My business…I’ve got a piece on Page 2 today commemorating the 20th anniversary of Len Bias’ death. Also check out the piece Scoop has on the topic. We thought it would be cool to both do pieces on this given that we’re of different generations, and I think it turned out pretty well.
Other folks’ business…check out this piece my man Jarrett Carter’s got on the BSN about James Blake. It’s a great piece of work, and I ask you all to check him out at www.jarrett-carter.com.
Speaking of Jarrett, I had the pleasure of sharing a plate of barbecue chicken from T&T’s Carry Out on Kennilworth Ave on my trip to the DC area last week. Since the tables were sticky enough to hold on to your plate, we ate in his ride. Good food, good folks, good story.
I went to DC with my summer gig. I work with the American Economics Association’s Summer Program, whose primary purpose is to prepare non-white students for graduate study in economics. It’s a good program, and I have to say that a free trip to DC was really good for enticing me into the job. DC is like my fourth home behind Houston, Atlanta and Durham. Many of my folks from undergrad are from PG and Montgomery Counties, and a few friends from way back live up that way. I always love going there and love the vibe of the area.
But see, the program decided to go to a few places I wouldn’t. Our trip to the NSF was okay. The trip to the Fed was cool if only for the food (and let it be known you’d be better off trying to rob a Brinks truck with a butterknife than trying to start a ruckus in the Fed).
The real fun trip was to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. People say a lot of things about the libertarians, mostly that they’re Republicans in disguise. I wouldn’t go that far, but it’s undeniable that they’re really conservative. That doesn’t bother me so much. They can roll like that if they choose.
I must say that I do agree with some of the things they say. The problem I’ve got with them is that they’re views on economics only work if you assume that everyone started at the same level and all subsequent levels of inequality are market conditions, not market failures. Forgive me, but I ain’t buying that shit for nothing.
So we get to Cato, and a gentleman named David Boaz was the speaker. From what they said, he’s done a bit of television. That’s cool, I guess. But if they’ll put my black ass on television, then it really ain’t that difficult to get on. And if you’ve got a ski mask? Man, they got a show at 10 that’s always lookin for those niggaz.
Anyway, buddy started by explaining that what he thinks is rooted in the public choice literature. I’m okay with that. After all, I’m an alumnus of the Claremont Graduate University School of Politics and Economics. What they do is public choice. To this day, it’s the perspective I tend to default to when it’s time to evaluate a problem.
(To the non-economically inclined–public choice is a thought process that feels it’s impossible to evaluate the actions of politicians and policy makers without looking at their personal utility functions. While policy makers have concerns for constituents, they are also concerned with maximizing their own wealths, but only if that doesn’t prevent them from holding their office and maximizing more utility later.)
Boaz said the problem with government is that it’s based around “concentrated benefits, diffused costs.” That I agree with. Interest groups sway policy, and the costs of whatever initiative is brought forth is paid for by everyone. We’ve got countless problematic examples of that.
Then the dude started quoting Thomas Jefferson, and I started reading Friday Night Lights. Sorry, but you get nowhere with me by praising Thomas Jefferson. I can respect his intellect, but I am unable to ignore his blinding, spectacular racism. Check Ronald Takaki’s A Different Mirror and see Jefferson’s dreadful solution to blacks in America. I’ll give you a hint–it involves children and islands. But hey–at least he liked that black good good!
When I popped back up, someone must have asked the dude about income inequality. He then said that he has no problem with income inequality because it’s necessary to provide incentive for people to strive.
There’s a small bit of credence in that, but not much. First, that assumes that there’s necessarily socioeconomic mobility with this inequality. Sorry, but it doesn’t seem to work like that, and there’s a piece in the new issue of The Economist that discusses that.
Second, what’s the incentive for rich people to keep making money? Why didn’t Bill Gates quit his job much earlier?
To illustrate his indifference toward income inequality, buddy used Gates as an example. He said that if Gates made more money, the income gap widens and nothing’s wrong.
He must have thought we were stupid. That shit made absolutely no sense. Think of the law of diminishing marginal utility, which basically says that the more you have of something, then the less benefit you get from an additional unit of it. If you need an example to get that, imagine how much good a fifth car would do you compared to how much good a car would do you if you only had the subway.
