"Dishonest" College Coaches Are Agorist Heroes

This story is interesting. There was a scandal at Miami, where "inappropriate" payments were made to players. This follows immediately after a scandal at Ohio State and several other top teams.

The NCAA has colluded to fix student athlete salaries. The only payment a player may receive is his scholarship. The actual value of a student athlete is much higher.

The schools make millions of dollars off football, but only return a pittance to the players.

A scholarship is worth around $20k, but a lot of that is funny money. The school is charging the athletic department $20k, and adding that money to the school's general fund. Most football players work almost full-time on football, and don't take serious classes. For example, a very low percentage of student athletes take advanced calculus or other advanced engineering or science classes.

Even if you assume the scholarship is worth the face amount, it's a ripoff. The NFL minimum salary is $375k. It is ridiculous to think that a player is worth only $20k/year as a college player, and then $375k/year as a pro. The high draft picks and star players get even more, although the new CBA restrained that a bit. (Not every college player gets to play in the NFL. However, many college players are probably worth more than their $20k/year tuition, even ones who don't qualify for the NFL.)

When I was in graduate school, I taught Math classes in exchange for tuition+stipend. In fact, I chose one school over another partially because it made me a better offer. Why not let players play football for tuition+stipend? Why not let schools compete with each other on salary offers?

The NCAA insiders are exploiting their monopoly position. The NFL, also having a monopoly, has no minor league system, with college functioning as the minor league system. The NFL won't accept a player until he's been in college for 3 years. This forces star players to work for a pittance in the NCAA, instead of turning pro.

The "dishonest" coaches realize that their players are way underpaid. They arrange for under-the-table payments, to make sure that players are fairly compensated.

The NCAA has created this problem, by capping player compensation at tuition. The only way to eliminate under-the-table payments is to declare that players can be paid their fair market value, with free market competition and no payment cap.

That would be an embarrassment, because the top players might earn $50k/year or more. However, it would be less embarrassing than under-the-table payment scandals. Also, schools would be forced to compete on salary, making football less of a lucrative gravy train for NCAA insiders. What's wrong with paying players $50k/year, when they're earning millions for the school?

If it's against NCAA rules to pay players their fair value, then honest coaches will find a workaround, by paying players under-the-table. The rule-breaking NCAA coaches aren't criminals. They are heroes, because they're making sure their players are fairly paid for their services. The real criminals are the NCAA and NFL, exploiting their monopoly to force players to work for artificially low salaries.

Georgetown vs. China

This story was pretty interesting. Georgetown played an exhibition game in China against a top Chinese pro team, the Bayi Rockets. That is one of the top pro teams in China, comprised only of former soldiers with no foreign players allowed. (They aren't actual soldiers serving combat duty. They are nominally soldiers, whose primary duty was playing basketball.)

The referees were obviously biased in favor of China. By halftime, China's team had only 11 fouls but Georgetown had 28 fouls, and China's team was playing very dirty.

Even though the referees were trying to fix the game, Georgetown was making it close. The game was tied. It ended in a bench clearing brawl without being finished. The Georgetown players walked out of the game after the brawl, with the Chinese crowd starting to get ugly.

That second link has a clip showing the start of the brawl. (The clip on Yahoo cut out the very beginning of the brawl.) The fight was pretty obviously started by the Chinese team. There was a foul and minor scuffle. The Georgetown player tried to run away from the Chinese player, but the Chinese player escalated it to a full fight.

The Chinese government has censored the story in China.

In the USA, there's no official connection between sports and the government. Even if a USA national sports team misbehaves, nobody is going to blame the President.

In China, this team was touted as a military team. The referees were cheating to favor China. Even with that advantage, it was a close game, and the players got frustrated when they were losing. This is an embarrassment for the Chinese government, because there's an explicit connection between the team and the military and the government. The USA system is better, where sports teams are used as bread and circuses, but sports are independent of the government (although they receive direct and indirect State subsidies, like taxpayer-funded stadiums).

Interestingly, Georgetown's players have not been suspended after the fight. Usually, the USA sports policy is "In a fight, both sides get suspended, even someone who's defending himself." The fact that Georgetown players were not suspended, shows that it was obviously a one-sided fight.

The problem is that the referees didn't control the game, showing an obvious pro-China bias. There's a simple solution. The NCAA should pass a rule saying "All games involving NCAA teams must use NCAA referees, even exhibition games."

Venezuela, Chavez, and Gold

This story is very interesting. Huge Chavez nationalized Venezuela's gold industry, seizing control from the corporations who own and operated the mines.

