Why a Level Playing Field?
In another topic, it was claimed by a regular here that the government has a responsibility to make the playing field level. Why?
Let us at least be on the same playing field. Starting with...
"In commerce, a level playing field is a concept about fairness, not that each player has an equal chance to succeed, but that they all play by the same set of rules.
In a game played on a playing field, such as rugby, one team would have an unfair advantage if the field had a slope. Since some real-life playing fields do in fact have slopes, it is customary for teams to swap ends of the playing field at half time.
A metaphorical playing field is said to be level if no external interference affects the ability of the players to compete fairly.
Some government regulations are intended to provide such fairness, since all participants must abide by the same rules. However, they can have the opposite effect, for example if larger firms find it easier to pay for fixed costs of regulation. It may be added that if the rules effect different participants differently then they are not actually the same.
Handicapping might be thought of as the opposite concept, of unequal rules designed to make the outcome of play more equal." --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_p...
But let us see how this works in practice. Here, the USA sued India at the WTO because India requires a percentage of domestic content in solar panels, disadvantaging imported materials.
(Economic Times for 27 Aug 2015 here: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/i...
This comes up often in arguments about "free trade versus fair trade." It is alleged that when a national government subsidizes home industries, it disadvantages imports. Other subsidies give advantage to local exports into foreign markets where they disadvantage the unsubsidized local businesses there.
Again, I ask, so what?
I suggest a micro-economic analysis of households, individuals, employees, and businesses. Ms. Smith is an executive who earns $250,000 per year. Every Saturday, she takes out her riding mower and manicures the large lawns and gardens around her home. Billy Jones has a lawns service. He points out that he can do the work more efficiently for less. He is willing to earn much less than Ms. Smith, say $100 for the two hours to mow, trim, and rake. Moreover, if Ms. Smith went to the office - even just her home office - she would be far more economically productive than she is being her own lawn service.
Ms. Smith listens to him and agrees that she has better things to do. She goes into the house and comes out with 8-year old Samantha. "Want to learn to drive? Do a good job, all neat and clean, and I will give you $50. It will take you most of the morning. You will clear about $12.50 an hour." Billy Jones files a complaint with the World Trade Organization.
The concept of a "level playing field" applies to sports. Competitive sports are zero-sum games. Business is not. Businesses create unlevel playing fields all the time. They change the rules of the game. New products and new services create new markets.
The speed limits on streets and roads are a perfect example of a legally-mandated level playing field for delivery companies. UPS, FedEx, the USPS, and all the many independents, even the bike couriers, all are subject to the same rules of the road. Now, Amazon wants to deliver packages with drones. Where is your level playing field now? It is in the wrong dimension - Flatland, visited by a sphere.
Moreover, in some games - golf comes to mind - knowing the field - slopes, traps, trees, and all - and playing it to your advantage is part of the game. Here is a longer article - an editorial, really - about the illusion of a level playing field in sports. In this case, the sports are track and field. All bodies are not created equal. http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/5J3ui...
Furthermore, the remedy in some sports is to switch goals after half-time. That way if there is a natural slope, the advantage goes to each side equally. But does it? Is a football field the same after half a game? Heraclitus would have a lot to say about that. The assumption is that either team could take equal advantage of a sloped field. How is that known? And if it were a real consideration, would not the officials actually measure the field for flatness? And would not some of those sports actually be played on fields with officially regulated slopes?
What about basketball, another sport where the goals are swapped. No one claims that the gym is sloped.
Note that in American Football, the first kickoff is settled with a coin toss. They do not have two kickoffs and average them to distribute the result. They do not flip the coin ten times and average that. You win or you lose the advantage on the toss of a coin. That's life... And as for chance, as Louis Pasteur famously noted, it favors the prepared mind.
The concept of a level playing field in economics is a floating abstraction, a logical construct without empirical validity.
Let us at least be on the same playing field. Starting with...
"In commerce, a level playing field is a concept about fairness, not that each player has an equal chance to succeed, but that they all play by the same set of rules.
In a game played on a playing field, such as rugby, one team would have an unfair advantage if the field had a slope. Since some real-life playing fields do in fact have slopes, it is customary for teams to swap ends of the playing field at half time.
A metaphorical playing field is said to be level if no external interference affects the ability of the players to compete fairly.
Some government regulations are intended to provide such fairness, since all participants must abide by the same rules. However, they can have the opposite effect, for example if larger firms find it easier to pay for fixed costs of regulation. It may be added that if the rules effect different participants differently then they are not actually the same.
Handicapping might be thought of as the opposite concept, of unequal rules designed to make the outcome of play more equal." --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_p...
But let us see how this works in practice. Here, the USA sued India at the WTO because India requires a percentage of domestic content in solar panels, disadvantaging imported materials.
