Stick to baseball, 8/25/18.

I had one Insider/ESPN+ piece this week, scouting notes on Tampa wunderkind Wander Franco and some Yankees & Rangers prospects, and held a Klawchat on Thursday.

I reviewed the gladiator-themed deckbuilding game Carthage for Paste this week. That’s the last of my pre-Gen Con reviews; I believe everything I review the rest of the year will either be from games I got/saw at Gen Con or that were released afterwards.

I’m about due for a fresh edition of my free email newsletter, to which you may wish to subscribe if you enjoy my ramblings.

And now, the links…

Comments

  1. The problem with socialism is that it now has a lot of definitions to it, more than the classical definition I see it as. In some people’s minds, it is any system of government that is even a little bit left of our’s. That’s why you see a poll that says millennials that lean Democratic prefer socialism to capitalism. I don’t think (maybe hope?) that what they want is what Venezuela has, but is closer to what Scandinavian countries have. For the first time, I’m also starting to see more people on the right argue that Scandinavia isn’t socialist but capitalist. So are they now arguing that we need to do more for our citizens? Although it should be noted that the Norweigan government does control the state oil company, Equinor (the old Statoil).

    Instead of using the word socialism, start using a new word that would promote a stronger safety net for citizens while also keeping a strong commitment to capitalism. Maybe use something like universalism, where all citizens have access to basic needs like education, health care, food, housing.

  2. “Socialism has a specific historical meaning: government ownership of major means of production and distribution. ”

    It doesn’t REALLY have a specific historical meaning, first of all. Lots of different ideas have been tied to socialism, and this dates back over 150 years. I’m going to link to wikipedia (Which I know isn’t the most ideal source, but its pretty good), because at least according to Marx, your definition is not right, and lets you set up a straw-man.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_mode_of_production

    Socialism doesn’t mean government ownership of means of production and distribution. It means worker owned means of production. One method of doing that is through government. But it also exists, for example, in Germany where workers control have the seats on the board of corporations, which is socialism, but is not government control. And it works very well. Likewise, many developed nations have socialized health care, where the government actually does control the health industry, and, again, it works well. There are many examples of cooperative business where ownership is by the people working in the business, and these models work well, usually better than capitalist models, and are, again, socialist.

    These brief remarks of yours, unfortunately, are part of a fairly consistent strain in your power bracket that ensures that people in lower power brackets stay disenpowered.

    • Paul: That was a great comment until the last sentence, which I don’t think added anything to the discussion except to swipe at me.

      What you describe sounds a lot more like syndicalism, with or without the unions (technically syndicalism is ownership by workers’ unions, but that was also conceived at a time when unions were more powerful and prevalent). And there are certainly significant worker-owned corporations doing very good things across the country. I believe King Arthur Flour is one. The model can increase transparency and eliminate or reduce the pay gap between top executives and rank-and-file employees. But the government doesn’t need to be involved in that in any way, and I’m not sure why that would be part of a politicians’ platform unless there are regulatory obstacles to ESOPs I don’t know about.

  3. Thank you for the links to articles debunking all the pseudoscience and wellness trolling going on in the world. Kara Swisher had an excellent interview with Dr. Jen Gunter, the doctor debunking Goop’s products it peddles and the lack of science behind many of their claims.

    https://www.recode.net/2018/8/20/17760186/jen-gunter-goop-gwyneth-paltrow-medicine-health-wellness-conspiracy-theories-kara-swisher-podcast

  4. “which I don’t think added anything to the discussion except to swipe at me.”

    Its a swipe with purpose. “Socialism,” was turned into a dirty word by conservatives whose economic agenda is to keep working and middle class people in those roles, and who wanted to minimize the power of those people. The media was complicit in that, in part by doing exactly what you just did: Narrowing socialism to the small percentage of cases where socialism failed, instead of looking at what socialism was supposed to mean, and how that meaning has been implemented in a variety of successful ways. EXACTLY what you just did is a huge part of why our medical care, and safety net in general is lagging behind most of the rest of the developed world.

    I hope instead of getting defensive, you’ll take some time to reflect. You have a wider reaching voice than the vast majority of Americans.

