The NBA has a major problem on its hands. The Eastern Conference is largely comprised of mediocre and downright awful teams. The Western Conference seems to get stronger and more competitive every year. The problem is most glaring when it comes to seeding for the post season. Teams with better records are being left out of the playoffs instead of teams with lousy records simply because they play in a different conference. Additionally, a lousy team can win a division and make the playoffs, and be seeded higher up, whereas a better team in a different division can be seeded lower or miss the playoffs altogether.
Several factors have led to this but the problem can be fixed in a simple manner. The league must remove the conference and division distinctions. Teams would play an even schedule. This gives a true indication of which team is truly the best, not just in the East or West. Analysts could measure them by how they played league-wide without the debate and controversy which accompanies divisions, conference separations, and an uneven schedule.
Instead of the top 8 teams in each conference making the post season, the top 16 teams would make the playoffs. By doing so, the NBA would have 30 teams, all competing against each other for seeding. However, only the best teams would make the playoffs. No team with a worse record will ever make the playoffs over a team with a better record. Teams should also be reseeded after each round. The playoffs would be best of seven games all the way through.
This also removes the need for a draft lottery. Since all teams will be ranked against each other evenly, on a scale of 1 to 30, the worst team will get the number one pick and so on, all the way up to the number one team.
The all-star game would be coached by the two coaches of the past year’s finals teams and the players could be selected by those coaches in a draft consisting of players in a pool created by the fans in a vote.
In addition to the league structure and playoff system I also would like to see the game speed up and stay fast until the end. Too many fouls occur at the end of close games which make the last 2 minutes of a game take more than 10. I propose that these fouls, which occur where a defensive player obviously attacks the offensive player rather than the ball, be treated as technical fouls resulting in 2 shots and possession of the ball.
Another problem facing the league is the NBA draft and the age of players. The NBA should allow players to join the league after high school. I have never heard a job qualification in the business world which read “Must have some college experience.” The NBA seems to be asking that high-school graduates attend a single year of college just so they can be cultivated. Most would agree that one year of college does not add enough of a growth in maturity and in skill level to make a significant or even minimal difference in the level of play at the professional level. Teams should be free to evaluate all the talent and decide for themselves if the high school graduate has the level of skills they desire for their franchise. More likely than not, the player will not be ready. However, allowing high school graduates to directly enter the work force in the NBA would not foreclose the possibility that a phenomena like LeBron James will be made ineligible until after he attends one year at Akron University!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Welfare Systems Inherently Fail
Poverty is a global problem which occurs because of ineffective resource allocation. Resources are not centrally located, nor can they be. A global allocation system is impossible because it lacks the ability to collect and allocate the resources. The attempt to properly allocate resources has led to the formation of societies. Societies in turn have created governments to act as gatekeepers and create an orderly resource allocation scheme. However, a local society (all governments are a form of local society) lacks sufficient resources within its jurisdiction to provide every resource to every member.
All resource allocation schemes are inherently flawed. Resources can never be properly allocated. As such, there will always be those who have and those that do not. No individual can overcome this. Therefore, individuals acting as a society have set up governments to act as resource gatekeepers. Governments can only attempt to alleviate resource inequity by passing regulations on what resources are available to its citizens and how they may be used. A government can directly control resources or indirectly control resources. Governments directly control resources which are within their territorial jurisdiction. So long as the resource is only available in their territorial jurisdiction, they have absolute control over its allocation. Governments have indirect control over resources outside of their territorial jurisdiction through trading of resources. To make the trading of resources easier, all governments have created a monetary system. The money one has in his hand has a value and can be traded for resources up to the value in hand.
I posit that governmental control of the monetary system is the primary cause of inequity in resource allocation. I further posit that there is no system available that can ever equitably allocate resources.
In order to have a monetary system, the paper bills must be backed by a resource of value. This resource must be held in the control of the government. It is, in essence, largely taken off the market. Additionally, those in power force everyone within the jurisdiction of the government to use this resource as the basis for the monetary system. The government, through its leaders has by force declared that anyone who wishes engage in commerce with those under and within that government’s jurisdiction must use their currency or an equivalent thereof (foreign monetary systems using a resource that the local government has agreed can be measured against their currency).
