Month: March 2022

Of the three major American professional sports leagues, the one that comes the closest to pure corporate socialism is the NFL, primarily due to the fact that the teams only play once a week. The largest source of revenue is the league’s TV contracts, the proceeds of which are shared equally. There is a fairly hard salary cap. The worst teams are treated preferentially in the draft, with no lottery. As a result, there are incentives to tank, but they are based more on the desire to win big later than on financial concerns.

The NBA is in the middle. There are more games, so local TV contracts are an important source of revenue. There is a salary cap, and a draft, but the draft is subject to a lottery to create disincentives for tanking.

MLB comes closest to the capitalist model. Local TV contracts and gate receipts are much more important sources of revenue than the national TV contract. There is no salary cap–just a tax over a threshold that is set relatively high–and no floor. International signings historically have not been subject to a draft. It is a model that naturally favors large market teams (which inevitably have the highest revenues) and a handful of the best players, whose salaries have skyrocketed, over the middle class.

It is the players, not the owners, who insisted on the capitalist model for MLB. Viewed from a broad perspective, it looks a lot like the world economy after globalization–huge profits for the most talented and fortunate, but struggles for average workers. How is it working out in practice, and are the players satisfied? I will answer those questions in the last two posts of this series.

I’m not going to watch. Why? Because I know the GOP senators are going to advance their narrative that the Democratic Party is soft on crime by distorting her record. It’s a completely cynical ploy, and it won’t stop her from being confirmed, but it may work with the American public.

For those of you who think the Democrats have done the same thing, I would simply say this: they didn’t solicit the Kavanaugh accuser, and had a legitimate concern about his moral fitness for the office, while their questions for Barrett were based on an accurate description of her opinions. That isn’t the same thing.

Part of me wants her to respond to questions about being soft on criminals by saying she believes in due process for everyone–even people who stormed the Capitol and tried to overthrow the government. I know she can’t do that, but I would love to see the expression on Josh Hawley’s face if she did.

The parameters of a potential deal over Ukraine are obvious; as with the Israeli/Palestinian situation, the issue is one of will, not imagination. The deal points would be as follows:

1. Ukraine acknowledges Russia’s full sovereignty over Crimea;
2. Russia acknowledges Ukraine’s full sovereignty over the bogus breakaway republics;
3. Ukraine agrees never to join NATO, but makes no commitment regarding the EU;
4. All of the signatories guarantee Ukrainian independence;
5. Russia withdraws completely from Ukraine; and
6. All sanctions against Russia are lifted after the withdrawal can be verified.

This is not a victory for anyone, but it would permit Putin to save some face with the Russian public. Will he take the deal? At this point, who knows?

For the reasons set out in my last post, there is nothing like a perfect free market operating in any American professional sport. However, there are a range of options for the economic model, with the following two as the extremes:

1. PURE SOCIALISM: In this model, all revenues are divided equally among the clubs, including gate receipts and the proceeds from any local TV contracts. Less successful teams are given advantages in the draft. There is a salary cap, but an enforceable floor, as well. Minimum salaries for players are relatively high. Free agency opportunities are typically limited.
2. CAPITALISM: This isn’t a genuinely free market, but there are no salary caps, and revenue sharing is limited at best. Most revenues come from gate receipts and local TV contracts. There is no salary cap, and no floor. Free agency is permitted on a fairly liberal basis.

The socialist option emphasizes competitive balance and the welfare of the average player; the more capitalist option favors large market teams and a handful of outstanding players at the expense of the masses. How do these translate to reality in America’s professional sports leagues? That will be the subject of one of tomorrow’s posts.