But it just got to be too much, so I had to raise my hand. I was a bit apprehensive about this because, well, I hadn’t been listening that much. I don’t want to ask a question that’s already been answered and call myself out for not listening. That’s not the heat.
But I asked him how he could reconcile an indifference between income inequality and the idea of concentrated benefits and diffused costs. After all, income inequality is why rich people have the money to put toward their causes. And even though he used the AARP as his example of an interest group that could unfairly sway policy, the real damaging stuff comes from big money.
Further, it becomes a circular system. Rich people have the money, therefore they can sway policy to make more money, therefore they can sway more policy, etc.
So he tried to pass that same Bill Gates stuff on me. I then asked him to look to South America for examples of how problematic income inequality can be and the political unrest it causes (and all the World Bank and IMF money that’s had to go there).
He then said the problem was that Latin American countries didn’t have competitive capitalism, so the income inequality was unnatural and contrived.
So I asked him what he would say about the fact that the black/white wage ratio is the same now as it was in 1890. Not 1980. 1890. See William A. Darity and Samuel Myers’ Persistent Disparity for more on that.
You know what followed–bullshit. First, he mentioned that 1890 was the beginning of Jim Crow, so that was an inaccurate snapshot. Dude, it was just twenty-five years after slavery. And just 13 years after Reconstruction, which cripped the Southern economy. You know about the South. It’s where most black people lived then. That would affect them, I’d think.
then came the predictable–the problem is that while lots of black people do good things, we’ve got this black underclass bringing things down. This means Mr. Boaz is qualified to star in his own family sitcom!
But it also showed what I should have known was underneath it all–the same ol, same ol. I mean, it’s not like there’s a white underclass or anything, right? There aren’t white people drinking Crazy Horse in the trailer park, are there?
Nope, it’s just a bunch of niggaz drinking King Cobra in the ghetto. Those are all the poor people in this country.
Whatever.
All in all, it was a respectful exchange, and I enjoyed it. Not just because I got to shut him down, but because I did feel like he was saying quasi-intelligent things. They were just meant to be embraced by silly sheep. Guess I can’t blame him for thinking I was one of those people.
Just turned out he was wrong.
Afterwards, I tried to talk to him and tell him thank you for answering my admittedly long questions. He was talking to someone else and then started walking out the room, which mean walking past me. I wasn’t too keen on how close he walked past me without saying excuse me.
Then I saw him in the hallway and asked if we could swap cards. Without speaking, he pulled a card out of his wallet and placed mine in his billfold. I said thank you.
He turned his back.
Sounds like victory for me. Disrespect is the last resort for the defeated. Sad it had to end like that, though.
As someone that loves discourse, it’s disappointing when people behave like that. But at the same time, it feels pretty good.
15 Comments
by Rellevent
That’s a good piece on Bias man. My father and my uncles always talk about him and I get a bit angry that I never had a chance to see him.
I’ve watched some of his games on ESPN Classic, like the one where he just went off in the Smith Center and took it to carolina.
But after reading your piece and seeing the Outside the Lines/Sportscentury feature I have a greater appreciation for the sacrifice (unbeknowst to him of course) that Bias made.
It’d be similar to like Dwyane Wade or Lebron James having that happen to them right now I suppose.
by Shot Clock
There is a white underclass. However, if you’re comparing percentages, the percentage of the total black population that are in the underclass is higher than the percentage of the total white population in the underclass. It doesn’t justify what he was saying, but out of a 100 people, if they were all black, there would be more living in the underclass then if you were to compare it to a 100 people, who were all white.
by Cobb
If Bill Gates quit when all we had was Windows 95 or even Windows 98, the computer industry would be a completely different creature. If Steve Jobs had quit when all we had was a Power Mac 7100, where would we be now?
I know it never occurs to people who think all money is about is salaries and ‘living wages’, but there are enormous, and hugely complex things that ver wealthy individuals focus on, and yes the wealth they accumulate makes a difference. You can’t cut Boardwalk and Park Place out of the game and say it’s more equitable.
In the end, all the poor people want is money anyway, so which of the leftist institutions decides how much is ‘enough salary’?
Somebody once told me that it’s easier to get 10 million than it is to get 50,000. That’s because any idiot knows what to do with $50,000, but ten million can only travel in a certain way. There’s nobody responsible for 50,000, but with 10 million, somebody is always held into account.
