Joshua Hall asked me why the people who research economics of sports tend to be so free market in their orientation (do they love competition and measurement? I still don’t have a good answer; any takers?). Sarah Skwire (a LibraryThing fan) and I debated who had geekier taste in popular culture; it remains a stand-off to be settled upon a future meeting. Paul Cantor promoted his theory that Dante was a heretic and possibly a follower of Averroes; I wondered why Christ isn’t prominent in Paradiso and why isn’t Saladin of all people in the Inferno? Medieval Sufi poetry, and the voyage of discovery toward God, is all over his work. There was a contrast between commercial society in Deadwood vs. Mad Men (I prefer the latter). The very charming Rachel Lomasky and I discussed which is more beautiful: natural logs or the fact that the square root of two is an irrational number? I wondered whether a good conference could be organized on "Liberty and Computation." And there is eugenics all over both Dreiser and Norris. The buildings in downtown remain superb, as does the art museum.
That’s what’s so good about Liberty Fund conferences.
Might it be that sports economists respect equality before the rules of the game and implicitly believe that the best outcome for society (fans, et al.) is when the most meritorious player wins? Tough call, though, because the outcome of any sport competition is zero-sum but markets are positive sum.
I think Norris over Dreiser (and Zola!) and square root of two can’t beat the pretty curves of ln.
which is more beautiful: natural logs or the fact that the square root of two is an irrational number
Even in the context of the “square root of two” question, I still interpreted “natural logs” as referring to naturally occurring logs of wood. This happened the first three times I read the sentence.
“Paul Cantor promoted his theory that Dante was a heretic and possibly a follower of Averroes; I wondered why Christ isn’t prominent in Paradiso and why isn’t Saladin of all people in the Inferno? ”
If Edward Said taught us anything, its that Mohammed is in the Inferno.
“Joshua Hall asked me why the people who research economics of sports tend to be so free market in their orientation (do they love competition and measurement? I still don’t have a good answer; any takers?).”
My guess is most sports economists love sports but lacked athletic ability themselves in high school. Chances are therefore that they also did not enjoy mainstream acceptance in high school, which made them similar, in my experience, to the type of person who embraced Ayn Rand.
You can read James Burnham’s take on Dante here.
People who research sports economics tend to appreciate sports. And people who appreciate sports tend to be more politically conservative and probably more free-market than the average person. It might have something to do with relishing the idea of competition and accepting the idea that there will be winners and losers. They might view losing a competition as an incentive for someone to work harder rather than an unfortunate situation that should be rectified by redistribution.
The next — but definitely related — question is why if you look at the set of conservative or libertarian Hollywood actors you are pretty much left with action movie stars.
Randy: you are confusing the sports industry with sports economists.
NM: Roger Noll was a little All American at Cal Tech as an undergrad. Rob Baade was also a pretty good college hoops player. Vic Matheson is a MLS and D1 college soccer referee. Wolfgang Maennig, a German sports economist, was a member of the gold medal eights with cox shell at the ’88 Summer Olympics.
I think it’s because there is so little free market economics in sports. The reserve clause. The stadium subsidy mess. The NCAA cartel. The IOC monopoly. The North American pro sports monopoly. Pre-Bosman football labor markets in Europe. Sports economics is chock full of instances of restricted/regulated/messed up markets.
Comments on this entry are closed.