Over this most recent (2009) college football bowl season I've realized that not all bowl names are created equal. There are some that are just plain wrong and some that are actually pretty cool. Here, I've endeavored to rank the names of all 33 college bowl games other than the national championship, with number 33 being the coolest and number 1 being the raunchiest.
33. Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl-Since literally every bowl game has a sponsor, it is necessary to consider the effect that this sponsor has on the bowl's name. Not only is the Armed Forces Bowl a sweet name for a bowl, it's also sponsored by a company that makes freakin' helicopters...you just can't top that.
32. FedEx Orange Bowl-Sometimes, when I hear the name of a bowl game, I like to imagine an actual bowl filled with the object of note. I just like the thought of a bowl full of oranges.
31. AT&T Cotton Bowl-Maybe it's just that I like the word "cotton." Maybe it's that this game is a classic. Maybe it's just that the "Cotton Bowl" just rolls off your tongue. I don't know, but I like it.
30. Allstate Sugar Bowl-Someday, I'd like to burn down an insurance company, just so they'd actually have to make a claim. If the sponsor wasn't an insurance company, this would be at #31. Along the same lines as the Orange Bowl, I just like the idea of a bowl full of sugar.
29. Sheraton Hawaii Bowl-Who doesn't like the sound of Hawaii...or the Sheraton?
28. Texas Bowl-No inflammatory sponsors or needless frills. Just the Texas Bowl.
27. Brut Sun Bowl-Considering that this game is played in El Paso, I think I can ignore the fact that it won't actually be that hot. Also, the sponsorship with Brut aftershave works inasmuch as football is a rather violent and brutish sport in general.
26. Pacific Life Holiday Bowl-The bowl season is the holiday season after all. I don't really like the Pacific Life sponsorship... but I don't hate it...
25. Tostitos Fiesta Bowl-Let me just say that anyone who's going to be having a "fiesta" is probably going to be more interested in "futbol" rather than football.
24. AutoZone Liberty Bowl-I like the concept of liberty... However I only go into AutoZone when I have little or no liberty left.
23. Outback Bowl-No, this game isn't being played in Australia...it's just brought to you by Outback Steakhouse.
22. Citi Rose Bowl Game-If this game was called the "Tool Bowl," it'd be up near #33. I really just don't like the pageantry and underhanded skankiness that goes along with this game. If you're actually interested in inviting good teams to your bowl game, it should be one of the elite bowl games in the nation. If you plan on inviting the "champions" of the same two conferences every year, regardless of how bad they suck, your bowl should be considered amongst the likes of #1 on this list.
21. Emerald Bowl-For any wondering, this game is not based off a shiny, green gemstone, but rather a company that sells mixed nuts...and you now know why the Emerald Bowl is #21.
20. Insight Bowl-I don't know what to say other than, "I'm just not feeling it."
19. Champ Sports Bowl-I like that the sponsor for this bowl is actually relevant...other than that it's just a corporate buyout.
18. Valero Alamo Bowl-Do you remember the alamo?
17. St Petersburg Bowl-It kind of gives me a feel of playing football on a cold Russian day during a snow storm. Then I have to come to reality and recognize that it's in central Florida where it will be 75 degrees with 98% humidity in December.
16. Chick-fil-a Bowl-Uhh...Eat more chicken?
15. Capital One Bowl-What's in your wallet?... Uh, nothing, actually.
14. R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl-A bowl in N'awlins is a great idea. Sadly, by the time you finish saying the irrelevant sponsor's name, you can't remember the rest of the bowl name.
13. GMAC Bowl-A bank that's an offshoot of a bankrupted company that's been receiving government bailout money? Where do I sign up?
12. EagleBank Bowl-You spent how much to get this bowl sponsorship?! I see my money is safer elsewhere.
11. Konica Minolta Gator Bowl-I like the concept of naming a bowl after a predatory regional animal...though Konica Minolta...I'll pass.
10. New Mexico Bowl-New Mexico: cleaner than the old Mexico... but not by much.
9. Meineke Car Care Bowl-Who the h3Ll plays in this bowl game? The axel rods and the torque converters? You must be freaking joking.
8. Maaco Bowl Las Vegas-This bowl would be much closer to the top if they had called it the Maaco Las Vegas Bowl. But Maaco b*7cH3d and moaned until they got the word "bowl" next to their name. I hope you're happy Maaco...no one respects your sponsorship.
