|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 3, 2014 18:16:49 GMT
Presumably, most others here know (or at least suspect) that I am a fan of George Will. He is exceedingly cerebral. Very few others--perhaps Rich Lowry, Richard Brookhiser, and the late William F. Buckley Jr.--can compare to him, in this regard. What many may not realize, however, is that Mr. Will is an avid baseball fan--to phrae it as mildly as possible. In fact, on several occasions, he has mused that he does politics just to support his baseball habit. (His 1990 bestseller, Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball, stands as a tribute to this fact.) A recent interview with his fellow conservative, Hugh Hewitt--as regarding his latest book, A Nice Little Place on the North Side: Wrigley Field at 100--makes for a very good read. Following are a few of Mr. Will's comments from this interview: Mr. Will does note, however, that there is an upside to being a Cubs fan: One is really never disappointed, since one always has very low expectations--even in those (rare) years in which the Cubs appear to be faring quite well. The entire interview is remarkably good (albeit rather lengthy). For those with the extra time necessary to read and fully disgest it, here is the link: Not An April Fools' Joke: Tribe Wins Opener With A Shutout And George Will On Bud Selig And The Commissioner's Job « The Hugh Hewitt Show |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 4, 2014 12:56:23 GMT
A great commentary on baseball but a poor commentary on politics. Former President Reagan didn't win the Cold War. He just happened to be the US President when the USSR collapsed. Correlation =/= Causation
I do agree that much has been lost with modern scoreboards as I recall actually keeping a scorecard while at a baseball game when I was young. I'd bet that not one in one hundred people even know how to do that today. Most younger Americans probably wouldn't even recognize a baseball scorecard if they saw one. Like George Will I also kept track of the pitches to the batter by annotation although there isn't a field for it. You had to simply add it to the "at bat" box.
Technology and money have dimished the game in many resepects IMHO because people actually had to know baseball, not look everything up on the internet, and the players played for the love of the game and "salaries" were secondary to that.
BTW Watched the movie "Bobby Jones - A Stroke of Genius" for the first time last night. It is a great golf story about a man that played exclusively for the love of the game as an amateur, never turning pro for the money, that was unquestionably the greatest player of his time and perhaps the greatest golfer ever. A great movie if you've never seen it |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 4, 2014 23:19:31 GMT
A great commentary on baseball but a poor commentary on politics. Former President Reagan didn't win the Cold War. He just happened to be the US President when the USSR collapsed. Correlation =/= Causation
I do agree that much has been lost with modern scoreboards as I recall actually keeping a scorecard while at a baseball game when I was young. I'd bet that not one in one hundred people even know how to do that today. Most younger Americans probably wouldn't even recognize a baseball scorecard if they saw one. Like George Will I also kept track of the pitches to the batter by annotation although there isn't a field for it. You had to simply add it to the "at bat" box.
Technology and money have dimished the game in many resepects IMHO because people actually had to know baseball, not look everything up on the internet, and the players played for the love of the game and "salaries" were secondary to that.
BTW Watched the movie "Bobby Jones - A Stroke of Genius" for the first time last night. It is a great golf story about a man that played exclusively for the love of the game as an amateur, never turning pro for the money, that was unquestionably the greatest player of his time and perhaps the greatest golfer ever. A great movie if you've never seen it Thanks for the response. (For the record, I believe Mr. Will's comments as concerning the Cubs having won the Cold War were a bit tongue-in-cheek--much as his assertion that Harry Carey had ruined his life was. But, as for then-President Reagan, I believe his unrelenting pressure on the former Soviet Union--his insistence upon our engaging in a winner-take-all arms race, complete with the Peacekeeper missile--contributed more to the USSR's ultimate demise than internal instability did. Much more, in fact.) Oh, on tonight's Special Report on FNC, George Will repeated a joke (which I had never before heard). It goes like this: Question: What do the Chicago Cubs and the Miami Marlins have in common? Answer: Neither has ever won a World Series in its new ballpark. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 5, 2014 15:53:59 GMT
Thanks for the response. (For the record, I believe Mr. Will's comments as concerning the Cubs having won the Cold War were a bit tongue-in-cheek--much as his assertion that Harry Carey had ruined his life was. But, as for then-President Reagan, I believe his unrelenting pressure on the former Soviet Union--his insistence upon our engaging in a winner-take-all arms race, complete with the Peacekeeper missile--contributed more to the USSR's ultimate demise than internal instability did. Much more, in fact.) Oh, on tonight's Special Report on FNC, George Will repeated a joke (which I had never before heard). It goes like this: Question: What do the Chicago Cubs and the Miami Marlins have in common? Answer: Neither has ever won a World Series in its new ballpark.