(Economic Times for 27 Aug 2015 here: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/i...
This comes up often in arguments about "free trade versus fair trade." It is alleged that when a national government subsidizes home industries, it disadvantages imports. Other subsidies give advantage to local exports into foreign markets where they disadvantage the unsubsidized local businesses there.
Again, I ask, so what?
I suggest a micro-economic analysis of households, individuals, employees, and businesses. Ms. Smith is an executive who earns $250,000 per year. Every Saturday, she takes out her riding mower and manicures the large lawns and gardens around her home. Billy Jones has a lawns service. He points out that he can do the work more efficiently for less. He is willing to earn much less than Ms. Smith, say $100 for the two hours to mow, trim, and rake. Moreover, if Ms. Smith went to the office - even just her home office - she would be far more economically productive than she is being her own lawn service.
Ms. Smith listens to him and agrees that she has better things to do. She goes into the house and comes out with 8-year old Samantha. "Want to learn to drive? Do a good job, all neat and clean, and I will give you $50. It will take you most of the morning. You will clear about $12.50 an hour." Billy Jones files a complaint with the World Trade Organization.
The concept of a "level playing field" applies to sports. Competitive sports are zero-sum games. Business is not. Businesses create unlevel playing fields all the time. They change the rules of the game. New products and new services create new markets.
The speed limits on streets and roads are a perfect example of a legally-mandated level playing field for delivery companies. UPS, FedEx, the USPS, and all the many independents, even the bike couriers, all are subject to the same rules of the road. Now, Amazon wants to deliver packages with drones. Where is your level playing field now? It is in the wrong dimension - Flatland, visited by a sphere.
Moreover, in some games - golf comes to mind - knowing the field - slopes, traps, trees, and all - and playing it to your advantage is part of the game. Here is a longer article - an editorial, really - about the illusion of a level playing field in sports. In this case, the sports are track and field. All bodies are not created equal. http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/5J3ui...
Furthermore, the remedy in some sports is to switch goals after half-time. That way if there is a natural slope, the advantage goes to each side equally. But does it? Is a football field the same after half a game? Heraclitus would have a lot to say about that. The assumption is that either team could take equal advantage of a sloped field. How is that known? And if it were a real consideration, would not the officials actually measure the field for flatness? And would not some of those sports actually be played on fields with officially regulated slopes?
What about basketball, another sport where the goals are swapped. No one claims that the gym is sloped.
Note that in American Football, the first kickoff is settled with a coin toss. They do not have two kickoffs and average them to distribute the result. They do not flip the coin ten times and average that. You win or you lose the advantage on the toss of a coin. That's life... And as for chance, as Louis Pasteur famously noted, it favors the prepared mind.
The concept of a level playing field in economics is a floating abstraction, a logical construct without empirical validity.
This word fairness has bothered me for years.
Not until I read AS did I realize what people meant by wanting fairness ~=a level playing field.
In pp18,19 of my edition of AS, James Taggart has had a string of arguments utterly demolished by Dagny. He can then only say "It isn't fair".
As MM argues, what is fair or level in some circumstances is not in other conditions or other viewpoints. The hidden agenda is promoted by making level the aspect that favors a particular competitor.
The irony is wonderful.
I fail to apprehend why you find those facts amusing, unless you are on the bad guys' side.
As for a Constitutional Amendment or Convention, there are SO many impediments to THAT process that the odds are it will never happen, either. About as likely as a civil war where most of the participants are already signed up for existing Major Parties or the Apathy Movement....
I'm certainly not on the 'bad guys' side'... whatever or whichever that is (please specify)... I can not, in good conscience, vote Democrat OR Republican, for reasons I've tried to make clear here and on my personal plusaf.com site.
I observe what goes on and notice what's missing from most 'discussions' or 'arguments' on such subjects.
I turn 70 in just a few months; I've been "observing" for scores of years and I've pretty much given up hope of "things getting better" in my lifetime. I know some great teenagers who really do know how to Think, but I suspect that, even if they 'take over,' I will have shuffled off this mortal coil long before their effects move the needle.
Is that "Gulchy" enough for you? Maybe I'm an Eddie Willers and just don't have what it takes to change anyone's mind, although I can see what's going on pretty clearly. That may kill me in the end, but everyone has their place on the Distribution Curve of Everything.
I'd like to publish a book of my ideas and observations and suggestions as my Legacy.
Time will tell.
The government is very selective about applying rules to supposedly level the field. It's a real struggle for small companies to win Pentagon contracts when competing against established big firms.
The biggest problem with the assumption, however, is that it totally ignores the right of the individual to value things differently than the next person. In the business world, value is a very personal thing, and this is frequently what gets trampled when government intervenes. The laws get written to enforce one specific set of values to the exclusion of others. This ends up distorting the market in favor of those making the rules - instead of the consumer. This distortion is the definition of unfairness.