7. Roady's Humanitarian Bowl-In addition to the insult of playing on Boise State's atrocious blue field in the middle of December, the participants also have the privilege of playing in a bowl that makes people ask, "WTF, seriously? There's actually a bowl called that?!"
6. International Bowl-The fact that it's played in Toronto is a mere technicality.
5. AdvoCare V100 Independence Bowl-By the time you leave Shreveport, you're going to need those AdvoCare vitamins to keep from growing an arm out of your forehead.
4. San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl-I know, seriously. I didn't believe it either.
3. Papajohns.com Bowl-This bowl isn't even named after a restaurant...it's named after a restaurant's website.
2. Little Caesar's Pizza Bowl-When the phrase, "Hot 'n' Greasy" actually adds value to your bowl name, you know you have problems.
1. Gaylord Hotels Music City Bowl-This one genuinely speaks for itself.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Expansion
So, it has once more come to that time of the year when college football "pundits" (if you can call them than without ralphing a little in your mouth) start talking about how each conference should expand and try to incorporate new teams. I usually abstain from any participation in this conversation, but this year, I must make two contributions:
1) If the Big Ten is going to expand to 12 teams, they should have to change their name. And since the Big XII is already taken, I recommend the "Big Turd."
2) As I am going to a Mountain West school, I feel I should make a few comments on the possible expansion of the Mountain West Conference. I really think that they should. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) commission is evaluating each of the 5 non-automatic qualifying (AQ) conferences for inclusion in the BCS scheme (or risky scheme, if you prefer). Though the Mountain West is, by far, the leading candidate for inclusion in this system, it is by no measure in certainly. The three parameters which the BCS commission is using to evaluate the non-AQ conferences are, top ranked team in the final BCS standings, number of teams in the BCS top 25, and the average rank of teams in conference. The Mountain West is amongst the leaders in the first two categories, but is lagging somewhat behind in the third. I believe that adding 3 teams to the conference and introducing division/championship play would increase the Mountain West's average ranking as well as make the conference more dynamic in general.
The 3 teams that I would add if it was up to me would be, Boise State, Tulsa, and Houston. Boise State's athletic director has already expressed interest in moving his program(s) to the Mountain West, mostly due to the travel schedule associated with being in the Western Athletic Conference. The addition of Boise State would not necessarily improve the overall average ranking of the conference teams (since it is an average, after all), but would improve the perception that championship football is being played in the Mountain West. The addition of the last two Conference USA West champions, in Tulsa and Houston would help to improve the average ranking of teams in the Mountain West, as well as the overall perception of the conference without dramatically worsening the travel constraints of the teams in the conference. An additional team worth consideration would be Southern Methodist, in order to bring the TCU-SMU rivalry into the conference, and possibly re-establish the BYU-SMU rivalry. Additionally, having Tulsa and Houston in the conference would increase the recruiting footprint for all Mountain West schools in Texas and Oklahoma.
With 12 teams in the conference, it would be both beneficial and necessary to establish division play. This would involve splitting the conference into two divisions of 6 teams each. The 6 teams in each conference would play each other every year, and the teams with the best division record would play each other in a conference championship game, similar to other 12-team conferences. Once again, if it were up to me, I would organize the divisions this way:
1) If the Big Ten is going to expand to 12 teams, they should have to change their name. And since the Big XII is already taken, I recommend the "Big Turd."
2) As I am going to a Mountain West school, I feel I should make a few comments on the possible expansion of the Mountain West Conference. I really think that they should. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) commission is evaluating each of the 5 non-automatic qualifying (AQ) conferences for inclusion in the BCS scheme (or risky scheme, if you prefer). Though the Mountain West is, by far, the leading candidate for inclusion in this system, it is by no measure in certainly. The three parameters which the BCS commission is using to evaluate the non-AQ conferences are, top ranked team in the final BCS standings, number of teams in the BCS top 25, and the average rank of teams in conference. The Mountain West is amongst the leaders in the first two categories, but is lagging somewhat behind in the third. I believe that adding 3 teams to the conference and introducing division/championship play would increase the Mountain West's average ranking as well as make the conference more dynamic in general.