If memory serves me as I recall in 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed the USSR and US had 400-times the nuclear weapons necessary to destroy all advanced life-forms in Earth and the "Arms Race" was technically over. The USSR had no fears of a US attack or invasion then or now and the "Arms Race" had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I like George Will and his comments on sports, baseball specifically, and perhaps he should stick to something he knows.
On a tangent theme the Seattle Seahawks just won the Superbowl and I've been reminding others here of what happened with the last major Seattle sports franchise that won a championship. The Seattle Supersonics packed up their bags and left so how long will it be until the Seahawks abandon Seattle? LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 5, 2014 19:02:53 GMT
Thanks for the response. (For the record, I believe Mr. Will's comments as concerning the Cubs having won the Cold War were a bit tongue-in-cheek--much as his assertion that Harry Carey had ruined his life was. But, as for then-President Reagan, I believe his unrelenting pressure on the former Soviet Union--his insistence upon our engaging in a winner-take-all arms race, complete with the Peacekeeper missile--contributed more to the USSR's ultimate demise than internal instability did. Much more, in fact.) Oh, on tonight's Special Report on FNC, George Will repeated a joke (which I had never before heard). It goes like this: Question: What do the Chicago Cubs and the Miami Marlins have in common? Answer: Neither has ever won a World Series in its new ballpark.
If memory serves me as I recall in 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed the USSR and US had 400-times the nuclear weapons necessary to destroy all advanced life-forms in Earth and the "Arms Race" was technically over. The USSR had no fears of a US attack or invasion then or now and the "Arms Race" had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I like George Will and his comments on sports, baseball specifically, and perhaps he should stick to something he knows.
On a tangent theme the Seattle Seahawks just won the Superbowl and I've been reminding others here of what happened with the last major Seattle sports franchise that won a championship. The Seattle Supersonics packed up their bags and left so how long will it be until the Seahawks abandon Seattle? LOL
Actually, the purpose of the 1980s-era arms race was NOT to be able to win a nuclear war against the Soviet Union--as Ronald Reagan once put it, a nuclear war can never be won; so it must never be fought--but to render it impossible for the USSR to keep up with the US, even in terms of conventional arms. (Reagan's strategy of forcing down the price of a barrel of oil, thereby strangling the Soviet economy--and therefore making it impossible for the Soviet Union to compete, militarily--worked!) As for George Will's knowledge of politics--and he has, admittedly, often opined that he does politics just to support his baseball habit--it is probably fair to assert that he knows more about political philosophy than the two of us put together. (By the way, I do not say that with any intended disrespect for you; you are actually quite knowledgeable, when compared with most others on various political forums that I frequent. But George Will is exceptionally well-informed and trenchant in this regard, I believe. Only a handful of others--perhaps Rich Lowry, Richard Brookhiser, and the late William F. Buckley Jr.--strike me as being similarly cerebral. Whenever I disagree with the man--as I occasionally do--it is a bit reluctantly, and with proper deference to his analytical abilities.) As regarding the Seahawks: Yes, perhaps they will choose to move to Oklahoma City... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 6, 2014 9:10:28 GMT
Actually, the purpose of the 1980s-era arms race was NOT to be able to win a nuclear war against the Soviet Union--as Ronald Reagan once put it, a nuclear war can never be won; so it must never be fought--but to render it impossible for the USSR to keep up with the US, even in terms of conventional arms. (Reagan's strategy of forcing down the price of a barrel of oil, thereby strangling the Soviet economy--and therefore making it impossible for the Soviet Union to compete, militarily--worked!) As for George Will's knowledge of politics--and he has, admittedly, often opined that he does politics just to support his baseball habit--it is probably fair to assert that he knows more about political philosophy than the two of us put together. (By the way, I do not say that with any intended disrespect for you; you are actually quite knowledgeable, when compared with most others on various political forums that I frequent. But George Will is exceptionally well-informed and trenchant in this regard, I believe. Only a handful of others--perhaps Rich Lowry, Richard Brookhiser, and the late William F. Buckley Jr.--strike me as being similarly cerebral. Whenever I disagree with the man--as I occasionally do--it is a bit reluctantly, and with proper deference to his analytical abilities.) As regarding the Seahawks: Yes, perhaps they will choose to move to Oklahoma City...