People who don’t spend any time understanding the inherent respect and trust of business relationships always assume that the accumulation of wealth is always about greed and corruption. That says a whole lot more about the character of those people than it does about the nature of reality.
by Farmdog
Lenny B…Scoop called it, that game, that PLAY against the ‘Heels…he was a killer…drain a jumper, block a shot, and literally dunk ON you…who the hell got drafted before him…it was a horrible, horrible tragedy, and really the end of an era of innocence in the US brought about by AIDS and crack, which I believe was the culprit (or freebase) in Bias’ case, not powder…there was a quote in The Washington Post (I was a senior in High School, and remember like it was yesterday) by one of his friends in the room that Len was “hittin the pipe too hard”…there was also a delayed call to 911 so that they could clean up the evidence of drug use in the room, which made the whole thing so much more awful…a few extra seconds, life or death, you never know…
by Rex
When I was in college in the 80s, coke was everywhere. And “A LOT” of people did it–they were of the type of whom you couldn’t imagine doing it now. It was a different drug back then… And it wasn’t that big of a stigma on someone who did it either. Personally, I’ve never done it, but I was around a lot of it, and maaaaaan, the stories I could tell you of people’s actions when they were jonsin’ for it are hilarious! Sad, but hilarious. The things they would do.
I never wanted to be one of those fools.
by Kirk
Most measures of income inequality are irreparably flawed, both in terms of specification and actual data collection. That’s not to suggest that it doesn’t exist and that it doesn’t usually have a negative impact on people and economies, but attributing any specific event or phenomenon directly to income inequality is problematic at best.
Also, few people seem to understand that some degree of income inequality is a necessary condition for any society, regardless of economic structure, to sustain itself. Someone has to be “rich”, and someone has to be “poor”. If everyone is about the same, the incentives that typically motivate people more or less disappear.
Clearly, your buddy at Cato wasn’t prepared, and doesn’t know half of what he thinks he does about the question. No surprise there, but people on the other side of the coin are usually just as far off the mark, but in a different direction.
by eauhellzgnaw
That sucks. You expect that kind of nonsense from half-wits like Horowitz and Coulter, but this guy’s not a complete idiot, and he’s supposed to be legitimate.
Libertarians are no different than any other ideological group, some are intelligent; most are not. They are not really “Republicans in disguise.” And just how conservative they are depends on your definition of the word. If one defines “conservative” in terms of championing the market and limiting government intervention, then they are explicitly, unabashedly conservative. If, however, one defines it more in terms of social issues, then a great deal of them are not conservative in the way that it’s come to mean here. Many of them are socially progressive, and those who aren’t typically don’t want the government to legislate “morality.”
I have a few libertarian acquaintances and we always have fun, interesting discussions (I kid them that they should find it odd that a good deal of libertarians come from privilege in one way or another). Even though I have serious issues with their vision of human beings and society, I am occasionally willing to entertain their harebrained schemes, simply because they couldn’t possibly be any worse than some current policies.
by eauhellzgnaw
Oh yeah, nice Bias piece. I wasn’t watching college ball back then, so I had no clue how good he was or how good he could have been in the League, but the fact that, like you, none of my black friends would either never even consider doing coke or would never think doing it was cool is in part a testament to Bias’ impact. Powder doesn’t have the same kind of stigma as rock, but at least it has a stigma.
by Rex
Hey, I just saw that the ‘Canes won. They must be partying by the tens in the Carolinas tonight!
by dewfish
Its very interesting how you had two important topics in this column (I know there were actually three topics, but James Blake takes a back seat to Len Bias and the inequality of wealth), and how the people who had strong views on one topic didn’t really have much to say about the other. I would never assume that one of those two topics were more important than the other, just an observation.
I guess I’ll start with the issue of wealth inequality. While I agree that everyone cant be on top, and that rich doesn’t equal greedy, the ability to reach that upper echelon of wealth should at least be somewhat attainable by the average person, even if it is a hard path.
