• The KillerFrogs

NCAA going to review new transfer rules put into to place this past season

Purp

Active Member
People in these discussions resort to fixed-pie fallacies more often than not. An economic transaction occurs and someone benefits...
I agree with this, but would add one semantic clarification. When a free economic transaction occurs both parties perceive a benefit. The benefit isn't limited to one party. Laws exist to protect us from disparities in information that could make us perceive benefits that aren't real, but as a general rule both parties benefit from a transaction.

We need to be very careful with the extent to which we allow government to decide for us whether we're getting a good deal or not. One man's trash is another man's treasure, but far too often government steps in to prevent a man from acquiring his new treasure.
 

maximilian

Active Member
I agree with this, but would add one semantic clarification. When a free economic transaction occurs both parties perceive a benefit. The benefit isn't limited to one party. Laws exist to protect us from disparities in information that could make us perceive benefits that aren't real, but as a general rule both parties benefit from a transaction.

We need to be very careful with the extent to which we allow government to decide for us whether we're getting a good deal or not. One man's trash is another man's treasure, but far too often government steps in to prevent a man from acquiring his new treasure.

Right. A person enters into a transaction because of the perceived benefit he or she will realize, to the best information available at the time.
 

Purp

Active Member
IMO, there needs to be a recognition of all factors in order to determine the justness of a behavior or transaction, and surely all of us agree that a government's job is to enforce justice (even if we disagree on what that definition is). It appears you're basically viewing "consent" between two people as the be-all-end-all, without recognizing some relative power structures that go in to offering that ostensible consent.

For example, surely we recognize that survival and desperation are some pretty key factors. Taken to another extreme, imagine a situation where a woman is starving, someone comes up to her and offers a Big Mac if she'll sleep with him (but only if she agrees to waive any and all paternity claims that may arise from this liaison), and she accepts. Because, you know, starving. There's been offer-acceptance and "consent", but due to the the desperation that woman is facing few would argue such a transaction is "just", you could even argue that she didn't even really "consent" as a result of that desperation. I think few outside of the hardcore libertarians would argue such a transaction would be permissible in society. We therefore have laws that prevent said transactions from taking place, regardless of the "consent" that either party might offer. For a less offensive example, imagine something like blackmail which could be considered a "consenting" transaction but we still don't permit that or recognize said offers as valid due to that (as well as the negative social impact those transactions have). Safety regulations ("you agreed to work in that mine that you knew could collapse"), we can go on and on with plenty of examples where

You're right, there's a subjectivity to all of this. Governments are comprised of people, and prone to corruption. Populism can cause inefficient decisions. That shouldn't be disputed. All of that needs to be factored in when discussing whether something is "just" or "fair". I just don't think you can view it is as some black and white objective claim that boils down solely to consent, when the factors that determine consent can vary wildly.


That would probably depend on whether the increase to necessarily decreases the opportunity to work. If we increase the Min Wage to $100 / hr, we would agree it almost assuredly would. Whether more modest increases to the min hourly wage substantially reduce that opportunity is less certain. Very complex topic.
Liked for the first half and not the 2nd. There's no doubt we need laws to ensure the gap in available information is transactions is as small as practicable, but I think it's a very slippery slope when you start getting into which transactions we do and don't want to allow based on the current situation of the participants. I elaborated more on this idea in another post.

I don't agree that the effects of slight increases to minimum wages are a net gain to society. There is always deadweight loss. Bastiat's principle of the unseen is especially relevant here bc the nominal value of each labor transaction is so low it's near impossible to measure any incremental benefits, let alone measure unseen deleterious effects. You can rest assured, though, that they exist every time.
 

Paint It Purple

Active Member
Eh, in theory sure, but that could be overly idealistic, and not a very practical response to anticompetitive practices. Not everyone has the luxury is waiting for markets to equilibrate, nor the resources to shift their specialization. Their inability to do both and resulting behavior could (one could argue does) slow, or even prevent, that sort of change from occurring.

And again, to use the industry that started the conversation. given that the industry is granted statuatory protection from their anticompetitive practices, it's not exactly a fair (there's that word again) fight to start with.
It may seem (to some) cliche to quote Adam Smith, but gold standards do exist.

The Wealth of Nations:
The millions of people that make up a nation, each one industriously busy in the pursuit of his or her “greatest value” (as privately and selfishly determined) is thus “led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention,” that being “the publick good” (the general prosperity and happiness of society’s members as a whole). “By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it” (646-647)
 

Surfrog

Active Member
NOTE: I have not heard of this happening at TCU, nor did I witness it there. I have, however, witnessed this at other schools.