Reagan did not control oil prices in the 1980's. OPEC (using monopolistic business practices) and Russia (the world's second largest exporter of oil behind Saudi Arabia) controlled the prices of oil. Russia has vast oil reserves and will be one of the last countries to run out of oil. The United States is an oil importing country that was forced to pay the price set by OPEC in the 1980's.
I've met a lot of "smart people" that are "stupid" in my day. In fact when I read the Libertarian Party Platform, supposedly created by very smart people, there are some downright stupid propositions. For example the LP advocates that welfare assistance come from the family and the comminity but when the family and the community are both in poverty they don't have any money to provide welfare assistance with. They don't even address the problem which is poverty but merely seek to change the financial burden to the "private sector" as opposed to the "public sector" which does nothing to reduce the costs of poverty.
You might respect political commentators like George Will, Rich Lowry, Richard Brookhiser, and the late William F. Buckley Jr. but I would propose a simply litmus test. If any of the above claim that secondary investments (i.e. stock transactions, money markets, hedge funds, etc.) creates jobs they are idiots. Only consumption creates jobs. No matter how much is "invested" if there isn't consumption then no jobs are created in the end. Solyndra is a perfect example of a lot of investment and virtually no consumption leading to bankruptcy. Trickle-down economics has never worked and will never work. Solyndra, with about one billion dollars in total investment, would have succeeded if Trickle-down worked.
I kid people here that the Seahawks are going to end up in Los Angeles because it doesn't have an NFL team.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 6, 2014 18:49:28 GMT
Actually, the purpose of the 1980s-era arms race was NOT to be able to win a nuclear war against the Soviet Union--as Ronald Reagan once put it, a nuclear war can never be won; so it must never be fought--but to render it impossible for the USSR to keep up with the US, even in terms of conventional arms. (Reagan's strategy of forcing down the price of a barrel of oil, thereby strangling the Soviet economy--and therefore making it impossible for the Soviet Union to compete, militarily--worked!) As for George Will's knowledge of politics--and he has, admittedly, often opined that he does politics just to support his baseball habit--it is probably fair to assert that he knows more about political philosophy than the two of us put together. (By the way, I do not say that with any intended disrespect for you; you are actually quite knowledgeable, when compared with most others on various political forums that I frequent. But George Will is exceptionally well-informed and trenchant in this regard, I believe. Only a handful of others--perhaps Rich Lowry, Richard Brookhiser, and the late William F. Buckley Jr.--strike me as being similarly cerebral. Whenever I disagree with the man--as I occasionally do--it is a bit reluctantly, and with proper deference to his analytical abilities.) As regarding the Seahawks: Yes, perhaps they will choose to move to Oklahoma City...
Reagan did not control oil prices in the 1980's. OPEC (using monopolistic business practices) and Russia (the world's second largest exporter of oil behind Saudi Arabia) controlled the prices of oil. Russia has vast oil reserves and will be one of the last countries to run out of oil. The United States is an oil importing country that was forced to pay the price set by OPEC in the 1980's.
I've met a lot of "smart people" that are "stupid" in my day. In fact when I read the Libertarian Party Platform, supposedly created by very smart people, there are some downright stupid propositions. For example the LP advocates that welfare assistance come from the family and the comminity but when the family and the community are both in poverty they don't have any money to provide welfare assistance with. They don't even address the problem which is poverty but merely seek to change the financial burden to the "private sector" as opposed to the "public sector" which does nothing to reduce the costs of poverty.
You might respect political commentators like George Will, Rich Lowry, Richard Brookhiser, and the late William F. Buckley Jr. but I would propose a simply litmus test. If any of the above claim that secondary investments (i.e. stock transactions, money markets, hedge funds, etc.) creates jobs they are idiots. Only consumption creates jobs. No matter how much is "invested" if there isn't consumption then no jobs are created in the end. Solyndra is a perfect example of a lot of investment and virtually no consumption leading to bankruptcy. Trickle-down economics has never worked and will never work. Solyndra, with about one billion dollars in total investment, would have succeeded if Trickle-down worked.
I kid people here that the Seahawks are going to end up in Los Angeles because it doesn't have an NFL team.