Since government controls the very resource used in the allocation of every other resource, there can only be a finite amount and each jurisdiction has the potential for an infinite number of citizens. Messing up the equation even further is the credit system. This system allows people to possess more monetary resources than actually exist. This creates debt. Government has also used credit to allocate resources. This creates one big messy monetary system which results in perpetual deficits.
Even if a government were to balance its budget, much of that balancing is a result of credit. The money does not really exist. The only way to get out of this mess is to scrap the credit system and even this is problematic. To do so, government must legislate a resource allocation scheme which only allows a finite amount of resources to an infinite amount of resource users. Additionally, governments must base this scheme on resources which it can control 100% with no exceptions. To do so, every single resource would have to be produced and made available within its territorial jurisdiction. This is a complete impossibility as well as a utopian dream.
Only a central government which has territorial jurisdiction over the entire globe could achieve such a thing. Given all of the variables which arise, it is impossible. Resources have different value to different people both on a global level and on a local level. More importantly, resources have different value on an individual person basis. In order for a central government to properly allocate all resources, some extravagant program would have to be designed to take into account every individual person’s vale of a resource.
Governments have attempted to do away with this problem by declaring a set value for all resources and only allowing allocation of this set value to each member of society. This system fails every time for many reasons, most notably because no government controls enough of any one resource to properly sustain itself for the long run.
Governments which attempt to allow the individual citizens to allocate the resources amongst themselves fail as well because any one person can attain more of a resource than another and withhold the resource. Thus, a person who obtains a lot of land resources controls how others use that land.
Free market systems tout the ingenuity of individuals as the saving grace of the system. Progress is made by those who create a new resource which can substitute for an already existing resource, thereby reallocating the wealth through supply and demand forces. This system is aided by laws which protect ideas and inventions such as copyright and patent laws. The problem with these laws is that they are government sanctioned monopolies on resources and thereby create resource inequity.
There will always be more resource seekers than resource owners. Hence, there is a finite amount of resources available to an infinite amount of people. There is a global resource pie with a finite amount of slices. Many claim that there is an infinite amount of resources, mankind need only discover it. The problem is not in the natural existence of resources, but in the allocation system. A resource is only created by a person or entity in control of the facilities and mechanisms to bring those resources to a useful state. Also, not every person or entity is capable of creating every resource it requires or desires.
A person requires food, but must grow the food in order to have it. This requires ownership of land. Ownership is a construction enforced by government or individual might. One could purchase food from a supplier with his resources but , again, this requires some form of resource ownership enforced by government or individual might.
Welfare systems make several determinations. Chief among them, they determine what resource requires reallocation (usually it is based on money) The system must then determine the minimum acceptable level an individual should have. The system must determine who has this resource and devise a program for the reallocation of this resource to those not in possession of the minimum level and must do so without placing others below the minimum.
Incidental to this system, by removing one resource from someone, the program will always cause a less amount of another resource to be available to that person. It is impossible to measure a minimum level of every resource, as such, all welfare systems cannot fix any problem without causing another problem in another resource allocation scheme.
Taxes are a resource allocation scheme. Governments then pass legislation which allocates this tax revenue to a welfare scheme. Any government program is a form of welfare. It is assisting someone in some way. Police assists a community, the army assist the nation, infrastructure supports those that use it. Governments have the impossible task of determining the proper allocation of resources to each welfare system. No agreement amongst total-citizenry will ever be made as to the proper allocation of resources to welfare programs. Most cannot agree what welfare programs are in the proper domain of government, if any.
What is the solution? There is no solution. People only act in their own interest. Society can only hope that the culmination of all those individual acts together result in a functional society. Functional societies are those where the majority can survive and perpetuate the society. Short of this, there is no solution.
Conservative theory calls for less government intrusion but must concede that some government intrusion is required. Even amongst conservatives there is disagreement on what is a proper government intrusion.
Liberal theory calls for more government intrusion but must concede that government cannot intrude on every aspect of life sufficiently enough. Even amongst liberals there is disagreement on what is the proper limit of government intrusion.
As such, all political parties argue that their prescribed platform is the best system and seek to get elected by the citizens. Hence, the Libertarian Party has a set platform and ideology as to what government should do. Individual Libertarians, however, disagree. A society basically only functions when the individuals garner a large enough majority of supporters (with the ability to enforce their support) to place a political party in control to implement its prescribed program. Therefore, society will never be able to perfectly allocate its resources and inequitable and inefficient allocation of resources will always exist.
