some things they do better – or at least, are capable of doing when private enterprise cannot.

Governments invented writing, math, civilization itself, No, people did.  People got together to form civilizations (and governments) after the development of agriculture, which enabled permanent settlements.  Writing/math were created by ‘businessmen’ as a way of tracking inventory and accounts.  Writing and math pre-date civilization and, ergo, government. 

they built the pyramids and the Great Wall of China which are both still standing  First, private enterprise really was not a factor in the economy until the 1700s so throwing out things like the Pyramids and the Great Wall is a specious argument at best.  Yes, consortiums started in the 1500s but they were a relatively insignificant part of the landscape.  Second, do you REALLY want to offer in your defense that a slave-driven economy is better?

built the railroads  Really?  And all this time I thought it was people like Stanford, Vanderbilt, Hill, etc.

tied the country together with the Postal Service from the Pony Express on.  Given the size of the country, private enterprise lacked the resources to be able to deliver mail.  And in a world where both government and private business was conducted often by mail, having delivery guaranteed by the government was essential for public and international confidence (private enterprise was still a new phenomenon) – similar to issuing currency.  Today, who knows?  As a side note, the Pony Express is a terrible example to offer.  It was disastrously inefficient and folded in all of six months.

built the Erie Canal to link the Great Lakes with the Atlantic,  Actually, Jesse Hawley and Joseph Ellicott were responsible for building the canal.

held the country together through the Great Depression with the New Deal  As we have gotten further away from that period in time and it is no longer considered a sin to speak ill of King Delano, many economists are now pointing out how much damage the New Deal did and what role it played in prolonging the economic hardships of the Great Depression.  In Franklin's defense, we understand more about how the economy works today than we did in the 1930s.

the National SEcurity student aid system to fund mass college education  I’m not sure what the National Security Student Aid system is, but all the mass funding of education by the government has accomplished is raise tuition and fatten the coffers of institutions of higher education (according to numerous studies, almost 70% of government student aid money goes to higher fees and profits).  Money has rarely been an impediment to higher education – grants and loans have always been available to those who qualify.  The impediment is a broken K-12 education system that turns out students who don’t qualify for grants and loans.  Government’s solution?  Lower admission standards and throw more money at tuitions.

When does government get credit for something, as opposed to merely responding to public pressure?  There are instances cited, such as the Homestead Act, land grant colleges, and ending slavery, where the government had the means to implement policy changes demanded by the populace.  For the Homestead Acts, the government owned the property so yes, they were responsible for enacting the change in policy – in reaction to public pressure – to allow for increased settlement (similar argument for colleges).  As for ending slavery in the US, private enterprise does not possess the resources to wage war so yes the government implicated public will.  If these are considered things that governments do better than private enterprise, so be it.

And again, I’m not an anarchist.  I agree the GI Bill is magnificent and we can and should continue to do more for those in our armed forces both during and after service.  Private companies don’t wage wars (well, unless you’re Haliburton … lol) and I’m thrilled the Allies won WWI and WWII; and government’s military buildup coupled with unleashing the forces of capitalism resulted in the fall of the Soviet Union.  Going to the moon was awesome – I remember watching it live – and the interstate highway system is great.  Providing services such as police and fire protection and getting utilities to my home are conveniences I don’t want to give up.  Government has its role; it’s just not the answer to everything.

Before I get off my soapbox, I’d like to address one thing that has been brought up often.  There is a misconception that private enterprise doing something must cost more than government doing it because there has to be profit.  First, if that’s the case, why outsource?  If government can do it cheaper why would it willingly increase costs?  The assumption is that costs of performing tasks remain the same, which is a false assumption.

Second, there is the issue of budget.  Government has a budget to perform a certain task, say $1,000,000.  They let a contract to perform the function for $1,000,000 and every dollar that the contractor can save (i.e., perform the contracted functions for less than $1,000,000) is profit.  There is an incentive to be as efficient as possible.  Now, if government is performing the function and the person in charge is able to complete the tasks for $900,000, what happens?  He/she gets the budget redduced in the next budgeting cycle.  There is an actual incentive to be inefficient, spend MORE than the budget, so your budget gets increased.  That is Evidence #1 why I feel that government should be limited to performing the functions only government can do.

All right, I’m going back to watching the Angels lose again …

8/30/2015 3:13 PM
You got a source on that criticism of the New Deal programs? Because that's news to me.