Hugo Chavez also demanded physical delivery, to Venezuela, of 99 tons of gold on deposit at the Bank of England. Also, the price of gold rose sharply yesterday (Thursday).

The conspiracy theory is that the Bank of England doesn't have the 99 tons of gold for physical delivery. The gold was lent to short sellers, and now they must scramble to get some gold.

Even if you buy gold in an allocated account, that doesn't mean the bank has the gold they promised! There are many stories of people with "allocated" accounts with delivery option, but the bank stonewalls when the customer demands delivery! Obviously, many "allocated warehouse accounts" are really frauds. For this reason, actual physical gold is preferable to all forms of paper gold.

Allegedly, this physical delivery demand caused the price of gold to rise. The banksters are now scrambling to get 99 tons of gold for physical delivery. If the banksters default and fail to deliver, then many other people will start demanding physical delivery.

The State financial system has an annoying habit of freezing the accounts of out-of-favor dictators. Therefore, Hugo Chavez is making a wise move, demanding physical delivery of his gold.

That's the classic fractional reserve banking scam. It could be a classic bank run. Many "allocated gold accounts" are frauds and really fractional reserve banking. If there's one big redemption, then the scam is exposed, and everyone demands physical delivery.

That is a very interesting conspiracy theory. Hugo Chavez demanded physical delivery of 99 tons of Venezuela's gold. The price of gold is increasing, as the banksters scramble for physical to deliver. If there's a delivery default, then the whole paper gold market could unravel, as everyone demands physical delivery.

You Can't Tax A Corporation

There was an amusing incident, where Romney debated a heckler regarding taxation of corporations. Both Romney and the heckler were misinformed.

A corporation is an abstract fictional representation. You can't tax a corporation any more than you can tax Santa Claus.

A "tax on corporations" is actually a tax on the people who use the corporation. You can tax the shareholders. You can tax the CEO. You can tax the employees. You can tax the customers.

You can't tax the corporation itself.

Any tax on a corporation will be realized the people who make up the corporation.

If you tax shareholders, then you're pushing down the stock market.

If you tax the CEO 10% more, he might just pay himself 10% more. After all, he has a monopoly.

If you tax the employees, then the people are working harder for less salary.

If you tax customers, then people are paying higher prices.

In the current economic system, large corporations have an oligopoly/monopoly. If corporate taxes are raised, the cost will merely be passed on to customers as higher prices.

Corporate tax rates only really matter when corporations compete with unincorporated individuals. In that case, higher corporate tax rates make it easier for individuals to compete with large corporations. In the present, it's effectively illegal to compete with established large corporations.

Most State costs are a regressive tax on individual business owners. For example, regulatory compliance costs are a huge regressive tax.

You can't tax a corporation. A corporation is an abstract fictional entity. When corporations have a monopoly, any tax is passed on to customers via higher prices. Corporate tax rates only matter when corporations compete with unincorporated individuals. In the present, the State economic system makes it almost impossible for an individual to compete with an established corporate monopoly.

Rick Perry On The Federal Reserve

This story is very interesting. Rick Perry said that the Federal Reserve is almost treasonous, due to their inflationary policies.

At this point, a pro-State troll says "Why is Rick Perry whining about inflation?! The CPI is low! I know inflation is low, because Bernanke and the mainstream media said so!"

This post on zerohedge had a great inflation analysis. I believe he's looking a commodity futures/spot prices. This is the 1 year change. Notice how gold is close to the middle of the range. I consider gold to be the best inflation measure over a 5+ year time period.

• Unleaded gas prices are up 45%.
• Heating oil prices are up 46%.
• Corn prices are up 71%.
• Soybean prices are up 26%.
• Rice prices are up 13%.
• Pork prices are up 31%.
• Beef prices are up 25%.
• Coffee prices are up 38%.
• Sugar prices are up 48%.
• Cotton prices are up 13%.
• Gold prices are up 42%.
• Silver prices are up 115%.
• Copper prices are up 23%.

Rick Perry is criticizing the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies.

This is a very promising sign. Politicians other than Ron Paul are more openly criticizing the Federal Reserve.

Why should the Federal Reserve be "independent"? "Independent Federal Reserve" is a code word for "We can inflate and steal as much as we want, without any public disclosure or accountability." Why should there be "more accountability for teachers" but the Federal Reserve gets to be "independent"?

It's also amusing to see people denounce Perry as "irresponsible", because he dared to criticize the sacred Federal Reserve. There's the usual backlash from statists, when someone says a bit of the forbidden truth.