All resource allocation schemes are inherently flawed. Resources can never be properly allocated. As such, there will always be those who have and those that do not. No individual can overcome this. Therefore, individuals acting as a society have set up governments to act as resource gatekeepers. Governments can only attempt to alleviate resource inequity by passing regulations on what resources are available to its citizens and how they may be used. A government can directly control resources or indirectly control resources. Governments directly control resources which are within their territorial jurisdiction. So long as the resource is only available in their territorial jurisdiction, they have absolute control over its allocation. Governments have indirect control over resources outside of their territorial jurisdiction through trading of resources. To make the trading of resources easier, all governments have created a monetary system. The money one has in his hand has a value and can be traded for resources up to the value in hand.
I posit that governmental control of the monetary system is the primary cause of inequity in resource allocation. I further posit that there is no system available that can ever equitably allocate resources.
In order to have a monetary system, the paper bills must be backed by a resource of value. This resource must be held in the control of the government. It is, in essence, largely taken off the market. Additionally, those in power force everyone within the jurisdiction of the government to use this resource as the basis for the monetary system. The government, through its leaders has by force declared that anyone who wishes engage in commerce with those under and within that government’s jurisdiction must use their currency or an equivalent thereof (foreign monetary systems using a resource that the local government has agreed can be measured against their currency).
Since government controls the very resource used in the allocation of every other resource, there can only be a finite amount and each jurisdiction has the potential for an infinite number of citizens. Messing up the equation even further is the credit system. This system allows people to possess more monetary resources than actually exist. This creates debt. Government has also used credit to allocate resources. This creates one big messy monetary system which results in perpetual deficits.
Even if a government were to balance its budget, much of that balancing is a result of credit. The money does not really exist. The only way to get out of this mess is to scrap the credit system and even this is problematic. To do so, government must legislate a resource allocation scheme which only allows a finite amount of resources to an infinite amount of resource users. Additionally, governments must base this scheme on resources which it can control 100% with no exceptions. To do so, every single resource would have to be produced and made available within its territorial jurisdiction. This is a complete impossibility as well as a utopian dream.
Only a central government which has territorial jurisdiction over the entire globe could achieve such a thing. Given all of the variables which arise, it is impossible. Resources have different value to different people both on a global level and on a local level. More importantly, resources have different value on an individual person basis. In order for a central government to properly allocate all resources, some extravagant program would have to be designed to take into account every individual person’s vale of a resource.
Governments have attempted to do away with this problem by declaring a set value for all resources and only allowing allocation of this set value to each member of society. This system fails every time for many reasons, most notably because no government controls enough of any one resource to properly sustain itself for the long run.
Governments which attempt to allow the individual citizens to allocate the resources amongst themselves fail as well because any one person can attain more of a resource than another and withhold the resource. Thus, a person who obtains a lot of land resources controls how others use that land.
Free market systems tout the ingenuity of individuals as the saving grace of the system. Progress is made by those who create a new resource which can substitute for an already existing resource, thereby reallocating the wealth through supply and demand forces. This system is aided by laws which protect ideas and inventions such as copyright and patent laws. The problem with these laws is that they are government sanctioned monopolies on resources and thereby create resource inequity.
There will always be more resource seekers than resource owners. Hence, there is a finite amount of resources available to an infinite amount of people. There is a global resource pie with a finite amount of slices. Many claim that there is an infinite amount of resources, mankind need only discover it. The problem is not in the natural existence of resources, but in the allocation system. A resource is only created by a person or entity in control of the facilities and mechanisms to bring those resources to a useful state. Also, not every person or entity is capable of creating every resource it requires or desires.
A person requires food, but must grow the food in order to have it. This requires ownership of land. Ownership is a construction enforced by government or individual might. One could purchase food from a supplier with his resources but , again, this requires some form of resource ownership enforced by government or individual might.
Welfare systems make several determinations. Chief among them, they determine what resource requires reallocation (usually it is based on money) The system must then determine the minimum acceptable level an individual should have. The system must determine who has this resource and devise a program for the reallocation of this resource to those not in possession of the minimum level and must do so without placing others below the minimum.
Incidental to this system, by removing one resource from someone, the program will always cause a less amount of another resource to be available to that person. It is impossible to measure a minimum level of every resource, as such, all welfare systems cannot fix any problem without causing another problem in another resource allocation scheme.
