socialism and baseball – USA Gov Policy

The question of “Tanking” has arisen. “Tanking” is the practice of a team intentionally taking steps that almost guarantee a losing season, under the premise that he owners are actually saving up cash or acquiring higher draft picks for the future. CBS Sports, in a 2018 analysis, noted that “It’s time to reassess the practice of tanking… and recognize it for what it is: cover for profit-hungry owners to line their pockets, at the expense of their own fans’ entertainment.” Those owners don’t have to worry about depriving their fanbase of a competitive team, discouraging them from attending games; revenue sharing dollars will come in anyway.

How bad was tanking in 2018? Last August, Baseball America’s Kyle Glaser reported: “ How bad can a tank job get in 2018? The answer, apparently, is historically bad. After an offseason where “tanking” was the word on everyone’s mind, Major League Baseball is on track to see a nearly unprecedented amount of losing. Since adopting a 162-game schedule in 1961, MLB has never had more than two 110-loss teams in a season. It is currently on pace to tie that record. In that same time, MLB has never had more than four 100-loss teams in a season. It is currently on pace to tie that record as well.”

2018 wasn’t the first time revenue sharing was sharply questioned. In 2010, The New York Times’s J.C. Bradbury reported: “Despite the good intentions behind revenue sharing, doling out money to baseball’s have-nots has the unintended consequence of creating a disincentive to win. Though the correlation is not perfect, winning tends to attract fans, which increases local revenue. But a healthier bottom line means drawing less from the revenue-sharing pool. The quandary faced by poor-and-losing teams is that using the added wealth to improve their clubs increases local earnings, but these gains may be offset by reducing revenue-sharing payments.

“In my book on valuing baseball players, I estimated the relationship between winning and revenue for M.L.B. teams. The revenue function shows disparate responses to winning at various levels of success, which support the notion that revenue sharing discourages improvement. The function shows that improving from a mid-60s-win team to a mid-70s-win team generates financial losses. The observed revenue bump from losing is consistent with the hypothesized disincentive to win when teams face a cut in revenue sharing. I refer to this region as the loss trap, because improving your team over this range of wins can cost you money.

Kamagra eases and smoothens the erection of buy levitra viagra the man and makes him feel like dying again and again. It is defined as lack of pregnancy after one year of unprotected intercourse, then the couple is labeled as infertile, this simply means that they have been unable to conceive cialis prices http://djpaulkom.tv/photos-fans-capture-pics-dj-paul-da-mafia-6ix-and-insane-clown-posse-on-the-shockfest-tour/ a child. The investigation points out that Shilajit contains mineral and other herbs that form main active viagra 100 mg ingredients of various brain supplements. What is need to do at that situation to know prix viagra pfizer the full healing potential of chiropractic.

“Also, strong returns to winning do not kick in until a team hits the mid-80s in wins. Losing teams might improve their financial standing somewhat if they improved drastically, but transforming a loser to a winner does not happen overnight and cannot be willed into existence. Thus, the safety net offered by revenue sharing encourages teams to remain perpetually bad.”

There are lessons far beyond the sports world in why the equal outcomes idea, and other socialism and “socialism light” ideas fail.

Mark J. Perry, writing for the American Enterprise Institute explains:

“Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives. In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter! Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally…By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!”

Photo: Pixabay

America’s long tradition as “The Land of Opportunity” is being replaced by the new philosophy of “equal outcomes,” regardless of the effort put in. The attempt to implement this idea, akin to the growing popularity of socialism, has already found a home in one of the nation’s most beloved institutions: Major League Baseball (MLB).

The results have not been good.

MLB’s luxury tax and revenue sharing practices are also known as a “competitive balance tax.” Proponents of the concept allege that it was necessary to allow teams in smaller cities to play more competitively against big-city teams. Hal Steinbrenner, a co-owner of one of those big-city teams, The New York Yankees, disagrees with the idea. The National Review quotes him as stating “At some point, if you don’t want to worry about teams in minor markets, don’t put teams in minor markets, or don’t leave teams in minor markets if they’re truly minor…Socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it, is never the answer.”

Whatever label is placed on the concept, it has not achieved the results it was supposed to, and has in fact produced a whole new set of problems.

William Ryan Colby, in a paper presented to the e Department of Economics at Amherst College noted that “In 1996, Major League Baseball introduced its first system of comprehensive revenue sharing with the goal of creating more competitive balance in the league. the marginal tax rates created by MLB’s revenue sharing systems have actually worsened balance in the league. Although the most recent sharing system begins to realign incentives, it still risks “turning a ‘good’ imbalance into a ‘bad one” by subsidizing poorly managed teams at the expense of well run teams… the incentive structures created by MLB revenue sharing had the anticipated negative effects on competitive balance.

How the system has worked in practice is described by NBC sports “MLB teams participate in revenue sharing, a system that redistributes income from the richest franchises to their less profitable partners in an attempt to improve competitive balance. Under the 2012–2016 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), each team contributes 34 percent of its net local revenue into a pool that gets divided equally among every team. Higher-earning clubs put in more than they get back while lower-earning clubs receive more than they put in…Over the past four years the Marlins, Rays, Royals, Padres and A’s among other teams received a combined $642 million dollars. The franchises that keep on giving to them are the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs, Philadelphia Phillies and San Francisco Giants. The mountain of cash deposited since 2012 i[reached] a staggering $1.15 billion [by 2016]”

A list of World Series winners since 1996 clearly demonstrates that the revenue-sharing scheme has not achieved its goals. Instead, it has ushered in a whole new set of problems.

Don’t let careers, kids, your spouse, housework and aging parents deprive you of the one thing that is a guaranteed stress-reliever. sildenafil tablets australia To understand this, we need to go back to getting viagra traditional manner of pooping that is quite impossible. The online pharmacy levitra lotion is suitable for men aged from 21 to 60 years. levitra from canada When you use Night Fire capsule and Mast Mood oil.

There have been complaints that the organization that have received the revenue sharing have pocketed the money rather than invest in building more competitive teams. Indeed, it appears that some small market teams apparently no longer worry about trying to effectively compete, because even if attendance falls off due to poor play, revenue will still flow to them from revenue sharing.

Russ Roberts, writing for CafeHayek explains: “Even if the Yankees [a big-market, big spending team] share their revenue equally with other teams, the beneficiaries of that subsidy may decide to simply pocket it rather than making their teams more competitive. Revenue sharing does reward mediocrity and punish excellence and as the amount of sharing grows, the potential harm from that perverse incentive gets worse.”

According to some, that diminished devotion to meaningful competition means that teams, both in large markets and small, feel free to be less generous with player salaries.

A 2018 CBS Sports report reported that “According to the Associated Press, the average MLB salary decreased from 2017-18. It’s only the fourth time in the last half-century the average salary decreased from one year to the next…The [MLB Players Association (MLBPA)] said…its final [2018] average was $4,095,686, down $1,436 from $4,097,122 last year. Since the union started keeping track in 1967, the only previous declines had been by $66 in 1987, when owners were found to have conspired to hold down salaries among free agents; a 4 percent decline in 1995 following a 7½-month strike that wiped out the World Series for the first time since 1904; and by 2.5 percent in 2004.”

The MLBPA voiced concern that several organizations, including at least one that received up to $160 million, were pocketing the cash and not using it to enhance their team.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.