That whole bit on education is just total ignorance. Yes, the system is broken. It's broken because greedy people refuse to consider paying for the general education of the people -- and what we get is K-12 educational funding restricted to the grants from the immediate local area property taxes, and thus massive funding gulfs between rich and poor areas. 95% of educational issues can be traced back to this. Qualifying for government grants and loans has nothing to do with achievement per se, as long as you stay eligible (full-time student, 2.0+ GPA), so I have no clue what you're talking about here. Yes, the cost of education is too damn high and a lot of it has to do with wasteful spending by universities -- but it also has very much to do with the fact that wages are too damn low -- it used to be that you could work your way through school, but then businesses paid a living wage. In fact, the issues with qualification for grants and loans is that the limited funding means they have to restrict based on family earnings to where there's a huge middle class gap between being able to afford college, and qualifying for these things.

Outsourcing is a straw man here. Outsourcing occurs when you have exploitative trade agreements between rich and poor countries, where companies from rich countries can pay workers in poor countries a pittance and save money that way. Even governments do this, as you note, but the way is paved by the exploitative situation in the first place.

Also, anyone performing that sort of cynical inefficiency that you mention in the last bit should be reported and fired. Just because some people do this does not mean it is acceptable conduct.
8/30/2015 3:35 PM
You got a source on that criticism of the New Deal programs? Because that's news to me.  The Cato Institute is the first that comes to mind; I'm sure I could search and find others, but I'd wager you have just as good access to Google as I do.

That whole bit on education is just total ignorance. Yes, the system is broken. It's broken because greedy people refuse to consider paying for the general education of the people -- and what we get is K-12 educational funding restricted to the grants from the immediate local area property taxes, and thus massive funding gulfs between rich and poor areas. 95% of educational issues can be traced back to this. Qualifying for government grants and loans has nothing to do with achievement per se, as long as you stay eligible (full-time student, 2.0+ GPA), so I have no clue what you're talking about here. Yes, the cost of education is too damn high and a lot of it has to do with wasteful spending by universities -- but it also has very much to do with the fact that wages are too damn low -- it used to be that you could work your way through school, but then businesses paid a living wage. In fact, the issues with qualification for grants and loans is that the limited funding means they have to restrict based on family earnings to where there's a huge middle class gap between being able to afford college, and qualifying for these things.  There are a lot of things wrong with our educational system - having a brother who is a CTA leader, believe me I know it.  To address your points - and I can only speak to California:
1 - funding is not restricted to property taxes but is negotiated as part of the budget process.  California’s K-12 public schools receive funding from three sources: the state (57%), property taxes and other local sources (29%), and the federal government (14%).

2 - as for achievement-based grants/loans, I'm speaking of private funding resources.  Without even looking too hard I found over 3000 sources of scholarships (that's sources not individual scholarships) just for California-only.
3 - 'Living Wage' is not a valid argument: the cost per unit for courses at a California community college is only $46, an incredible bargain.

Outsourcing is a straw man here. Outsourcing occurs when you have exploitative trade agreements between rich and poor countries, where companies from rich countries can pay workers in poor countries a pittance and save money that way. Even governments do this, as you note, but the way is paved by the exploitative situation in the first place.  I'm no talking about businesses outsourcing overseas; I'm talking about government contracting with a private company to provide services. 

Also, anyone performing that sort of cynical inefficiency that you mention in the last bit should be reported and fired. Just because some people do this does not mean it is acceptable conduct.  Acceptable or not, it's common - or at least it was when I worked in conjunction with government.  Maybe if whistle-blower laws were expanded to include reporting this activity (maybe they already include this, I don't know), we'd see more responsibility. 
8/30/2015 5:45 PM
Anybody else here a fan of the late Tony Judt?  His writing touched on a lot of what's being discussed here.   "Ill Fares the Land" in particular is a great collection of essays...
8/30/2015 10:41 PM
Cato Institute? Legitimate source? BAHAHAHA!

1) Right, but the funding is still very much proportional based on the property taxes in California. That's why we have such inequity. (I actually substitute teach in San Diego Unified, it's easy to see differences between schools in different areas on this note.) I did mis-speak when I implied all funding comes from the property taxes, but they are a significant enough source -- and the funding distribution in general is different enough -- to be noticeable. 
2) Third-party scholarships are scholarships and do not fit under the category of grants or loans.
3) We weren't talking about community colleges, and you can't get a bachelor's degree from one (at least not until this coming year where I think a couple are trying this out) -- I went to a CCC for two years and loved it. If the model were to be applied more broadly that would probably be great, although it might hurt advancements in research.

Well, if that's what you were talking about, I think italyprof already answered this one.

Agreed, that would be nice. Unfortunately our government seems more inclined to arrest and hold whistleblowers in solitary confinement for ridiculously minor charges (see: Chelsea Manning.) This would be a major point of overhaul on any administration I would personally attempt.
8/30/2015 11:05 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
My six-month term as Baseball Czar Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.