Re: Baseball strike

Topics: Regulation
11 Feb 1995

From: "DG Ervan Darnell"

Dan Dees wrote:

>> Here is the situation: we have some rich, grown men who would rather rest
>> than play a *game* (1). We have some extra rich owners who
>> would rather keep their money than pay some people to play a *game*.
> [ why does it matter they are rich ]

Okay, I confess that's largely spurious. The only point is that there is no
argument that the government is operating in their interest as there
sometimes is in lower wage labor disptures (though it is wrong there too).

>As to the publics' implication that the business they are in is
>of little social consequence, the monetary numbers involved speak for
>themselves apart from subjective judgements of "other worth".

I agree, but the argument being made, at least the principle argumment, is
not that congress must act to boost the GDP. If that were the case, your
observation would be right. It would not matter what the activity but only
the money. However, that is not the argument being made. The argument is
that baseball is some special thing and because it is a special thing
congressional action is justified, regardless of the economics of it. It is
on that basis that I made my objection of it being only a game. Drafting
people to repel a military invasion *might* constitute a special
circumstance where normal economic models are difficult to apply. Baseball
is not such a thing. Let me put it this way, congress is not acting on the
measured economic value of it but acting on additional value of "subjective
judgement". On that basis, I stand by my criticism of it being just a game.

> [force binding arbitration on all unions in order to kill them ]

That's a different issue than what I was after. There are some good things
that unions can do. Their baleful influence arises entirely out of the
government protection they have. I'd rather abolish that than try and
negate it with designed-to-fail regulation.

>I have not thought through what this means, but no less a free market
>conservative and baseball-aholic than George Will seems to be against the
>anti-trust exemption for baseball.

George Will is no libertarian. He seems to have a baseball fixation that
clouds his better judgement too.