New York Times Washington correspondant Binyamin Applebaum tweeted that Perry's comments were "horrifying," and asked the question, "This is a major party presidential candidate??"

It is very predictable, the hostility against accidental truth-tellers. I wonder if someone had a sit-down with Perry and told him "Dude! You can't criticize our gravy train like that! You aren't going to get elected if you talk like that!"?

Also notice that criticizing Rick Perry's comment is a type of endorsement. It's better media coverage than Ron Paul, who is typically ignored.

Cynically, Rick Perry may be doing this to gather some of the Ron Paul voters. It is very likely that Rick Perry is criticizing the Federal Reserve, but won't do anything about it (if elected President). It still is progress.

Rick Perry also correctly pointed out that, if Ben Bernanke heavily inflates, that will benefit Obama's reelection chances. Inflation creates the illusion of economic growth and the illusion that the economy is getting better. For example, if the Federal Reserve inflates, that pushes up the stock market. A rising stock market is touted as a sign of economic recovery, even if returns are less than true inflation.

If the Federal Reserve adopted a tight monetary policy, that could hurt Obama's reelection results.

The Federal Reserve can influence the election results. That's a valid complaint by Rick Perry. That's also a valid reason for Rick Perry to shut up and stop criticizing the Federal Reserve.

Also, Rick Perry seems to have the "abused productive" personality type. Look at this photo.



Notice the 45 degree laugh lines. Notice that the right side of his face is slightly disfigured compared to the left. I can't be 100% sure, because I haven't met him. It's hard to evaluate personality type from a photo, when dealing with a politician.

(I wonder if some insiders are doing a serious personality profile, and making sure the next President isn't a psychopath or parasite. However, most/all politicians have evil tendencies, or evil people advising/lobbying them.)

Ron Paul is a longshot to win. Rick Perry is one of the favorites. In the Republican Presidential primaries, the governor of Texas gets a bye to the semifinals.

It is a good sign, that Rick Perry is openly criticizing the Federal Reserve. Whether Rick Perry really means it, or is doing it to attract votes, it's nice to see top politicians openly criticizing the Federal Reserve.

A Common Evil Photo Propaganda Trick

Michele Bachman was on the cover of Newsweek. Look at the photo.



This is an *EXTREMELY COMMON* propaganda trick. If you want to make someone look bad, cherry pick a lousy photo.

There are thousands of photos of any politician or celebrity. If you want to make someone look bad, look through them and pick the worst photo.

Normally, magazines publish airbrushed pictures. Publish a non-airbrushed photo of your victim.

I also saw this trick used against Ron Paul. Other candidates would be portrayed smiling. Ron Paul would be portrayed as frowning and from a bad camera nagle.

The propaganda goal is clear. If you say that government is too big, then you're a dangerous fruitcake.

Michele Bachman is another flavor of statist. However, she is somewhat moving the public debate in the direction of "Government is way too big!"

This is a pretty flagrant piece of propaganda. By publishing a non-airbrushed carefully-selected photo, the mainstream media can make anyone look bad.

A Common Statist Fallacy

TJ has left a new comment on your post "Indications Of Progress":

I've heard the argument for privatizing law enforcement, but what would take the place of Department of Justice and district courts, if the state monopoly on justice is abolished? What is to prevent profit from being the priority over justice?

"Profit over justice" is *EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS RIGHT NOW*.

With free market courts, if a court had a reputation for making bad decisions, they would lose customers.

If I have the ability to force you to use my biased corrupt court, then I'm the government. With market competition, courts will be forced to be as fair as possible.

In the present, if insiders buy judges and Congressmen, then people are SOL.

Consider other examples:

Without government, there would be pollution! The Oil Pollution Act explicitly exempts oil drillers from liability. The "Halliburton Loophole" explicitly exempts fracking from liability. The polluter can declare bankruptcy and default on their responsibility. (There's no limited liability incorporation in a really free market.) It is very hard to sue a polluter and hold them accountable, in a State court.

Without government, corrupt bankers would rob and steal and cheat depositors! You're an idiot if you really believe this.

Without government, a bunch of thugs would go around extorting from people! This is how tax collectors behave.

Without government, a bunch of thugs would assault business owners! Have you seen the various "raw milk" raids?

Without government, a bunch of thugs might murder people! Have you heard any of the stories of people murdered by police?

Without government, it's be hard to collect from someone who injured you! The legal system is incredibly inefficient, denying many people justice.

This is a VERY COMMON MISUNDERSTANDING. A pro-State troll says "Without government, abuse X would occur.", when the reality is that abuse X occurs right now, PRECISELY BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT.