A Yale Historian on Comparative Advantage

I was reading a piece by Paul Kennedy entitled "The Threat of Modernization". By the way, he is a J. Richardson Dilworth Professor of British History at Yale. According to Wikipedia, he is "also the Director of International Security Studies". Also, "along with John Lewis Gaddis and Charles Hill, teaches the Studies in Grand Strategy course there". So this guy is a super smart guy. Heck, he was also a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. And I came across this beautiful argument in his piece:

"What if there is nothing you can produce more cheaply or efficiently than anywhere else, except by constantly cutting labor costs?"

It was kind of amazing that the article seems to confuse the concpets of absolute advantage and comparative advantage. Kennedy seems to believe that gains for trade are only possible if your country produces at least one good better than other nations. But if you produce nothing better than your trading partner, according to him, you are in trouble.

Consider the following scenario in which the US has an absolute advantage over France in all industries. Say it is a 2 industry world - we make hot dogs and buns. (This is a very trivial example, and it certainly makes a lot of assumptions that I should not be making, but I'm just trying to illuminate the concept.) In America, it takes 2 hours per worker to make a hot dog. It takes 1 hour per worker to make a bun. In France, it takes 3 hours per worker to make a hot dog. It takes 6 hours per worker to make a bun. So clearly, France sucks at both. Also, let us imagine that a hot dog and a bun are tradeable. So the exchange ratio is 1:1. This simplifies the numbers a bit.

Notice, if the US spends an hour, it can make 1/2 a hot dog or 1 bun. Now if it spent an hour and made 1 bun, it could effectively trade for 1 hot dog. Meanwhile, instead of spending 1 hr to make 1/6 of a bun, France can make 1/3 of a hot dog and trade this for 1/3 of a bun. So both stand to benefit.

Anyway, the point is, the idea of comparative advantage is rather elementary and powerful, and yet forgotten by many (intelligent) social commentators. In fact, mathematician Stanislaw Ulam challenged Paul A. Samuelson (Nobel prize winner in economics) to name a theory in social science that is both true and non-trivial. Samuelson, after considering it for several years, responds,

"That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that it is non-trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them."

It is always very interesting how, in inter-disciplinary matters, specialists in one field miss even the simplest of concepts in the other, regardless of how brilliant they may be. Of course, that makes those who transcend the boundaries of their fields all the more impressive.

Comments on Bryant and Nash

Here is an excerpt from a great column by The Sports Guy, Bill Simmons, over at ESPN.com. Amusing points are bolded - for those who just want to skim.

***
Everyone has been discussing Kobe for two straight days -- every Web site, every TV show, every radio show, everybody. Heck, he even knocked the NFL championship games off the front page of ESPN.com. Nobody cared that the last 12 points of the game came during garbage time, or that Kobe took a jaw-dropping 45 shots and 20 free throw attempts in 42 minutes. They only cared about the number: 81. On his 666th regular season game (seriously), Kobe scored 66 percent of his team's points. For the first time in the post-Shaq Era, Kobe has an identity beyond "Selfish gunner who destroyed a potential dynasty." He's the most exciting player in any professional sport.

Here's what kills me: When I checked right before our video store trip, the Lakers were getting killed and Kobe only had about 14 points. So I crossed the game off for the night. Big mistake. Like many NBA junkies, I monitor Laker games since Kobe reached "you always need to make sure Kobe isn't feeling it" status about two months ago, when it became apparent that his team stunk and Phil Jackson was fine with Kobe gunning 35 to 40 times a game. I don't like the Lakers, and I definitely don't like Kobe that much (except for the "Black Mamba" gimmick, which delights me to no end). But I enjoy the nightly potential of an ESPN Classic-caliber scoring explosion. It's a form of basketball that's never been seen at this level -- as I wrote two weeks ago, it's like "Teen Wolf" sprung to life. Not only is Mamba hogging the ball to a historic degree, just about everyone else on the Lakers seems OK with it.

(One player seems to be resisting: Poor Lamar Odom, who's going to bludgeon himself to death with Phil Jackson's blank clipboard soon. When they're running the offense in which Odom sets up Kobe from the top of the key and then stands in place like a third base coach, I keep waiting for Odom to rear back and fire line drive baseball passes at Kobe to try to knock him unconscious. Frankly, there's still time.)