I believe that Ronald Reagan's propensity for domestic drilling helped force down the price of a barrel of oil, significantly, by flooding the world market; and the predictable consequence of this was the undercutting of the Soviet Union's economy. I would be very careful, I think, about the use of such tendentious (and obviously pejorative) terms as "[t]ricle-down economics." The more accurate term, I think, is Austrian-school economics. Or even Chicago-school economics (as typified by the late Milton Friedman). Oh, by the way: It does certainly seem as though a city as large as Los Angeles--the second-largest city in the US--should have at least one NFL franchise. (It once had two: The Raiders--who had relocated from Oakland, and would eventually return there--and the Rams were both representatives of the City of Angels. Of course, the Rams would move to St. Louis--which had once experienced its own problem, when it lost its NBA team, the Hawks, to Atlanta in the 1960s.) |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 6, 2014 18:55:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 8, 2014 12:29:53 GMT
I would agree that the that the real hero of the Cold War was Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and not President Ronald Reagan.
The USSR didn't require the military strength in 1989 that it had in the 1950's. It was still the second strongest military force, behind only the US, and it could rationally reduce it's military expenditures.
What I found ironic, and that I disagreed with very much at the time, is that the US intervened in the Russian elections to get Boris Yeltsin elected in 1990. It would be like China intervening in the US Presidental elections to get their "candidate" elected here in the US. Former President Reagan was behind this political interventionism in the sovereign affairs of Russia and should be rightfully condemned for this political interventionism that corrupted the election. Of interest the US actually supported the USSR with wheat shipments to it during the 1970's and 1980's. It would have imploded sooner had we not been feeding the Russian people for two decades. I believe we were trading wheat for oil at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 8, 2014 13:11:02 GMT
I believe that Ronald Reagan's propensity for domestic drilling helped force down the price of a barrel of oil, significantly, by flooding the world market; and the predictable consequence of this was the undercutting of the Soviet Union's economy. I would be very careful, I think, about the use of such tendentious (and obviously pejorative) terms as "[t]ricle-down economics." The more accurate term, I think, is Austrian-school economics. Or even Chicago-school economics (as typified by the late Milton Friedman). Oh, by the way: It does certainly seem as though a city as large as Los Angeles--the second-largest city in the US--should have at least one NFL franchise. (It once had two: The Raiders--who had relocated from Oakland, and would eventually return there--and the Rams were both representatives of the City of Angels. Of course, the Rams would move to St. Louis--which had once experienced its own problem, when it lost its NBA team, the Hawks, to Atlanta in the 1960s.)
The US was an oil importing nation, not an exporting nation, during the 1970's and 1980's (and still is). What we actually know is that the export of US oil and then the re-importing of it is to by-pass US anti-trust laws. OPEC still "fixes prices" because it has significant control of world oil production. "Price fixing" is illegal under US laws but cannot be prevented under International Law. The oil traders export "cheap" US oil to the world market earning huge profits on it and then re-import it at the "fixed price" still basically controlled by OPEC earning another "profit" on the transaction. The US consumer is being subjected to "price fixing" that is illegal under US law but cannot be enforced related to the international oil markets and the American oil traders are reaping huge profits at the expenses of the American people by circumventing US anti-trust laws.
I'm a "lassez faire" capitalist that condemns the Austrian and Chicago schools that ignore the realities of the failures of their economic philosophies two of which are significant.
First and foremost is that for them to work there cannot be invidious economic discrimination for capitalism to succeed. It has to be assumed that the best person and the best product will succeed but with invidious discrimination that is not the case. We do not have equality of economic opportunity in the United States so we fail to meet a basic tenet of caplitalism.
Next is that the law of supply and demand can only be applied to commercial products and services offered on the market and cannot be applied to labor in all cases under capitalism. People have to work and there is inherent market coercion when there is massive unemployment and "coercion" violates the Law of Contract. Violations of the Law of Contract fails to meet a basic tenet of capitalism.
Finally is the misapplication of the understanding that "investments create jobs" because only primary investments create jobs and not investments in secondary financial instruments. 99% of the "investments" covered by the Capital Gains tax codes relate to secondary financial instruments that don't create jobs. Primary investments in enterprise are overwhelmingly funded with profits derived from sales (consumption) and require no external funding sources. In fact enterprise can thrive and expand, creating jobs, without any external investment once the enterprise is established. External investment capital can help facilitate enterprise but it is often a choice of several funding options for enterprise and, as noted, the vast majority of investments (i.e. 99%) are in secondary investment instruments that have nothing whatsoever to do with funding enterprise. Consumptions aways drives economic expansion and job creation while rarely do external investments fund the expansion of enterprise that creates jobs that would have expanded by consumption anyway.
