The Present in Plain Text

The NHL Season is Gone. The Lessons We Can Learn

Well, it had to end sometime, and despite some interesting last minute wrangling on both sides the NHL and the NHLPA could not come to an agreement for a new CBA that would allow them to play some games under the auspice of the 2004-05 Season.

Amidst all of the name-calling, hand-wringing, hoping, praying and arm-chair line-changing (there are no quarterbacks in the hockey) a few issues were raised that I'd like to bring up. These things are all over the map, so bear with:

• The NHLPA never made a good case as to why they wouldn't accept a salary cap. Nothing underscores this point better than their own proposal, submitted on Moday, which included one.
• By offering a hard-cap w/o linkage to league revenues the players implicitly ratified the owners stated position that they were losing money. A hard cap only benefits the players in a scenario of falling revenues, not rising ones.
  
• The Owners offer from February 2nd included not only linkage of salaries to revenues, but also, as a fall back position, a profit-sharing plan in case they all succeeded beyond their wildest estimations such that the players would see a rising percentage of revenues. The NHL has some fixed costs, that no matter how big revenue gets, will not increase linearly with revenues, and will, in effect be pure profit. The owners, in offering profit-sharing placed some of that on the table for the players to share in.
• The NHLPA undermined their own position publicly by consistently being 'against' things. One of the first rules of successful politics is to accentuate the positive (Little evidence here that I've taken this particular lesson to heart, I know). The players were against a salary cap, didn't trust the owners, refused to meet with Arthur Levitt, refused to audit the NHL's books, refused to put on the table any kind of reasonable offer (The NHL started their advertising campaign 5 years ago, btw) before the lockout occured. Some have made disparaging statements about their fellow players, and the cities where the game is being played. There's little shock in my mind why the owners had 70-80% of the fans on their side.
• The NHL, conversely, were for 'cost-certainty' , 'committed to all 30 franchises' , 'available to meet and negotiate' , apologetic in how things have been going recently (or at least appeared to be) and admitted their mistakes. They asked the fans for the time to fix things, after they had sufficiently made their case in public.
• So much of the talk surrounding this lockout has centered on reading the 'real meanings' into what has and has not been said. We have become so conditioned by double-talk and political rhetoric that we are incapable of hearing someone when they speak the truth. What I mean is, "Why is it so hard for people to accept the concept that someone may not be lying?"
  
• This is not about replacement players, breaking the union, Impasse or any of those things. This is simply about the NHL refusing to provide a framework for playing hockey that is uneconomic for them to do so.
  
• This will end when and only when the NHL says it will. Neither the US government, the Canadian Government, or the NHLPA will/should have anything to say about this. Bettman looked honestly confused yesterday during his press conference because as he said, "I have no idea what their end-game strategy is." You can bet that the NHL has an end-game strategy.
• Sherman Anti-Trust Law is stupid, inane and needs to be abolished (there I go, being all negative again).

I'll post something up after I've forced myself to sit through Bob Goodenow's press conference. I have to say, I've been quite impressed with Gary Bettman during these negotiations. I know that the Econoclast feels differently, that Bettman has over-played the 'macho-card.' But, I disagree, Hockey players only respect chutzpah, and despise weakness. Bettman has been firm, blunt and, in my mind, overly generous towards a group of people completely out of touch with both the reality of the economics and their position.

I e-mailed the NHL yesterday, telling them that it was now time to go for the jugular. Get rid of guaranteed contracts and create an economic landscape that encourages low base salaries (and generous insurance payouts) with heavy performance bonuses. As a fan, all I care about is the product on the ice, and I see both a league and a player's union that is fat and complacent, content with putting out sub-standard effort and an overall lackluster product. The fulcrum to that is the economic system created by the CBA. The players, like all good employees, should be held accountable for the work they do and the work they don't do. The coaches, trainers, fan, concession vendors, parking lot attendants, etc. would all be happier if the players had the fear of being fired put under their butts again.

So, waiting until October is a small price to pay to finally see some good hockey played at the NHL consistently during the first 2 months of the season.

Ta,

In The Trenches: Laptop Bombardiers seeing their Numbers Drop

Thanks to Tex, at UnfairWitness for finding this hilarious sendup of the the War on Terror as practiced by those, like me, sitting comfortably in front of their computers far away from the real horrors of combat/Nation Building/Pillage, what have you.