I am sorry, Chief, but you are out of line.
Respectfully,
PO3 (TX) Marotta
Oh, and I wasn't a Chief...you're wrong about that too.
Frankly, with as automated as the whole system has gotten, I have little confidence in it. People see the stock price as their investment, when it used to be that the stock price was merely an in to getting that quarterly or annual dividend.
The majority of people lack a well-defined philosophy. Their principles exist as “rules of thumb” rather than clearly defined concepts, and are likely to be centered on emblems of fairness such as the “golden rule,” rather than on narrowly focused abstractions such as non-initiation of force.
Advocates of expanded government power take advantage of the public’s ethical priorities by framing arguments for “fairness” in a manner that is difficult for Objectivists to counter. This is because the non-initiation-of-force principle does not fully address numerous issues that are encountered in everyday life and resonate with voters. Many situations arise that enable one person or group to obtain an advantage over others, without directly or indirectly initiating force. The prevention of such occurrences is used as a pretext for the intrusion by government into the marketplace, through passage of laws regulating or prohibiting such behavior.
“Consumer protection” laws are an example. These statutes deal with perceived inequities in trade between people with varying access to information, mental capacities, and economic power. Another example is military conscription. For decades, the draft enjoyed strong public support, not because it promoted individual freedom (it did precisely the opposite) but because it appeared “fair” in its attempt to distribute the risks and hardships of military life without regard to wealth, social status, or political connections.
Proponents of activist government manipulate the average voter’s concept of fairness to generate support for redistributive programs such as welfare, government schools, and progressive taxation. These programs are perceived to be fair because the public sees them as compensating for inequities resulting from accidents of birth, physical or mental incapacities, and random misfortunes. It is no accident that Social Security, Medicare, and many other forms of wealth-transfer are known as “entitlements.” That designation is crucial to creating an appearance of fairness, implying that recipients in some way have deserved or “earned” their benefits and are therefore “entitled” to them.
Objectivists tend to draw a hard and fast distinction between the “earned” and the “unearned.” But to the general public, these distinctions are less absolute. Most people acknowledge that ingenuity and hard work are important components of success. But random factors such as inherited wealth or “being at the right place at the right time” are also thought to play a role. Thus, partial transfers of property from those who “earned it” to those who “did not earn it” are justified in many voters’ minds as a means of compensating for outcomes resulting from such variables.
Confronting the issue of fairness is critical to achieving the widespread adoption of Objectivist principles. We need to clearly demonstrate that a society that respects individual rights and individual achievement is more “fair” than one that does not.
Maybe the sports leagues should argue for the Levelest Of All Playing Fields by demanding that all teams be forced to hire/employ team members equally balanced for age, skill, stamina, weight, intelligence, experience, and so on?
It would be a Liberal's (wet) Dream!
I thought the draft was for team improvement, gaining new players with more potential or for players that want to change teams. I can see it heading that way but like you, I do not pay attention to sports very much. I'd rather play than watch...can't sit that long and get board easily...hahahahahah
Apple paid Microsoft to develop a version of Office for the Macintosh. The Oakland Athletics do not lease an infield from the Seattle Mariners. (And you can buy a Mac in Redland...)
Where's the Zero-Sum in that, other than the binary aspect of 'one wins, one loses'? There are win/loss at the Game level, but even the 'losing team' at the SuperBowl gets a fairly fat paycheck, too...
Drafts and other gimmicks merely try to push things so that the point spreads decrease as skills and talents get forced into closer balance.
How would that work in "Business"? And please don't suggest that MLB or MLF aren't "businesses" in that sense... :D
However, as for the money, it is interesting. The rules have changed, but when I was a lad, all of the teams who played .500 or better got some fraction of the World Series receipts. It is different now: you have to make the post-season playoffs.
The Baseball Almanac gives a tally from 1903 forward for the shares enjoyed by winning and losing players.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/ws...
This ESPN analysis opens with a story. First base coach Mike Coolbaugh of the Tulsa Drillers AA affiliate of the Colorado Rockies was killed by a line drive. The Rockies voted his widow (pregnant with two boys) a full share of their World Series money.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/117...
Later this week, I will get out new topic about Baseball. It is the American Game. Just one note here: back before airliners, teams traveled by train. They often passed the hours by reading. Novels, your typical "great books", and Shakespeare were common.
:)
Seig Me No Heils. Republican and Democrat is just another name for smiley face fascists.
I do not support the party. My oath was to the Constitution. what does that have to do with this Government and it's good little Comrades?
and the two faced Government Party?
Nothing.
As for Constitutional what does that have to do with this government?