We just read Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea by Barbara Demick. It is a worthwhile read because rather than reciting the awful statistics about North Korea, Ms. Demick takes at in depth look at six individuals from the northeast of North Korea that escaped to South Korea. It covers their trials and tribulations in the South as well as the North.
The individual stories are well narrated and worth reading. The failure of centralized economies has been well documented but it has rarely been identified in such detail. As the TV ad says, “Everyone knows that,” but it is nice to see it in memorable stories that have an impact on us rather than the depressing aggregate statistics. Because we already knew the statistics, we found the most interesting part of the book to be the ability of markets to flourish in such an inhospitable environment. The total breakdown of the North Korean command economy meant that if you played by the rules you died unless you had a significant position in the Party. Markets gave the ordinary lives in the book the opportunity to engage in forbidden acts like selling cookies to avoid starvation. Ordinary people that accepted the Party line died. Illegal market opportunities saved the lives of millions of people in North Korea.
Some folks had argued that reducing IRS funding was a bad idea because it would hurt the deficit. The argument goes that the average IRS employee collects X dollars and reducing funding reduces employees by Y so the deficit is increased by product of X and Y. There is an economic problem and a strategy problem with this thinking. The strategy issue becomes more clear each day as information on IRS behavior becomes public.
The economic problem is marginal versus average. The first IRS auditor is in a target rich environment. The last auditor has more challenges in creating returns. The marginal return of the last auditor is probably positive but less than the first so the product of X and Y as the cost is a substantial overstatement.
The strategy problem is the big problem. As recent stories (here and here) indicate that the IRS can most charitably be described as an uncooperative agency. Maintaining the funding for the IRS will not improve their behavior. Cutting their budget is not sufficient to bring the IRS under control but it is a necessary step. Legal reforms to reduce the ubiquity of the IRS would be helpful too. Streamlining the rules for not-for-profit organizations, tax reform, and eliminating Obamacare would help reduce the mission creep at the IRS.
AJ Cassavell at Sports on Earth has a nice piece on the Ten Best MLB Players Traded Before Age 25. The comments identify some possible omissions and argue about the word trade for the Ruth deal. Is it an important distinction that Ruth was sold. We would like to focus on what AJ got mostly right, the price for Ruth.
First off, he got the price, $100,000 right. To be precise, it was $25,000 in cash and the rest in interest bearing notes. It has been commonly reported as $125,000 and other numbers. Then there is the phantom loan between an unspecified party and Harry Frazee, the Red Sox owner. The Yankee owners may or may not have make a loan to Frazee with, perhaps, Fenway Park as collateral. Nobody has come up with a rationale for why the Yankees would not pay cash for Ruth but somebody connected with the Yankees would lend a large amount of to Harry Frazee. Perhaps Jacob Ruppert did. Unless we know the terms, however, there is no way to know who benefited from the purported loan. We do know that the Red Sox paid part of Ruth’s salary during his initial contract with the Yankees. No doubt it was an epically bad transaction for the Red Sox. Folks that want to include the loan as part of the deal have no evidence to support them.
The Cincinnati Bengals habit of losing big games came to a stop last night with a gutty victory over the Broncos. Why is this relevant to a handball blog? Because when the games get tough and the bounces go badly our manta is, “don’t be the Bengals.” It carries more meaning than don’t than don’t give up. Now what? It seems you can’t count on anything in sports. Perhaps Unbroken will hep.
We were in a waiting room this morning while a TV showed dueling talking heads discussing the left and the assassination of the two Brooklyn police officers. The right head head argued that the rhetoric contributed to the deaths while the left head put forth the issue of free speech.
Free speech is a straw-man in this discussion. As we have said before free speech is useful because it identifies folks. In this case, we know who are the blame the cops first folks. In light of recent events they may want to tone down their rhetoric. Such a statement might be a good start to a nationwide conversation.
The assassin killed the cops. The blame the cops folks did not pull the trigger. Those folks have, however, put themselves in a politically difficult position because of the the juxtaposition of events. Harold Macmillian may not have said it but it is a useful insight that events drive politics. Clinton capitalized on the Oklahoma City bombing. The left will lose capital because of their rhetoric prior to the Brooklyn shootings.
The Minnesota Vikings made us forget about the current administration for a few moments this afternoon. The game was tied 35-35 and the Vikings had the ball on their own 13 with 1:05 left. The Vikings have three time outs and the Dolphins have one. The Vikings are in a tough spot if they don’t move the ball. Figuring a 35 yard net, the Dolphins get the ball at midfield. So the first rule is don’t lose the game. The Vikings need to move the ball 45 or more yards to have a field goal attempt. Since the Dolphins have only one time out there is no danger that Miami can force a punt. The mistake was when the Vikings ran for two on first down and then they called time out. They should have hurried up and tried to make a first down. Call time out after the first time out. Instead, an incomplete pass, a sack, and a Dolphins time out leads to a Vikings’ punt.
Oh, there is another bad thing that can happen on punts. It should have gone to overtime.
Katherine Timpf at NRO revealed that a professor at the University of Michigan wrote an article entitled We Can’t All Just Get Along that starts out, “I hate Republicans.” and goes downhill from there. Of importance, this is an article in an online magazine so it is not part of class and it would not seem to be classified under research. The article is more personal than university related although the author’s affiliation is noted in the article.
Somebody said that the joy of the First Amendment is that it identifies folks. It is certainly true. The problem is that it keeps identifying academics and there is rarely an academic response. The author does not lose any First Amendment rights but the author is not shielded from criticism either. When we fail to criticize these screeds we seem to be saying that they represent an acceptable level of academic discourse. As a result, academics lose the battle of public opinion and state institutions lose the funding battle. We should treat ourselves better. We enforce standards for our students and academic publishing. Why can’t we find anyone to comment on such behavior? A simple, “It is not very professional,” will do. It is not a thousand other things. To name a few, it is not a fireable offense, it is not illegal, it is not immoral but it is not up to our standards.