The 3 teams that I would add if it was up to me would be, Boise State, Tulsa, and Houston. Boise State's athletic director has already expressed interest in moving his program(s) to the Mountain West, mostly due to the travel schedule associated with being in the Western Athletic Conference. The addition of Boise State would not necessarily improve the overall average ranking of the conference teams (since it is an average, after all), but would improve the perception that championship football is being played in the Mountain West. The addition of the last two Conference USA West champions, in Tulsa and Houston would help to improve the average ranking of teams in the Mountain West, as well as the overall perception of the conference without dramatically worsening the travel constraints of the teams in the conference. An additional team worth consideration would be Southern Methodist, in order to bring the TCU-SMU rivalry into the conference, and possibly re-establish the BYU-SMU rivalry. Additionally, having Tulsa and Houston in the conference would increase the recruiting footprint for all Mountain West schools in Texas and Oklahoma.
With 12 teams in the conference, it would be both beneficial and necessary to establish division play. This would involve splitting the conference into two divisions of 6 teams each. The 6 teams in each conference would play each other every year, and the teams with the best division record would play each other in a conference championship game, similar to other 12-team conferences. Once again, if it were up to me, I would organize the divisions this way:
Mountain West North Division:
Boise State
Brigham Young
Colorado State
Nevada-Las Vegas
Utah
Wyoming
This division breakup would maintain both the BYU-Utah rivalry and the CSU-Wyoming rivalry in the division, as well as distribute the talent somewhat evenly between the divisions.
Mountain West South Division:
Air Force
Houston
New Mexico
Texas Christian
Tulsa
San Diego State
Naturally, the team that gains the least from this division breakup is San Diego State, with all of their division foes being halfway across the country. While this would not be much different than the current travel constraints, it would be getting worse instead of better. However, I am confident that a comprimise could be reached via even-odd year and neutral-site agreements.
One of the primary benefits of division play is that, since every team doesn't necessarily have to play every other team every year, the overall record. I could go into a detailed explanation of Simpson's rule and matchup scenarios to explain this, or I could just say that, through the regular season, it is possible for a conference with divisions to have 2 undefeated teams. Division play would increase the overall average ranking of the conference based solely on the fact that not all teams must play each other.
Another interesting challenge to Mountain West expansion in this scenario would be the location of the championship game. As long as UNLV is not playing the championship game, it would seem that Las Vegas would be the best option. However, as we've seen in Mountain West Basketball, UNLV wins the Mountain West tournament every year, because it's on their home floor. With this in mind, I'd like to see the championship game played in Denver, Colorado. Not only is this a somewhat neutral site, but it has the capacity of providing an NFL stadium in Invesco Field at Mile High. Additionally, there is certain nation-wide perception of Denver being a mountain town, though it is more on the high plains. This would create a marketer's dream of a television program, "The Mountain West Conference Championship, live from Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver, Colorado."
While I'm aware that there are many other concerns when considering the expansion of a conference, some of which I'm not even aware, I think this would be beneficial for all schools involved as well as the conference in general. The addition of Boise State, Houston, and Tulsa would boost the overall rankings and perception of the conference and would help to increase the recruiting footprint of all schools without greatly increasing the geographic range of the conference. The introduction of division play would also improve the overall average record of teams in the conference, as well break up the talent in the conference between divisions. While this plan or anything resembling it may never come to fruition, I believe that it would be a great move and investment for all involved parties if it was pursued.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Grading Theory
The time has once again come for professors and students alike to despair on account of the one thing which tends to define them most... grades. Over the years, I've taken quite a few university classes and have seen many grading schemes. I've found that, if I were to teach at any point, there are a few fundamental things that I would want as part of my grading system.
1. A grading system that is simple enough that both students and the instructor can easily see where the points are coming from and where the students stand.
2. A system that will demonstrate students' knowledge of fundamental concepts and reward them for knowledge of more in-depth concepts.
3. A system that has capacity for mercy.
4. A system in which students can know where they stand continuously and which allows for adjustment on assignments of too great of difficulty.
5. A system that encourages, but does not mandate class attendance.
I believe that I have come up with a system that meets all of these objectives as much as possible. This system takes a total grade out of 10,000 points. This value is higher than most professors use. I believe that this is the best value for two reasons. One, in a base-10 system, it is clear exactly what the final percentages in the class will be by reducing the values by 2 orders of magnitude. Two, this higher value for points allows more precision in grading all assignments. All point values are pre-weighted and factor directly into the final value of 10,000 points. This system is broken up into three components: exams, homework, and quizzes. Since I would undoubtedly be teaching engineering classes, other forms of assignments would not be necessary.