Yes, the Los Angeles market can support two NFL teams and the NFL has been looking for a way to put a team back into the LA market for years. We can probably expect the league to expand to accomplish this in the future as that is the most pragmatic way of putting a team in LA. What is needed is to identify another major market(s) that also drives a need for an NFL team(s) because it requires at least two teams, and probably four teams (two AFC and two NFC franchises), to expand the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 8, 2014 18:47:24 GMT
I believe that Ronald Reagan's propensity for domestic drilling helped force down the price of a barrel of oil, significantly, by flooding the world market; and the predictable consequence of this was the undercutting of the Soviet Union's economy. I would be very careful, I think, about the use of such tendentious (and obviously pejorative) terms as "[t]ricle-down economics." The more accurate term, I think, is Austrian-school economics. Or even Chicago-school economics (as typified by the late Milton Friedman). Oh, by the way: It does certainly seem as though a city as large as Los Angeles--the second-largest city in the US--should have at least one NFL franchise. (It once had two: The Raiders--who had relocated from Oakland, and would eventually return there--and the Rams were both representatives of the City of Angels. Of course, the Rams would move to St. Louis--which had once experienced its own problem, when it lost its NBA team, the Hawks, to Atlanta in the 1960s.)
The US was an oil importing nation, not an exporting nation, during the 1970's and 1980's (and still is). What we actually know is that the export of US oil and then the re-importing of it is to by-pass US anti-trust laws. OPEC still "fixes prices" because it has significant control of world oil production. "Price fixing" is illegal under US laws but cannot be prevented under International Law. The oil traders export "cheap" US oil to the world market earning huge profits on it and then re-import it at the "fixed price" still basically controlled by OPEC earning another "profit" on the transaction. The US consumer is being subjected to "price fixing" that is illegal under US law but cannot be enforced related to the international oil markets and the American oil traders are reaping huge profits at the expenses of the American people by circumventing US anti-trust laws.
I'm a "lassez faire" capitalist that condemns the Austrian and Chicago schools that ignore the realities of the failures of their economic philosophies two of which are significant.
First and foremost is that for them to work there cannot be invidious economic discrimination for capitalism to succeed. It has to be assumed that the best person and the best product will succeed but with invidious discrimination that is not the case. We do not have equality of economic opportunity in the United States so we fail to meet a basic tenet of caplitalism.
Next is that the law of supply and demand can only be applied to commercial products and services offered on the market and cannot be applied to labor in all cases under capitalism. People have to work and there is inherent market coercion when there is massive unemployment and "coercion" violates the Law of Contract. Violations of the Law of Contract fails to meet a basic tenet of capitalism.
Finally is the misapplication of the understanding that "investments create jobs" because only primary investments create jobs and not investments in secondary financial instruments. 99% of the "investments" covered by the Capital Gains tax codes relate to secondary financial instruments that don't create jobs. Primary investments in enterprise are overwhelmingly funded with profits derived from sales (consumption) and require no external funding sources. In fact enterprise can thrive and expand, creating jobs, without any external investment once the enterprise is established. External investment capital can help facilitate enterprise but it is often a choice of several funding options for enterprise and, as noted, the vast majority of investments (i.e. 99%) are in secondary investment instruments that have nothing whatsoever to do with funding enterprise. Consumptions aways drives economic expansion and job creation while rarely do external investments fund the expansion of enterprise that creates jobs that would have expanded by consumption anyway.
Yes, the Los Angeles market can support two NFL teams and the NFL has been looking for a way to put a team back into the LA market for years. We can probably expect the league to expand to accomplish this in the future as that is the most pragmatic way of putting a team in LA. What is needed is to identify another major market(s) that also drives a need for an NFL team(s) because it requires at least two teams, and probably four teams (two AFC and two NFC franchises), to expand the league.