As far as Len Bias goes, if you weren’t around or interested in basketball at that time, its hard to describe how good of a player he really was and why it is such a tragedy that he is gone. For those that never saw him play, this will give you sort of an idea what he was like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsE0Th50SII&search=len%20bias
by Farmdog
wow, dewfish, that was a great link…it really hits me hard, I have been a huge fan of acc ball since the late ’70’s when I was a kid, and always follow the careers of acc players in the pros…nobody who watches todays game can really grasp where some of the style comes from if they missed Lenny B– his elevation on his jumper for a 6’8 guy is unprecedented, he would shoot the jumper and flare his legs out…when we were in high school we used to all do that when the coaches weren’t lookin’ and pretend we were him…he is like a missing link between MJ (even though they were contemporaries, MJ never really got to let loose until he split for the pro’s) and, well, I would say no one has his type of power and speed and lift, coupled with a feathery touch and a real nasty streak protecting the rim…Lebron comes closest…and you’re right about the comments…I feel very strongly about the inequality of wealth, I see it first hand as I have business partners that invested more money than me into our business, while I have all the know how, and they make my life miserable at every turn…they do not value their employees, and will squeeze a nickel out of a high school kid so they can buy a second home…it’s disgusting…the problem with rich people is the disconnect that they have with the real world…they don’t have any idea what it’s like to need, but they have a very good grasp on what it’s like to want…
by Solomeen
I’m not even going to pretend to be able to offer any kind of insightful words on the Economics portion of Bo’s post, so I’ll just move on to Len Bias.
I remember my mom giving me the news about his death and it just floored me. The memory of him taking my beloved Tarheels out behind the woodshed — in Chapel Hill, no less — was my foremost memory of him at that time. His death changed that.
In the years since, I’ve looked at the NBA and I’ve wondered how his presence would have changed the dynamics of the league. But I also wonder what would’ve happened if he had survived that night and we’d never known he’d snorted coke.
Would Bias, as many have suggested, have been the next “Great One” or would he have been the next Michael Ray? Would he have had epic battles with Sir Charles and Clyde and MJ or would he be a bigger bust than fellow draftmate Chris Washburn? I can’t honestly say I know for sure. People say it was his first encounter with the drug, but you have to wonder if the money and ever-present youthful arrogance would’ve led to an addiction to Chyna White.
In any event, I think the death of Len Bias brought more attention than Nancy “Just Say No!” Reagan EVER could’ve.
by big grip
I too am a college kid from the 80’s and I wanted to attest to the greatness of Bias. His game was elegant. I know that it seems strange to use that description, but that’s the only word that I could think of. ACC basketball games were must see TV in those days. The Bias/Jordan matchups had the hype of today’s national championship games. Len was truly a “prince” among his contemporaries. He was one of the first college guys to “dress like a professional”. He had the nice suits that he wore to the games. He would not hesitate to ram on anyone who dared to challenge him, but he was almost a “pure” shooter as well!! Len’s passing opened up our eyes about the folly of coaine abuse.
Great piece by Bo and by Scoop.
by CBell
wow, your post let me know i actually understood and absorbed something from a microecon course i took last semester. clearly, i’m not as well versed as others on the topic, but i will say that though i can see the logic behind their having to be a lower class, it still doesn’t make sense that people have to live in such abject poverty. i mean, it’s true everyone can’t be a Bill Gates, but everyone should at least have their basic needs met, and at least have a real shot at attaining that level of wealth.
by Ron
Early in my college career, before I understood stuff..I actually fashioned myself as one of those conservative types. As far as your assessment of liberatarians, my experience with some unabashed free-market anarchocapitalist libertarian types is…the more they talk, the more vitrol starts to seep out and then I have to tune them out.
Especially as it relates to America. The issue is — and you proved it with your question for him — these folks fail to understand the history as it happened and have whitewashed it under the idealism that “easily explains” all of it.
Whoopi Goldberg was on FOX news the other night and that channel generally serves as entertainment for me..anyway, she made a point that’s really been the crux of my arguments with (fellow?) conservatives for a long time…and my main bone of contention.
You can’t paint everyone with a broad brush and then say “well, the folks who aren’t doing with the rest of us are doing are clearly out of the mainstream and thus are the real problem.” Because its not quite that simply and it never IS that simple.
And having spent all but one of my college years in rural areas, all I’ve seen is this white underclass that these folks are clearly ignoring and its far worse than anything I saw rolling through the hood to go to church on Sunday or to visit random family members.
The worst part is, those folks think they’re better than the folks in city because of their “values” or something like that. The reality is, they’re just as messed up — if not worse — and they’ll just brush all the problems (drug use, domestic violence, youth suicide, etc.) under the table to keep that myth going.
I realize this post was all over the place, but needless to say…I appreciated the segue into economics.