Exams
I have come up with both 3-exam and 4-exam schemes. Colleges and departments will often require that there be at least a certain number of midterms, and these are the two most common numbers I've experienced. Both schemes would have exams totalling up to 6,000 points out of total 10,000. This value of 60% of the total grade is also fairly typical of what I've seen. In the 3-exam scheme, there would be 3 exams of 2,000 points each. In the 4-exam scheme, there would be 4 exams of 1,500 points each.
Under the 3-exam scheme, each exam would have 10 multiple choice/short answer questions, each worth 50 points. These questions would be fairly simple, just to see if students have a fundamental knowledge of the concepts at hand and have actually been coming to class and participating. There would also be 3 workout problems of approximately equal difficulty and relevance, each worth 500 points. The 4-exam scheme would be similar, except that each of the multiple choice/short answer questions would be worth 25 points, and the workout problems would not be of equal difficulty. One of the workout problems would be simpler than the other two and would be worth only 250 points. Regardless of the exam scheme, exams would be curved in and of themselves in order adjust for material that was too difficult for an exam situation, in which a student is on an island, per se.
Homework
For homework, there would be 16 assignments of 200 points each. Since there are generally 16 weeks in a semester, it would make sense to have about 1 assignment per week. If I ended up teaching at the University of Washington, or some other school that used the quarter system, this would need to be adjusted. Those reading this who are good with mental math have probably already noticed that 16 assignments at 200 points each adds up to 3,200 points, which doesn't seem to fit very well into my 10,000 point system. Though there would be 3,200 points possible, the total homework grade would be taken out of only 3,000 points, allowing for both mercy and extra credit. Homework assignments would probably consist of 5 problems of 40 points each, or 4 problems of 50 points each, depending on the assignment.
Quizzes
During the course of a semester, there would be at least 10 quizzes worth 100 points each. The primary objective of quizzes would be to encourage students to come to class without mandating that all students be in class every time. These quizzes would be mostly arbitrary in timing, but would probably be given no more than once a week. If more than 10 quizzes are given during a semester, the total would be taken out of only 1,000 points, though not to exceed 100%. Quizzes would be simple and generally straightforward. Students would probably find the multiple choice/short answer exam questions strikingly similar to some of the quiz questions.
As a final note, it should be mentioned that this system is given for a class that has no lab. A different system would have to be employed for classes with a lab.
You're probably now saying, "Whoa dude, you've thought about this way too much for a guy who's not intent on going into academia." And I would say that you are right... I just think I've found a grading system that can meet the needs of professors without sacrificing students like France sacrificed Czechoslovakia to the Germans at the beginning of World War II.
1. A grading system that is simple enough that both students and the instructor can easily see where the points are coming from and where the students stand.
2. A system that will demonstrate students' knowledge of fundamental concepts and reward them for knowledge of more in-depth concepts.
3. A system that has capacity for mercy.
4. A system in which students can know where they stand continuously and which allows for adjustment on assignments of too great of difficulty.
5. A system that encourages, but does not mandate class attendance.
I believe that I have come up with a system that meets all of these objectives as much as possible. This system takes a total grade out of 10,000 points. This value is higher than most professors use. I believe that this is the best value for two reasons. One, in a base-10 system, it is clear exactly what the final percentages in the class will be by reducing the values by 2 orders of magnitude. Two, this higher value for points allows more precision in grading all assignments. All point values are pre-weighted and factor directly into the final value of 10,000 points. This system is broken up into three components: exams, homework, and quizzes. Since I would undoubtedly be teaching engineering classes, other forms of assignments would not be necessary.
Exams
I have come up with both 3-exam and 4-exam schemes. Colleges and departments will often require that there be at least a certain number of midterms, and these are the two most common numbers I've experienced. Both schemes would have exams totalling up to 6,000 points out of total 10,000. This value of 60% of the total grade is also fairly typical of what I've seen. In the 3-exam scheme, there would be 3 exams of 2,000 points each. In the 4-exam scheme, there would be 4 exams of 1,500 points each.
Under the 3-exam scheme, each exam would have 10 multiple choice/short answer questions, each worth 50 points. These questions would be fairly simple, just to see if students have a fundamental knowledge of the concepts at hand and have actually been coming to class and participating. There would also be 3 workout problems of approximately equal difficulty and relevance, each worth 500 points. The 4-exam scheme would be similar, except that each of the multiple choice/short answer questions would be worth 25 points, and the workout problems would not be of equal difficulty. One of the workout problems would be simpler than the other two and would be worth only 250 points. Regardless of the exam scheme, exams would be curved in and of themselves in order adjust for material that was too difficult for an exam situation, in which a student is on an island, per se.