Whereas it is certainly true that OPEC is impervious to America's anti-trust laws (as, of course, it would be, as non-Americans are not subject to American law), anytime the market is flooded with a product, that tends to drive down its price. What sort of "invidious economic discrimination," exactly, do you believe exists in America in 2014 (as opposed to, say, 1914)? As for the NFL's possible future expansion by as many as four teams: I am not sure I can come up with that many potential cities. In addition to Los Angeles, Memphis might be a possibility (although the Tennessee Titans--headquartered in the Music City--would need to change their name to the Nashville Titans, so as not to claim, tacitly, to represent the entire state of Tennessee). And Louisville might be a possibility--although it currently lacks a professional sports team in any of the four major sports. But that is still just three cities. (Of course, it is always possible that LA might acquire two NFL teams; one in each conference.) |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 8, 2014 18:55:56 GMT
I would agree that the that the real hero of the Cold War was Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and not President Ronald Reagan.
The USSR didn't require the military strength in 1989 that it had in the 1950's. It was still the second strongest military force, behind only the US, and it could rationally reduce it's military expenditures.
What I found ironic, and that I disagreed with very much at the time, is that the US intervened in the Russian elections to get Boris Yeltsin elected in 1990. It would be like China intervening in the US Presidental elections to get their "candidate" elected here in the US. Former President Reagan was behind this political interventionism in the sovereign affairs of Russia and should be rightfully condemned for this political interventionism that corrupted the election. Of interest the US actually supported the USSR with wheat shipments to it during the 1970's and 1980's. It would have imploded sooner had we not been feeding the Russian people for two decades. I believe we were trading wheat for oil at the time.
I could not possibly disagree any more totally than I do with your assertion that Gorbachev--not Reagan--was "the real hero of the Cold War." I suppose it was "rational" enough for the Soviet Union to decline to spend money that it simply did not have on an arms race, in the 1980s. And how do you imagine, exactly, that the US "intervened" in a Russian election in order to "get Boris Yeltsin elected"? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 9, 2014 13:35:56 GMT
Whereas it is certainly true that OPEC is impervious to America's anti-trust laws (as, of course, it would be, as non-Americans are not subject to American law), anytime the market is flooded with a product, that tends to drive down its price. What sort of "invidious economic discrimination," exactly, do you believe exists in America in 2014 (as opposed to, say, 1914)? As for the NFL's possible future expansion by as many as four teams: I am not sure I can come up with that many potential cities. In addition to Los Angeles, Memphis might be a possibility (although the Tennessee Titans--headquartered in the Music City--would need to change their name to the Nashville Titans, so as not to claim, tacitly, to represent the entire state of Tennessee). And Louisville might be a possibility--although it currently lacks a professional sports team in any of the four major sports. But that is still just three cities. (Of course, it is always possible that LA might acquire two NFL teams; one in each conference.)
OPEC has always ensured that there was a "oil shortage" to keep prices high. Remember that there is a balance where the maximum amount of "dollar" can be obtained from a product. If production exceeds consumption then the price drops to the point that less income is obtained. If the price goes too high then consumption is reduced resulting in less total income. There is a balance where the production drives the maximum possible profit based upon consumption and that is what OPEC has always tried to achieve by opening and closing the valves that control oil. There has never been a case where oil supply exceeded the demand for oil (i.e. a surplus oil supply) and the US has been an oil importing nation that always increases demand as opposed to reducing demand (and costs) on the international oil markets.
*****************************
I wasn't around in 1914 but I can comment on the 1950's and 1960's. We had overt laws of discrimination that denied equality of economic opportunity for African-Americans based solely upon the color of their skin. The Supreme Court addressed these laws and struck them down as being an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What many seem to not understand is that these laws reflected the discrimination by the People and while the laws were struck down it didn't stop the discrimination by the People. Yes, we also imposed anti-discrimination laws with the Civil Rights movement but they are fundamentally ineffective because they only address documented case of specific discrimination. All that laws did was drive the discrimination "underground" so that it the evidence was suppressed.
For example a racist employer today is not going to write on an employment application "Denied because applicant is black" because that would provide evidence of racial discrimination under the law. They just don't hire the black person. Even worse than that is "racial prejudice" where the employer doesn't even realize that they are not employing person based upon a racial stereotype. A person with racial prejudice will look at two equally qualified applicants, one white and one black, and actually believe that the white person is more qualified than the black person. The black person can even be more qualified objectively but based upon racial stereotyping the "employer' will still believe the white applicant is more qualified and hire the white person. This was established and documented by a 2003 study on racial discrimination in employment practices.
The sad part is that an employer with anti-black racial prejudice is actually harming there own business in many cases because they're not hiring the most qualified person just because they're black. Is is also sad because there isn't any evidence of overt racial prejudice that would violate the anti-discrimination laws. Less than 1% of the cases of anti-black racial discrimination in employment (i.e. invidious discrimination that denies equality of opportunity) have any evidence of it occuring but we do know it exists based upon statistican analysis.
The myth that many conservatives keep expressing is that by ending "discrimination under the law" that we ended invidous discrimination and denial of equality of opportunity for African-Americans. Every study done documents that the discrimination didn't end and it is probably worse today in many cases than in was in the 1960's. Anti-black racial prejudice is extensive in the United States today and it is a very serious problem for Republicans where over 70% have expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice in two different studies (71% in 2008 and 79% in 2012). The problem of anti-black racial based upon recent studies is getting worse and not better in America. Many believe it's blow-back from the social conservatives because Americans elected a liberal black president and there is some evidence that is true.
**************************
I can't think of three other major markets that would also warrant an NFL franchise which is probably why Los Angeles doesn't have one yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 9, 2014 23:58:38 GMT
Whereas it is certainly true that OPEC is impervious to America's anti-trust laws (as, of course, it would be, as non-Americans are not subject to American law), anytime the market is flooded with a product, that tends to drive down its price. What sort of "invidious economic discrimination," exactly, do you believe exists in America in 2014 (as opposed to, say, 1914)? As for the NFL's possible future expansion by as many as four teams: I am not sure I can come up with that many potential cities. In addition to Los Angeles, Memphis might be a possibility (although the Tennessee Titans--headquartered in the Music City--would need to change their name to the Nashville Titans, so as not to claim, tacitly, to represent the entire state of Tennessee). And Louisville might be a possibility--although it currently lacks a professional sports team in any of the four major sports. But that is still just three cities. (Of course, it is always possible that LA might acquire two NFL teams; one in each conference.)
OPEC has always ensured that there was a "oil shortage" to keep prices high. Remember that there is a balance where the maximum amount of "dollar" can be obtained from a product. If production exceeds consumption then the price drops to the point that less income is obtained. If the price goes too high then consumption is reduced resulting in less total income. There is a balance where the production drives the maximum possible profit based upon consumption and that is what OPEC has always tried to achieve by opening and closing the valves that control oil. There has never been a case where oil supply exceeded the demand for oil (i.e. a surplus oil supply) and the US has been an oil importing nation that always increases demand as opposed to reducing demand (and costs) on the international oil markets.
*****************************
I wasn't around in 1914 but I can comment on the 1950's and 1960's. We had overt laws of discrimination that denied equality of economic opportunity for African-Americans based solely upon the color of their skin. The Supreme Court addressed these laws and struck them down as being an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What many seem to not understand is that these laws reflected the discrimination by the People and while the laws were struck down it didn't stop the discrimination by the People. Yes, we also imposed anti-discrimination laws with the Civil Rights movement but they are fundamentally ineffective because they only address documented case of specific discrimination. All that laws did was drive the discrimination "underground" so that it the evidence was suppressed.
For example a racist employer today is not going to write on an employment application "Denied because applicant is black" because that would provide evidence of racial discrimination under the law. They just don't hire the black person. Even worse than that is "racial prejudice" where the employer doesn't even realize that they are not employing person based upon a racial stereotype. A person with racial prejudice will look at two equally qualified applicants, one white and one black, and actually believe that the white person is more qualified than the black person. The black person can even be more qualified objectively but based upon racial stereotyping the "employer' will still believe the white applicant is more qualified and hire the white person. This was established and documented by a 2003 study on racial discrimination in employment practices.
The sad part is that an employer with anti-black racial prejudice is actually harming there own business in many cases because they're not hiring the most qualified person just because they're black. Is is also sad because there isn't any evidence of overt racial prejudice that would violate the anti-discrimination laws. Less than 1% of the cases of anti-black racial discrimination in employment (i.e. invidious discrimination that denies equality of opportunity) have any evidence of it occuring but we do know it exists based upon statistican analysis.
The myth that many conservatives keep expressing is that by ending "discrimination under the law" that we ended invidous discrimination and denial of equality of opportunity for African-Americans. Every study done documents that the discrimination didn't end and it is probably worse today in many cases than in was in the 1960's. Anti-black racial prejudice is extensive in the United States today and it is a very serious problem for Republicans where over 70% have expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice in two different studies (71% in 2008 and 79% in 2012). The problem of anti-black racial based upon recent studies is getting worse and not better in America. Many believe it's blow-back from the social conservatives because Americans elected a liberal black president and there is some evidence that is true.