Taxes are a resource allocation scheme. Governments then pass legislation which allocates this tax revenue to a welfare scheme. Any government program is a form of welfare. It is assisting someone in some way. Police assists a community, the army assist the nation, infrastructure supports those that use it. Governments have the impossible task of determining the proper allocation of resources to each welfare system. No agreement amongst total-citizenry will ever be made as to the proper allocation of resources to welfare programs. Most cannot agree what welfare programs are in the proper domain of government, if any.
What is the solution? There is no solution. People only act in their own interest. Society can only hope that the culmination of all those individual acts together result in a functional society. Functional societies are those where the majority can survive and perpetuate the society. Short of this, there is no solution.
Conservative theory calls for less government intrusion but must concede that some government intrusion is required. Even amongst conservatives there is disagreement on what is a proper government intrusion.
Liberal theory calls for more government intrusion but must concede that government cannot intrude on every aspect of life sufficiently enough. Even amongst liberals there is disagreement on what is the proper limit of government intrusion.
As such, all political parties argue that their prescribed platform is the best system and seek to get elected by the citizens. Hence, the Libertarian Party has a set platform and ideology as to what government should do. Individual Libertarians, however, disagree. A society basically only functions when the individuals garner a large enough majority of supporters (with the ability to enforce their support) to place a political party in control to implement its prescribed program. Therefore, society will never be able to perfectly allocate its resources and inequitable and inefficient allocation of resources will always exist.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Integrity of Politicians: Private Life of Political Candidates and Officers
The recent media frenzy surrounding the resignation of now former New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer, highlighted the growing disappointment the general public seems to have of the private conduct of its public officials. The new governor of New York, David Paterson, has admitted to having an open marriage. Many see this as an issue claiming this shows a lack of integrity. If the politician lacks integrity, how can he be trusted to properly fulfill his obligations as a public servant?
The answer is simple. It comes down to the legality and illegality of the actions the politician is engaged in. In the case of Elliot Spitzer, he was engaged in illegal conduct. Using a prostitution service in the manner he did is considered a Federal offense. New evidence reveals he may have used campaign funds to finance his sexual (mis)adventures.
Governor Paterson is engaged in legal conduct. An affair is not a crime. Bill Clinton’s affair itself was not a crime, but his perjury concerning testimony related to the affair was. Did this affair have an affect on Clinton’s policy pursuits as president? Probably not.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles admitted to having an affair but was not engaged in illegal conduct. His problem is that he ran as a family values candidate. Most of the public would not call an affair a family value. Does this reflect on his integrity as a person? Of course it does. Does this reflect on his integrity to fulfill his obligations as mayor? Perhaps, but not likely.
The public and media should stop clamoring for perfectly moral candidates. They do not exist. Most people have moral lapses and dilemmas that they consider private. Being in public office does not make those same problems more grave, they just get exposed more often. That is the nature of the media in the United States which is driven by ratings rather than quality of the news being reported and its usefulness to the public.
To summarize, illegal activity is wrong and should be a factor in deciding the integrity of a politician as to his capacity to perform his public duties; legal activity that is just morally wrong should not!
The answer is simple. It comes down to the legality and illegality of the actions the politician is engaged in. In the case of Elliot Spitzer, he was engaged in illegal conduct. Using a prostitution service in the manner he did is considered a Federal offense. New evidence reveals he may have used campaign funds to finance his sexual (mis)adventures.
Governor Paterson is engaged in legal conduct. An affair is not a crime. Bill Clinton’s affair itself was not a crime, but his perjury concerning testimony related to the affair was. Did this affair have an affect on Clinton’s policy pursuits as president? Probably not.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles admitted to having an affair but was not engaged in illegal conduct. His problem is that he ran as a family values candidate. Most of the public would not call an affair a family value. Does this reflect on his integrity as a person? Of course it does. Does this reflect on his integrity to fulfill his obligations as mayor? Perhaps, but not likely.
The public and media should stop clamoring for perfectly moral candidates. They do not exist. Most people have moral lapses and dilemmas that they consider private. Being in public office does not make those same problems more grave, they just get exposed more often. That is the nature of the media in the United States which is driven by ratings rather than quality of the news being reported and its usefulness to the public.
To summarize, illegal activity is wrong and should be a factor in deciding the integrity of a politician as to his capacity to perform his public duties; legal activity that is just morally wrong should not!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