Homework
For homework, there would be 16 assignments of 200 points each. Since there are generally 16 weeks in a semester, it would make sense to have about 1 assignment per week. If I ended up teaching at the University of Washington, or some other school that used the quarter system, this would need to be adjusted. Those reading this who are good with mental math have probably already noticed that 16 assignments at 200 points each adds up to 3,200 points, which doesn't seem to fit very well into my 10,000 point system. Though there would be 3,200 points possible, the total homework grade would be taken out of only 3,000 points, allowing for both mercy and extra credit. Homework assignments would probably consist of 5 problems of 40 points each, or 4 problems of 50 points each, depending on the assignment.
Quizzes
During the course of a semester, there would be at least 10 quizzes worth 100 points each. The primary objective of quizzes would be to encourage students to come to class without mandating that all students be in class every time. These quizzes would be mostly arbitrary in timing, but would probably be given no more than once a week. If more than 10 quizzes are given during a semester, the total would be taken out of only 1,000 points, though not to exceed 100%. Quizzes would be simple and generally straightforward. Students would probably find the multiple choice/short answer exam questions strikingly similar to some of the quiz questions.
As a final note, it should be mentioned that this system is given for a class that has no lab. A different system would have to be employed for classes with a lab.
You're probably now saying, "Whoa dude, you've thought about this way too much for a guy who's not intent on going into academia." And I would say that you are right... I just think I've found a grading system that can meet the needs of professors without sacrificing students like France sacrificed Czechoslovakia to the Germans at the beginning of World War II.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Preliminary Bucket
At some point, I will "kick the bucket," but there are a few things I want to do first:
- See a game in all 30 MLB ballparks (1 down, 29 to go.)
- See a World Series game.
- See an NCAA bowl game.
- Say "Je crache sûr ce pays," in France, then spit.
- Read the Bible cover to cover, even if it means falling asleep in the books of chronicles a few times.
- Be able to write left-handed.
- Visit all 50 United States. (40 down, 10 to go.)
- Learn to play the bass guitar. (Maybe learn something about music first.)
- Find another civil engineer with the last name "Power" and start "White-Power Engineers."
- Get at least 3 degrees. (Namely the BS, MS, and MBA and/or PhD)
- Have "alphabet soup" after my name. (Probably PE. Maybe PLS, PTOE, PhD, Esq., F.ASCE.)
I'm certain that there will be more to add to this list, but I think that this is a good start.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Sometimes I actually do read books
Recently, I've been reading the book, "Economics for Dummies," by Dr Sean Masaki Flynn. Why, you ask? Because it maximizes my happiness. Sad, but true... Anywho, I was reading through this book earlier today and I stumbled upon a certain rhetorical analogy that I just can't really agree with entirely.
This analogy has to do with international trade and trade surpluses/deficits. It essentially starts out with two guys, one who has $50 worth of oranges and another who has $50 worth of apples. Each guy also has $100 cash. If the orange guy wants to buy $20 worth of apples and the apple guy wants to buy $30 worth of oranges, then they have a deal. They trade that portion of their cash for their share of fruit and they are both happy. The author uses this analogy to refute the idea that the apple guy has been disadvantaged because he has incurred a trade deficit. On prinicple, I agree with him. At least in theory, there should be no disadvantage to incurring any sort of trade deficit. However, let me present to you my own analogy.
There are two guys, one selling apples, and one selling oranges. We'll call the guy selling apples Uncle Sam, and the guy selling oranges Mr. Toyota. Both of these guys have $50 worth of their respective product, as well as $100 in cash. One day, Uncle Sam decides that he wants to buy $30 worth of oranges from Mr Toyota, and Mr Toyota reciprocates by buying $20 worth of apples from Uncle Sam. They make the deal and both come home happy. Uncle Sam goes home and makes himself a glass of orange juice and decides that it's the best thing he's ever tasted. The next day, he goes and finds Mr Toyota, buys the remaining $20 worth of his oranges, as well as his shoes, watch, belt buckle, tie clip, and pocket protector for $75, which, if you're up with math gives Uncle Sam -$25. Mr Toyota reciprocates by buying another $10 worth of Uncle Sam's apples. On the way home, Uncle Sam realizes that, though he's really got the vitamin C thing down, he's currently suffering from berryberry. He needs to go buy some spinach from Senor Cocino, but realizes that his -$15 isn't going to get him much. So, he takes a stroll over to General Tsao's where he takes out a loan for $50. He goes to Senor Cocino and gets some spinach for $25 which gets rid of the berryberry, but manages to give him dysentery at the same time... for which Senor Cocino conveniently has the cure, for the amount of the rest of Uncle Sam's loan money. As Uncle Sam is walking home, he realizes that his muscles are rapidly atrophying and that he needs to make another run to General Tsao's. General Tsao agrees to provide him with all the chicken he can eat for the low price of his soul.