    • No, it was a swipe without purpose, that ignored the thrust of my message: That what “democratic socialists” advocate is not socialism, and calling it that – when the word itself has a negative connotation going back a century – harms their ability to reach people with their platform because such people will dismiss the ideas out of hand. Call it something else, especially since what they advocate is not the economic system known as socialism. They want a wider safety net, less unequal distribution of income, and vastly differing priorities in the federal budget. Again, that’s a debate worth having. When they call what they’re proposing “socialism,” regardless of modifier, they will lose a portion of the audience from the word ‘go,’ while also doing a disservice to the ideas they wish to propose and implement.

  5. What are your thoughts on The Ancient World? I have never played the first edition, but I am a big fan of the Laukat games I have played (Above & Below and Near & Far).

  6. If your defense of capitalism is the sanctity of “incentives that drive human decisions in the marketplace,” I am curious how you square that with something like the story below, where those in charge had every incentive to gut a successful company with no regard for anyone except those in power.

    https://www.thepitchkc.com/news/feature-story/article/21019526/dst-systems-and-the-gutting-of-a-hometown-kansas-city-company

    • You lost me at “sanctity.” Sorry, but I never said that, or anything close to it.

    • Regardless of my word choice, that was your only specific criticism of socialism in your bullet point, so it’s clearly of central importance to your economic worldview. Given that, I am honestly curious to understand how you reconcile that with the consequences of those incentives.

    • Keith, taking a pedantic stance should be beneath you. Address the substance. Sanctity is close enough to what you said: “government ownership of major means of production and distribution. It’s been tried all over the world, and it has failed, as it wipes out many of the incentives that drive human decisions in the marketplace.” Clearly, you state here that socialism has failed, and the reason for that failure is the elimination of incentives. Whether that can best be described by “sanctity” or some other word that indicates a necessary condition is irrelevant.

    • I clarified. The “sanctity” claim, or whatever word you want to substitute, is a strawman. I said, in essence, a system that ignores the power of incentives, or assumes they don’t exist, will fail. That in no way, shape, or form indicates a preference for a system that allows incentives to operate without limit or restraint.

    • Your question simply doesn’t work. Socialism, as I defined it above as a national economic system, involves removing or ignoring those incentives through regulation. You have now presented an example where people operate totally unfettered, free of regulations that might stop or provide some disincentive for this behavior – but I never advocated anything like that. So-called ‘perfect competition’ can’t exist in reality for numerous reasons. A capitalist economy can’t function without regulation – for example, so consumers have sufficient information on goods or services they buy to make rational choices, and avoid being exploited or cheated by producers. Your question implies, strongly, that I somehow opposed regulation. I don’t.

    • 1. When I said “sanctity of incentives,” I was not implying that the incentives themselves were unlimited. I’ve read/followed you for some time and fully understand that you aren’t a hard-liner against regulation. What I was trying to reflect was that in your worldview, maintaining some sort of capitalist incentive structure is absolutely necessary to the functioning of society. So what I am struggling with is understanding what regulation will meaningfully address situations like the story I shared while still respecting that.

      2. I disagree with your assertion that socialism disregards incentives. Instead of eliminated, they’re re-oriented. Under capitalism you’re incented to do what capital will pay the most for, so that you can afford the necessities/luxuries of life. Under socialism you’re incented to what has the most inherent value to you, so that you can achieve the necessities/luxuries of life. Obviously this is an over-simplification, but I do not feel it is misleading or inaccurate, and given that dichotomy I choose the latter.

  7. This article on Daniel Murphy is ridiculous. Why isn’t Murphy entitled to his views as a religious Christian? The co owner of the Cubs who is openly gay along with Billy Beane seem to have no issues with Murphy. I’m sure there are many athletes who share similar and unpopular views on race and religion. I pity this writer who is going to remain angry and outraged at every person they encounter who doesn’t fully accept her. I’m a Jewish man myself and well aware of antisemitism both latent and obvious. I’d be naiive to think that there weren’t players on some of my favorite teams who held anti semetic views. It doesn’t mean I’m going to stop watching a team because of a few ignorant players. At a certain point hopefully soon, society needs to stop wagging their finger and shaming people who won’t embrace them for who they are.