1. The KillerFrogs

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

Discussion in 'Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum' started by BABYFACE, Feb 18, 2019.

  1. 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.
    Double V and Todd D. like this.
  2. 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 likes this.
  3. 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.
    Todd D. likes this.
  4. 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)
    Double V and Purp like this.
  5. 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.
    Double V, Volare, BABYFACE and 3 others like this.
  6. one of these situations was robert smith and the ohio state football program
    MTfrog5 likes this.
  7. So on a personal note, when does that new thing about the Unwilling kick in?
    HFrog1999 likes this.
  8. 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 likes this.
  9. 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?
    Purp likes this.
  10. 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.

Share This Page