Now you see the problem here is that, in this story, Uncle Sam failed to act rationally. He acted like such a freakin' moron that no amount of free-market robustness could manage to save him from himself. And thus we see the purpose of tariffs and anti-trade laws. They are not to save us from the incindiary evil of free-market trade, but to save us from our own stupidity. This is generally the purpose of most laws. Why do most traffic laws exist? To save the general public from the one imbecile who insists on texting his broha while driving at 80 mph. Why are there warning labels on everything? To prevent some leggy blonde with a negative IQ from suing after she electricutes herself while drying her hair in the shower. Why do we have anti-trade laws and tariffs? To keep ourselves from going on a shopping spree in Japan with China's money. Is it stupid in theory? Yes. Does it hinder true free-market trade? Yes. Is it necessary? As long as there are stupid people, yes.
This analogy has to do with international trade and trade surpluses/deficits. It essentially starts out with two guys, one who has $50 worth of oranges and another who has $50 worth of apples. Each guy also has $100 cash. If the orange guy wants to buy $20 worth of apples and the apple guy wants to buy $30 worth of oranges, then they have a deal. They trade that portion of their cash for their share of fruit and they are both happy. The author uses this analogy to refute the idea that the apple guy has been disadvantaged because he has incurred a trade deficit. On prinicple, I agree with him. At least in theory, there should be no disadvantage to incurring any sort of trade deficit. However, let me present to you my own analogy.
There are two guys, one selling apples, and one selling oranges. We'll call the guy selling apples Uncle Sam, and the guy selling oranges Mr. Toyota. Both of these guys have $50 worth of their respective product, as well as $100 in cash. One day, Uncle Sam decides that he wants to buy $30 worth of oranges from Mr Toyota, and Mr Toyota reciprocates by buying $20 worth of apples from Uncle Sam. They make the deal and both come home happy. Uncle Sam goes home and makes himself a glass of orange juice and decides that it's the best thing he's ever tasted. The next day, he goes and finds Mr Toyota, buys the remaining $20 worth of his oranges, as well as his shoes, watch, belt buckle, tie clip, and pocket protector for $75, which, if you're up with math gives Uncle Sam -$25. Mr Toyota reciprocates by buying another $10 worth of Uncle Sam's apples. On the way home, Uncle Sam realizes that, though he's really got the vitamin C thing down, he's currently suffering from berryberry. He needs to go buy some spinach from Senor Cocino, but realizes that his -$15 isn't going to get him much. So, he takes a stroll over to General Tsao's where he takes out a loan for $50. He goes to Senor Cocino and gets some spinach for $25 which gets rid of the berryberry, but manages to give him dysentery at the same time... for which Senor Cocino conveniently has the cure, for the amount of the rest of Uncle Sam's loan money. As Uncle Sam is walking home, he realizes that his muscles are rapidly atrophying and that he needs to make another run to General Tsao's. General Tsao agrees to provide him with all the chicken he can eat for the low price of his soul.
Now you see the problem here is that, in this story, Uncle Sam failed to act rationally. He acted like such a freakin' moron that no amount of free-market robustness could manage to save him from himself. And thus we see the purpose of tariffs and anti-trade laws. They are not to save us from the incindiary evil of free-market trade, but to save us from our own stupidity. This is generally the purpose of most laws. Why do most traffic laws exist? To save the general public from the one imbecile who insists on texting his broha while driving at 80 mph. Why are there warning labels on everything? To prevent some leggy blonde with a negative IQ from suing after she electricutes herself while drying her hair in the shower. Why do we have anti-trade laws and tariffs? To keep ourselves from going on a shopping spree in Japan with China's money. Is it stupid in theory? Yes. Does it hinder true free-market trade? Yes. Is it necessary? As long as there are stupid people, yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)