I’m taking a bit of a break from talking about Ukraine. Viewed purely as a business, American professional sports leagues are extraordinary, for the following reasons:

1. THEY’RE CARTELS: You can’t just invest a lot of money in players and facilities and join the club; you have to be welcomed in by the other owners.
2. THEY DEPEND ON A REASONABLE DEGREE OF COMPETITIVE BALANCE: While GM, for example, would do very nicely without Ford, every game involves two teams. If there is no suspense about the outcome, because one of the teams isn’t a credible opponent, there is no reason to watch.
3. THEY ARE HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED BY THE PUBLIC: At a minimum, this involves parking, road improvements, and mass transit for the fans. More typically, the local government pays for a large chunk of the stadium, too. Cities are willing to do this because fans support local bars and restaurants and because sports teams are good entertainment and morale boosters for local residents.

As a result of these unusual features, all professional sports leagues are characterized by a large element of corporate socialism. Just how much varies from league to league. I will discuss the different models tomorrow.

Launching an amphibious assault over 100 miles of ocean patrolled by the U.S. Navy is in no way comparable to just sending tanks plunging over the border, so Xi isn’t finding out that invading is harder than you think–he already knows that. That’s why an attack on Taiwan will involve missiles and a blockade, not an invasion.

Nevertheless, Ukraine has some useful lessons for Xi. He is finding that the West is more resolved and united than he probably thought. He is learning that he should be skeptical of any optimism from his intelligence and security people. He will know that he can’t control the images that go out all over the world; Taiwan isn’t Tibet. Finally, he will have noted that Chinese efforts at cyberwarfare will be opposed by volunteers all over the globe–not just the Americans and the Taiwanese.

In sum, waiting on events looks even better today than it did in January.

Putin has been trying to call Xi for days. At last, Xi reluctantly takes the call.

P: Xi who must be obeyed!

Xi: Impaler man! How are you doing?

P: I’ve been thinking about the Olympics. We stood together against America and the world. Those were the days. I miss them.

Xi: Good times. Good times. Those were the days. Before your war.

P: Don’t call it a war. Remember, it’s a special military operation.

Xi: Right, right. Anyway, it doesn’t appear to be going well. I think you got some bad advice. You need to fire the guys who told you the Ukrainians wouldn’t fight.

P: I’m all over that. They’re under arrest.

Xi: The problem is, proper autocrats like us only hear what our advisers think we want to hear. It’s a hazard inherent in the job.

P: I hear you.

Xi: So, what are you going to do about this situation? We’re not exactly generating a lot of soft power in the West here.

P: I need help from you.

Xi: What kind of help? We’re already buying your oil and running some cover for you.

P: We need weapons and money. We’re running out.

Xi: Are you kidding? The big bad bear that everyone fears can’t even beat Ukraine on its own? That’s kind of pathetic.

P: I know, it looks bad. But we autocrats need to stick together. If we don’t, America will go back to running the world by itself again. You don’t want that, do you?

Xi: No, but I don’t like being associated with losers, either. It’s not a good look.

P: The Americans are already telling everyone who is listening that this is a war for liberal democracy against authoritarian regimes. A lot of people are listening. If you don’t stand by me, and we don’t win, they’ll come after you next. Just you watch.

Xi: I’ll think about it, but if we do anything, it will have to be quiet. Don’t get your hopes up. (He hangs up)

On the ex-KGB man Vlad Putin.

He invaded Ukraine, you’re darn tootin’.

It was easy, he thought

But Ukrainians fought.

Now there’s no end in sight to the shootin’.

Biden has always been very clear: the US has no treaty obligations to Ukraine, and will not risk World War III for it. The border of NATO is his red line. It is the correct one.

The Ukrainian government, quite naturally, wants to blur the line, and fight Russia to the last American. They have little to lose, so who can blame them? It’s our job to say no for the sake of ourselves and the rest of the world, not theirs.

Xi probably viewed his alliance with Putin the same way Stalin viewed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: an opportunity to sit back and watch the US and Russia batter each other to pieces, only to his profit. As we know, it didn’t work out that way in the end.

Instead, the partnership is starting to look more like Hitler bailing out Mussolini after the latter’s North Africa misadventure. That didn’t work out too well, either.