The description of Cheeto-Munching Girlie Man, Jonah Goldberg is just priceless:

“It’s like this,” said Goldberg said, grabbing a fistful of Cheetos from his pack. “I believed in this fight, and my country needed me. They needed able-bodied men – doughy, able to handle the rigors of sitting in a swivel chair for seven, eight hours at a time, and not afraid to put on a little TV make-up when the shit gets heavy. So I signed up.” He spit Cheetos-orange on the carpet. “Any man who won’t opinionate for his country and what he believes … well, I don’t call that a man at all.” At that he pulled up the sleeve on his regulation-issue Tommy Hilfiger powder-blue dress shirt to show me the tattoo on his meaty, girlish bicep. 'Born to Bloviate', it read, emblazoned on the bulging tummy of the Pillsbury Doughboy - the symbol of the feared 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

I know during stressful times some people experience a loss of apetite, especially for killing. But, Jonah had better keep his carb intake up (not only will he need the energy and the near-psychotic moodswings they induce, to perform at his peak efficiency) because of the strict physical requirements of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders he may get demoted for having an under-developed set of 'doobs'[1] or too small of a 'pearbutt.'

The End is Nigh, The Seventh Seal Must be Broken

.... because a politician, other than Dr. Ron Paul, spoke the truth:

Via the Eclectic Econoclast comes this quote from Rodney Hide, a member of New Zealand's Parliament:

What possible comparative advantage does government have in business? Just one: Coercion. It can thump the money it needs out of taxpayers – no other business can do that.

I nominate him for Time Magazine's Man of the Year... or at least This Week.

Update: Further Proof(tm) that this is TEOTWAWKI[1], the NHLPA has proposed a salary cap, I guess they saw the signs of the end as well and wanted to lace 'em up one more time for nostalgia's sake. The weird and sad part about it is why they think anyone will pay to see them do it.

Ta,

[1] - The End of the World as we Know it.

THe NHL and the Free Market: the Unattainable Dream

I got invloved in a discussion of Free Market Economics over on HFboards.com, during which I took exception (whata shock) o one poster's assertion that the Law of Supply and Demand is a poor way of organizing society's. He responded (surprisingly) thusly:

Quoth Snuffelapagus: At the risk of getting off topic, I feel that my questioning of running a any society based SOLELY on the law of supply and demand being folly is not dominant in the current economic landscape (see Bush Administration, degregulation, etc). I stated that the law of supply and demand is treacherous because it is often manipulated (see Enron) and further there is no accounting for the negative repercussions of this law. I would love to continue this discussion at length, but feel it would be best for this thread if it is done through PM.

To keep on topic, in your opinion, jochip do feel that a free market system would be the solution to the NHL's needs? If so, how do you feel that the fans would benefit from such a system?

Quick OT comment: The Bush administration is no where near Free Market in it's thinking.... Corporate Fascism? Yes. Voluntary Capitalism? No way. If you're interested in this stuff I have a wealth of sites/info I can point you to... PM me and I'll be glad to hook you up. I'll cross-post this to my blog for those that want to flame me for that statement.

On topic comment: I would love to see a real free market in all things, and as such, yes I do think a Free Market would be a boon to hockey fans and ultimately the NHL. How?

Well, the NHL could operate very similarly to how it does now if US/Canada anti-trust law didn't force them into strained negotiations with the player's union. The NHL could set up whatever drafting system they wanted (but their claim to a player would only be binding vis a vis other NHL teams) but other leagues would be able to bid for the player's service, just like any other potential employer (read the WHA from the 1970's and possibly 2005, the AHL or any other potential HL) NHL Franchises would have to agree amongst themselves to the system by which players (under contract) could be moved around within the NHL (trading, 'free agency," waivers etc.). I don't have any earthly idea what that would look like right now b/c I haven't really thought about it.

The reality is that there probably isn't enough money out there to support more than one major Hockey league and as such the NHL would be the de facto 'Big Leagues' just like MLB, NBA, and the NFL. All of the major sports leagues had serious competition before 'free agency' when the quality of their product slipped. The younger leagues were subsumed but the level of play rose, and the leagues got the hint to improve their product or face sincere competition. Who wins? The fans, of course.

The problem is, as I've stated before, the legal environments of both the U.S. and Canada prevent a real free-market solution. And, honestly, I think Curt Flood and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act have done more to hurt the quality of competitive sports than the other way around.

The players would be free (when not under contract) to play for whomever will pay them the best and the leagues would be incentivised to produce a quality product or face losing market share. Within a league, though, the original poster's idea is sound, the franchises are all competing amongst themselves for the purpose of improving the health of the larger organization. The internal economics of said macro-organization must be sound for that to work.

Considering the system as it is right now, a salary cap/linkage/budgetting system is the only thing that makes any sense. The NHL has been granted a franchise monopoly (something only government can grant... the only natural monopolies are those legislated by government) on the talent and for that privelege must negotiate with a union of said talent. The legal structure creates the animosity by taking choice away from the players and the owners to contract for services on an individual basis. The real losers are the fans as they have to spend more time worrying about the next labor situation then who's going to win the championship.

Ta,

Being An Individual: Defining Government and Your Relationship To It.

This would be part II in the response to The Southern Conservative's entry about the rights of individuals to persue their 'duties.' First off I'd like to quote Benjamin Franklin:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb sitting down to dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

My version of the above quote is more graphic:

Democracy is three men and two women. The men vote to rape the women. Liberty is Capt. Charity Vain's 9mm Beretta.

Next, I'd like to quote the Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Now, to quote Darrell:

By “rights of citizenship,” I mean those rights guaranteed by the rule of law. I see a distinction between God-given rights, which are the natural and inalienable ones… and legal rights, which are those agreed upon for each individual by the collective.

If you voluntarily submit to being a member of a collective then Darrell's argument is perfectly correct, leaving aside the semantic point that laws do not grant rights, but priveleges. A voluntary arrangement is only valid if the individuals reserve the right to opt-out of the arrangement, otherwise it ain't voluntary.

Now, onto the refutation of Government as moral:

Laws, in the governmental sense, imply an enforcement arm thereof (otherwise they would just be guidelines), and are, by definition, discriminatory because in no way can any law be agreed upon by all people. {This is philosophy, leave preceived practicality and utilitarianism at the door, please.} Even laws proscribing killing are discriminatory against would-be-killers. Understanding that point is extremely important to understanding my position that all laws are immoral (or as I lke to say "dangerous and stupid."), be it from a religious standpoint or a 'humanist' standpoint. The golden rule states that for you to have the right to life you must respect the right of someone else to that same right. So, if a law suits you but not me, it cannot possibly be moral to enforce it. You are, in effect, saying, "Your perspective is inferior to mine, I will force you to submit to my will." Now, I know that God didn't tell any of you that this is the right way to act. Every law carries with it the threat of violence if the law is ignored, regardless of how justified you feel in ignoring it.

So, by definition, government is not a voluntary arrangement. And, while Darrell's description of it is all well and good, his perception does not fit with reality. Government is force, or the threat of violence. Specific types of governments have the monopoly right on the use of force to enforce it's will over geographical areas, known commonly as cities or countries. You may wish that government is there to protect your rights, but it is not. It is there to enforce rules, however those rules were created. By definition, Government is not an opt-out system. And that doesn't square too well with the Golden Rule.

I am not a collective. No one is. The majority opinion carries no moral weight whatsoever. Your definition of your rights and willingness to defend them with your life is what constitutes your morality, regardless of the source. The extension of this argument into economics forms the basis for the Austrian School, as expoused by Mises, Menger, Rothbard, Rockwell et. al. They make a very convincing argument that the most efficient use of capital, and (for Rothbard) the most moral use, is through the pure voluntary transactions that is the definition of capitalism. Rothbard was a practicing Jew, and Rockwell is a devout Catholic, and runs, in my opinion, the single best website on the internet, Lewrockwell.com.

Larger tomes than these blogs entries have been written on this subject, and I urge Darrell and anyone else (all 3 of you) to consider them further. If this doesn't adequately explain why my government does not have any moral authority to force me to fight on its behalf, then I don't know what else to say.

Now, this does not mean I won't fight for myself, my family, Darrell, or anyone else. But, no one, under any circumstances, will FORCE ME to point a gun at another human being. By the defintions outlined above I am in conflict with my morality 24/7. By using the government's legal tender I commit violence against the person on the other end of the transaction. By cashing my paycheck, funded through theft (taxes) I commit violence. I could go on and on. But, I draw the line at physically pointing a gun, my hypocrisy knows some bounds. Dammit!

Ta,

Being The Southern Conservative: Where Your Rights Are Derived

The Debate (now turned much more friendly) with Darrell, The Southern Conservative, continues. I'm gong to have to deal with his commentary piecemeal because there is too much to address all at once.

The first point is:

I’m one of those who believes that our rights come from God. I’d call your beliefs humanism, and you may well be comfortable with that label. I think that our differences here are so basic as to prevent either of us from winning the other over to his own side.

First things first, this is not about winning and losing. While I have been known to treat debate as a competition, it really isn't that, it's about dispensing information. Second, I disagree with that. The point I was trying to make earlier was that regardless of whether your rights derive from God or your Humanness, for you to exercise your right to life, you must be willing to respect another's right to life as well. Where they stem from is semantics. Which brings me too:

While I think we’d both agree that our rights are inalienable, we probably interpret that word differently. My position is that our rights are God given, and that no man has the right to take away what God has given to all.

So, tell me again, Darrell, where we disagree? You are using God as your justification for being a good and decent person because that is what works for you. My justifications are different but the conclusions are the same. Your relationship with God (and all that implies) is personal and has its limit (in the mathematical sense) at the point where you attempt to force me to hold the same beliefs you do. My relationship with my environment is personal as well and the limit to which I can affect it ends at the point of forcing someone else to do as I wish.

Ultimately, the behaviour dictated by these beliefs is the same, and that's what is important. What we think is one thing, what we do is what truly matters.

Ta,

A Good Day in Precious Metals

Today looked to be very constructive in the precious metals markets. Gold retouched trendline support at US$410 this morning and then took off like a shot. While this is encouraging for Gold, until the downtrend line from the December high is crossed, this is still a chopping market. With the $USD slumping today, it seemed reasonable for Gold to show a little strength. In my mind the $USD Index would have to drop below 84 for Gold to take out the down trend line. Good time to stock up.

Silver's intraday chart looks very similar. I noticed this movement this morning and adopted a 'wait and see' attitude, as Silver had paused right at it's 50-DMA around the time I left for lunch. The early move above $6.70 broke the downtrend line that has been in effect since the December high, which was not that significant considering the slope of that line (pretty damn steep). $0.35 daily moves in the price of Silver to the upside are not nearly as common as ones of that size going the other way, so today's price action is indicative of something. What? I don't know. The usual answers come to mind: commercial short covering, technical fund buying yadda yadda. Those with their noses a lot closer to this market will know. If they say anything about it, I'll be sure to let you know.

Likewise I'm very happy with the action of Eldorado Gold Corp (Ticker:EGO) which I have a small position in. As a primary gold producer it's good to see both technical and chart strength with Gold in a non-confirmatory position. Today's action so far has a breakout feel to it: very strong volume, down trend line broken, confirmation of a MACD-cross. If EGO is able to take out the horizontal resistance at around $2.90, things look good for a turnaround.

Ta,

HS XII: The Inevitable Follow-Up

Darrell, the Southern Conservative, and I got into it kinda hot and heavy yesterday over my response to this week's Homespun Symposium. Given the manner in which I attacked the question, it was a foregone conclusion that this would happen. After having read Darrell's response I felt it necessary to post something less confrontational in his blog as a means of further explaining myself. In looking back at what I wrote yesterday I realized that I glossed over a few basic points because I didn't have a lot of time nor inclination.

All of this really should have been handled in Trackback, but that's irrelevant at this point. I'm blogging a comment I left him last night which I feel makes for a more complete understanding of my position and why I feel it's important. In conjunction with that, I think it's necessary to note that that rarest of internet occurances has indeed occured -- Communication between two people who disagree with each other. That this has occured after a virulent verbal skirmish is even more amazing.

Ta,

Darrell,

I want to challenge a couple of assumptions within the context of your post, because there is wisdom to be gained from defining terms.

The problem I have is with the implications you attach to the word 'right,' as if your rights come from some other place. Now, some say they come from God, I say they derive from your being a human being. But, either way, your rights are personal and only an unrepentant socialist would believe that your society or government is the source of your rights. In fact, that is the heart of socialist theory and the crux of the Hobbesian dialectic.

Now, in your post you talk about the 'rights of citizenship.' That phrase doesn't parse well. You may have the 'privelege' of citizenship, as granted by your society/government within their legal framework, but not your 'rights.' Again, your rights are your own.

Remember, rights are things that only people have. Governments have powers, granted to them by the people which ordained them (see the preamble to the Constitution). So, I'd like to know how the government can have the 'right' to force me into service to do it's bidding?

Moreover, any task that has to be forced upon a free-acting adult is a task whose motives and consequences should be questioned. If it was such a good idea to invade this country or kill these people, there would be no need to forcably do anything, except maybe turn away unqualified volunteers.

The freeloader vs. team-player argument is specious as well for the simple reason that we are all economically active and as such contribute to a particular cause via the division of labor and our leveraging our unique talents/skills/dispositions to our maximal advantage. So, while you may offer yourself up as infantry, I may be testing the food that goes into your rations to ensure your health. There is no such thing as a free lunch...period.

Ta,

Just Say No to Cops in Schools!

Wendy McElroy makes some very salient points about Zero Tolerance and the stupidity that is integral to it in this morning's edition of LRC(see above link).

In summary there is a growing movement of discontent among parents who rightly think they should be involved in any decision regarding their child and any transgressions that might have taken place. Not summarily placed in handcuffs and charged with felonies. This is a very good thing, and one of the main reasons why, I think, homeschooling is beginning to reach the formerly-contented middle class. Of course, I believe the parents are doomed to fail, potentially winning only pyrrhic victories on issues such as 'civilian oversight committes' and or parental notification.

In no way will they ever be able to wrest control over their children away from the authoritarians who run most local governments and school boards (not an ad hominem attack, btw. If I'd used an adjective like malicious or repugnant, then it could possibly be ad hominem. But, calling a spade a spade no matter what one's personal feelings on that type of spade is not a personal attack). The end-game scenario for homeschooling is once it reaches a signifigant portion of the population there will be another movement to ban it. Just wait for the Freak-Show to be paraded on CNN, PMSNBC, Fox War Channel and all of those others in the government's amen corner. It should come as no surprise that Capt. Charity Vain and I will be homeschooling our kid(s), both for their safety and mine. I wouldn't want to see my reaction to my child being slapped in irons over a kitchen utensil, and frankly neither would anyone else.

That being said I would like to take issue with what is probably as mistaken word rather than a chink in her argument:

But those who call police rather than parents, who lay felony charges rather than issue suspensions, who damage a child's life over a butter knife they know was an innocent mistake ... these people bear responsibility for making the legal terms appropriate.

The problem with the highlighted phrase lies in thinking that bringing a butter knife to school is in some way a 'mistake.' One should not have to justify one's reasons for needing a butter knife with whic to eat their lunch. That's letting your government decide the terms of your behaviour (your children are rightly an extension of you until they are adults) and the terms of the debate. This ties back into the argument from yesterday's rant concerning Homespun Symposium XII. By letting someone else define your terms for you, you let them define the terms under which you can argue, and that is truly a dogmatic way to choke off conversation. It's also sadly effective.

Ta,

Homespun Symposium XII: Justifying Slavery via the Draft

This week's Homespun Symposium is a question whose naked insanity speak for itself:

During last year's presidential election, some people began talking about reinstating the draft. Most conservatives, such as myself, simply saw it as an effort on the part of liberals to distance young people from Bush. Many conservatives have responded to the issue by insisting that there won't be a draft. Yet, I think another question deserves consideration. Do we have the right to insist and expect that the war against terror will not require a draft? The draft was an important element in the winning of the first two World Wars. The war on terror is another global war. What gives our generation the right to expect to abstain from the same duty our grandfathers and forefathers were called to?

I say insane for any number of reasons. First of which, did the author of this question mean it to be rhetorical? This is not a joke, nor am I being glib. Because its tone and underlying assumptions/presumptions cut off any number of points of view that render the question irrelevant. The right answer, according to the question is bound up in the question itself. Honestly, this is less of an opening for discourse than a rebuke of anyone who disagrees with it. Does the author routinely open up discussions with, "You suck! Why do you think you have the right to suck?" I've been noticing this trend in these Sympopsiums and it's beginning to irk me a lot. Are the question writers here so ideologically blind as to not understand basic intellectual honesty? The Redhunter's question last week was almost as bad as The Southern Conservative's is this week. A little less back-slapping and a little more intellectual rigor might make these worth someone's time to read.

Ok, enough complaining. I'm going to attempt a rebuttal at what the question meant to ask, but in fact did not ask.

The answer is that yes we have a right not to be drafted, both because individuals are sovereign, regardless of what the courts say, and because of the 13th Amendment, which the draft is in direct conflict with. I thought we outlawed Involuntary Servitude in this country. So why does any of our citizens think they have the right to believe anyone should be forced to serve their wishes using the Federal Government as their proxy? Or am I just being all Anti-Liberty again?

Of course we have a right to not be drafted by our government. Let's turn the question around? For what duty were our forefathers called? The answer, is, like everything else, personal. For the question-writer I think I can safely assume that he thought their duty was protecting their families. For me, they were called to further the enslavement of millions of people into one sect of socialism as opposed to the other. So, with that duty in mind, I do expect to abstain from such an honor and privelege. I won't even get into the history implied by the question and how our involvement in WWI created the conditions for WWII. Let's also not forget that Germany was in no way ever going to be able to invade America. But, you know, in a democracy voices that aren't strong enough get crushed by the jack-boots of war. Hmmm.... sounds like real freedom to me, no wonder the Iraqis don't want it.

Ta,