Certain schools dictate what you can and can not do if you are a revenue sport.
Want to be an engineer or an athlete?
Want to be on a pre-law track or an athlete?
Want to be on a pre-med track or an athlete?
Some schools "academic" departments do not allow athletes to choose their preferred degree path. THAT is something which needs to be changed asap. The school simply uses these kids as a revenue stream, then kicks them out after four years.

It's disgusting.
 

Eight

Member
NOTE: I have not heard of this happening at TCU, nor did I witness it there. I have, however, witnessed this at other schools.

Certain schools dictate what you can and can not do if you are a revenue sport.
Want to be an engineer or an athlete?
Want to be on a pre-law track or an athlete?
Want to be on a pre-med track or an athlete?
Some schools "academic" departments do not allow athletes to choose their preferred degree path. THAT is something which needs to be changed asap. The school simply uses these kids as a revenue stream, then kicks them out after four years.

It's disgusting.

one of these situations was robert smith and the ohio state football program
 

ShadowFrog

Moderators
Yes it does.

I used to work for $7 an hour and was happy to have the job.
I did too....in 1984.
Then I enlisted—gotta pay raise, a high-speed, low-drag minimalist haircut, some classy olive-drab threads & a one-way ticket to Loring AFB, Maine.
In February.
And fell & broke my arm the next day....
 

Double V

Active Member
IMO, there needs to be a recognition of all factors in order to determine the justness of a behavior or transaction, and surely all of us agree that a government's job is to enforce justice (even if we disagree on what that definition is). It appears you're basically viewing "consent" between two people as the be-all-end-all, without recognizing some relative power structures that go in to offering that ostensible consent.

For example, surely we recognize that survival and desperation are some pretty key factors. Taken to another extreme, imagine a situation where a woman is starving, someone comes up to her and offers a Big Mac if she'll sleep with him (but only if she agrees to waive any and all paternity claims that may arise from this liaison), and she accepts. Because, you know, starving. There's been offer-acceptance and "consent", but due to the the desperation that woman is facing few would argue such a transaction is "just", you could even argue that she didn't even really "consent" as a result of that desperation. I think few outside of the hardcore libertarians would argue such a transaction would be permissible in society. We therefore have laws that prevent said transactions from taking place, regardless of the "consent" that either party might offer. For a less offensive example, imagine something like blackmail which could be considered a "consenting" transaction but we still don't permit that or recognize said offers as valid due to that (as well as the negative social impact those transactions have). Safety regulations ("you agreed to work in that mine that you knew could collapse"), we can go on and on with plenty of examples where

You're right, there's a subjectivity to all of this. Governments are comprised of people, and prone to corruption. Populism can cause inefficient decisions. That shouldn't be disputed. All of that needs to be factored in when discussing whether something is "just" or "fair". I just don't think you can view it is as some black and white objective claim that boils down solely to consent, when the factors that determine consent can vary wildly.


That would probably depend on whether the increase to necessarily decreases the opportunity to work. If we increase the Min Wage to $100 / hr, we would agree it almost assuredly would. Whether more modest increases to the min hourly wage substantially reduce that opportunity is less certain. Very complex topic.

The problem with hypothetical scenarios like this is they are constructed to benefit only one viewpoint. For example, take your exact same 2 people but instead of offering a Big Mac the offer is $10 million? The lady is still starving, the man still has all the "power" (although man's track record vs the kitty isn't stellar, but I digress). Is the payment now fair and, if so, should it be legal? The point being, at what point between big mac and $10MM is a "fair" amount, and who gets to decide? And is that deciding entity REALLY better equipped to decide the relative utility or pleasure each party is giving/receiving better than the parties to the transaction themselves?
 

Double V

Active Member
NOTE: I have not heard of this happening at TCU, nor did I witness it there. I have, however, witnessed this at other schools.

Certain schools dictate what you can and can not do if you are a revenue sport.
Want to be an engineer or an athlete?
Want to be on a pre-law track or an athlete?
Want to be on a pre-med track or an athlete?
Some schools "academic" departments do not allow athletes to choose their preferred degree path. THAT is something which needs to be changed asap. The school simply uses these kids as a revenue stream, then kicks them out after four years.

It's disgusting.
And I would venture to guess that such a scenario would get you a 1st class ticket to wherever you want to go via the Transfer Portal these days...as it should.
 
Top