**************************
I can't think of three other major markets that would also warrant an NFL franchise which is probably why Los Angeles doesn't have one yet.
Yes, OPEC certainly controls its production in order to keep the price of a barrel of oil sufficiently high. What it cannot do, however, is to require non-OPEC nations to do the same thing. As for the bit about racial prejudice: Let me begin by saying that I find any sort of race discrimination utterly odious! And not just because it is illegal, either. It is a deeply visceral thing with me. But I simply cannot imagine that many Americans, in 2014, would still think (on either a conscious or a sub-conscious level) as they did 50 or 100 years ago, as regarding race. Oh, you may be quite correct as regarding why Los Angeles still does not have an NFL franchise. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 10, 2014 10:53:00 GMT
Yes, OPEC certainly controls its production in order to keep the price of a barrel of oil sufficiently high. What it cannot do, however, is to require non-OPEC nations to do the same thing. As for the bit about racial prejudice: Let me begin by saying that I find any sort of race discrimination utterly odious! And not just because it is illegal, either. It is a deeply visceral thing with me. But I simply cannot imagine that many Americans, in 2014, would still think (on either a conscious or a sub-conscious level) as they did 50 or 100 years ago, as regarding race. Oh, you may be quite correct as regarding why Los Angeles still does not have an NFL franchise.
It is true that OPEC cannot "require" other nations to engage in price fixing but the problem is that the "oil traders" willingly exploit the price fixing by OPEC because it's legal to price fix on the international markets. I don't know how much it costs to produce a barrel of oil in the US but we know it's less than what oil sells for on the international markets. The "oil trader" profits by selling lower cost US oil to the international market and then re-importing it again at the higher OPEC price. The profit from both transactions. If it wasn't for this additional "profit" (that would be illegal under US law) then they wouldn't be exporting the US oil in the first place.
We do share the belief that racial discrimination is utterly odious and we would certainly hope that racial prejudice, both implicit and explicit, would be declining over time but is that really the case?
Here is something to consider. I don't believe that the majority of Americans were overt racists in the pre-Civil Rights era of the 1960's even in the South where formal discrimination existed under the law. Yes, there was the KKK that controlled most of the politicians as well as law enforcement and they were "racists" but they weren't the "majority" of the people and the majority of the people in the South didn't believe that the "segregation laws" were racist. They actually believed in "separate but equal" that was inherently racist but they weren't overt racists.
I can't claim that is true but I know, for example, that my dad is not an overt racist but he does have racial prejudice. He would never acknowledge it and it's not something I'd bring up with him but I see it. He relates completely differently to black and Hispanic people he personally dealt with in life and how he related to blacks and Hispanics in general.
We don't, to my knowledge, have good studies related to racial prejudice from the pre-civil rights era but we do have those studies today. What we find is that racial prejudice is getting worse, not better, in the United States.
We also know that the prejudice extends to Hispanics and it is also a serrious problem in the United States.
We also know that this racial prejudice crosses political ideologies but that the extent of the prejudice varies widely based upon political ideology.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/27/poll-black-prejudice-america/1662067/
So we know a few things from these studies. First is that anti-black racial prejudice is extensive and gettng worse and not better. I can't say exactly when this trend started but we know that it's getting worse. We also know that ethnic anti-Hispanic prejudice is extensive although prior studies did not establish a baseline for comparison. We also know which political ideology expresses the most implicit (i.e. implied prejudice) and explicit (i.e. expressed prejudice) based upon these studies from 2008, 2011, and 2012.
We also know that this prejudice results in extensive racial and ethnic discrimination relate to employment, law enforcement, and civil rights although I won't post the dozens of studies that reflect this. It is a logical assumption that as the prejudice increases so does the discrimination because it is the prejudice that leads to the discrimination.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what was going on before because we have to deal with the "here and now" and based upon the "here and now" the problem is that the prejudice is increasing and that logically leads to increased discrimination in the United States. That is the problem in a nutshell and the problem is getting worse today and not better.
We would both hope and want to believe that over time racial and ethnic prejudice would decrease because that would result in decreasing racial and ethnic discrimination over time but unfortunately the studies show we're headed in the wrong direction.
|
|