The left has every reason to hate Putin; he’s a bully, a fascist, and the ally and prototype for Donald Trump. Its support for Ukraine in the war was, therefore, never in question. But what about the GOP, which apparently has left the Trump years behind? Does this mean it is in the process of becoming a responsible center-right party again?

Don’t hold your breath; I predicted this years ago. Republicans are simply rediscovering that their identity as the party of toxic masculinity can apply to foreign affairs, as well as to domestic issues, when the wind is blowing from the right direction. They are hoping, through their support of the Ukrainians, to make the electorate forget how they behaved during the Trump years. They are trying to kick left-wing ass and rewrite history concurrently, not to support liberal democracy here or abroad. They are deceiving and compartmentalizing.

If you don’t believe me, just note that Ron DeSantis is arguing that Putin didn’t invade during the Trump years because the man on golf cart–the guy with the pro-Russian campaign manager who withheld assistance from the Ukrainian government for domestic political reasons–was tougher on Russia than Biden.

Here’s where the factions stand on the war:

CDs: The Russian invasion is a brutal, unprovoked violation of international law. It must be resisted by all diplomatic and military means short of war.

CLs: Hey, we weren’t attacked! Overseas military adventures are always a bad idea. Only wars of direct self-defense are acceptable.

PBPs: Wars are bad for business. Do the minimum necessary to keep the situation under control, but nothing more.

Reactionaries: Under normal conditions, we oppose overseas wars–we would rather use the energy to protect the border and own the libs at home. But the Russians are an exception. We’re still disappointed we didn’t get to kick Russian butt at the end of the Cold War. Support the Ukrainians, and drill, baby, drill!

As with most other issues, it is the Reactionary position that controls. The “New Right” is out of step with the rest of the faction on this matter. Putin is no longer a hero to the GOP now that Trump is out of office, as I predicted some time ago.

As I understand it, Nikita Khrushchev made the decision to install missiles in Cuba more or less on his own. His colleagues on the Politburo were less than thrilled by the crisis and its resolution. As a result of this and other fiascos, Khrushchev was removed from power by a coup within the CCCP.

Could the same thing happen as a result of Putin’s foolhardy war against Ukraine? Not exactly, because Putin is not constrained by a party, an ideology, and a bureaucracy in the same way; he runs the whole show himself. The only hope would be that the military and the security apparatus would be sufficiently appalled to refuse to obey orders. That’s a big lift.

A Communist Party as a restraining force in history? It seems implausible at first, but it’s actually true. It is one of the big differences between Xi and Putin.

The way to win a war is to destroy your opponent’s will to fight and to substantially degrade its capacity to do so. Shock and awe attacks do both, which is why I assumed Putin would approach Ukraine in the same way we dealt with Iraq. He didn’t, presumably because he was overconfident and thought he could avoid the global fallout with a less impressive opening. Now he’s facing the worst possible option: a continuing escalation focusing on destroying Ukrainian cities and starving their residents. The horrible footage will be on TV every night. The entire Ukrainian population has been mobilized against him. The world is outraged. A long and expensive occupation is now his best case scenario. It will be a nightmare.

It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

When we went to New York in 2019, I posted about how it felt like the center of the world. The pace of life was fast and intense; every possible ethnicity was represented; there was lots of activity on the street; and the power of the place was represented vertically, in skyscrapers.

Washington, D.C. is the antithesis of New York. It’s a company town, and it all revolves around political power. Nobody lives there permanently. There is little activity on the street. Culture only really exists there to serve the wealthy. Unlike New York, power in architecture is expressed horizontally; the massive concrete and stone government buildings are kind of overwhelming in their own way.

Washington doesn’t remind me of any European or Asian capital that I have seen. The visibility and size of the Capitol building, and the presence of the Washington Monument, suggest a vastly larger and more powerful version of the Vatican. That’s a company town with influence all over the world, as well.