So this has evolved into a unique situation: A Hall of Fame scorer in his absolute prime, stuck with teammates best described as deferential, playing with a chip on his shoulder after his last two seasons were marred by fallout from the Shaq trade and ongoing legal troubles, working with a permanently green light to hoist an ungodly amount of shots (nearly 28 a game). Again, everyone's OK with it. Which means it's impossible to determine a ceiling for Kobe Games right now. After the 62-point game against Dallas, when I bemoaned Kobe's lost chance to make history, hundreds of Lakers fans disagreed. The common theme of the e-mails: "Dude, are you crazy? He's shooting the ball 40 times a game! There will be plenty of chances for him to go for 80!"

You know what? Good point.

More important, Kobe learned a valuable lesson from the Dallas game, mainly that his decision to stay out of the fourth never made anyone say, "Wow, maybe he's not selfish!" If anything, many basketball fans were disappointed. Including me. It was like watching a famous bank robber nail his 10th bank in two months, then leave an extra bag of cash behind in some misguided attempt to prove that he wasn't just about the money. Is there anyone left on this planet who still believes that he's a team player, that he's good at getting his teammates involved, that he doesn't want to dominate at all times? What would be shocking about an inherently selfish player accomplishing an inherently selfish act? In a weird way, wasn't this his destiny?

For two guys watching history unfold, my father and I weren't exactly high-fiving in the living room or anything. The game made me feel the same way I felt while watching "March of the Penguins." I had always wondered what a penguin's life was like; once I knew how depressing it was, I wanted to sit in my garage with the car running. Sometimes it's almost better not to know these things. And Kobe's 81-point game was a little like that. For a perimeter player to score that many points, you have to hog the ball to a degree that's almost disarming to watch; it almost stops resembling a basketball game. More than Kobe's rising point total, Dad and I found ourselves fascinated by his icy demeanor, the lack of excitement by the guys on the Lakers bench, even the dysfunctional way that his teammates were killing themselves going for rebounds and steals to get him more shots.

"Can you imagine being on this team?" my father said, shrieking. "Can you imagine? Look at Odom! I think he's going to throw up!"

When an exhausted Kobe reached 81 and appeared barely able to stay on his feet, the Lakers removed him to a standing ovation, as well as half-hearted hugs and high-fives from his teammates (all of whom will be disciplined this week from Mitch Kupchak for not celebrating joyously enough). The best reaction belonged to Jackson, who seemed amused, supportive and somewhat horrified, like how Halle Berry's husband probably looked after sitting through his first screening of "Monster's Ball." The second-best reaction belonged to my Dad, who listened to Kobe's postgame interview with Patrick O'Neal and excitedly said, "Wait, how can you score 81 points and not thank your teammates?" Not since Hilary Swank snubbed then-husband Chad Lowe at the 2000 Oscars have we seen something that blatantly egocentric. And look how they turned out.
***

In other news, I just want to ask the following question. Yes, high flying scoring nights is wonderful. But I ask this - why are people not impressed when you are directly responsible for 80 points as a pg. Take, for example, Nash's 28 pt, 22 assist explosion. That is 80 fricking points (8 of the assists were 3 balls). Or in the win against the Clippers, he was responsible for 62 points. And against the SuperSonics, 69 points.

You see where I'm going with this.

Is Kobe as Great As Michael: ESPN Analysts Speak Out

Has Kobe claimed Michael Jordan's throne? If not, who has?

January 24, 2006 (Two days after the 81)

Legler: He has not reached the level of Jordan because he has yet to win a championship as his team's most dominant player. Bryant has three rings playing alongside Shaq, but hasn't even reached the playoffs as the focal point of his team. He must achieve team success as his team's leader to be compared to Jordan.

Broussard: No, Kobe has not claimed MJ's throne. That's heresy! MJ is the greatest and until Kobe or someone else wins close to six titles without a dominant big man, they can't even think about replacing him. Kobe is, however, the second-best shooting guard in NBA history behind MJ. It will take multiple championships to be MJ's true heir. It's clearly between Kobe and LeBron. Let the race begin.

Bucher: There was only one Michael. There is no heir, never will be. Was Michael the next Magic? No. Was Magic the next Dr. J? No. The whole idea of heirs is a bad one. Kobe's blazing his own Hall of Fame path.

Shouler: When Bryant claims the scoring title this year, it will be his first in ten seasons. Jordan had ten scoring titles and does anyone doubt he would also have won two more in 1994 and 1995, the years he was in retirement? Then we can talk about defense, where Bryant is not nearly Jordan's equal. No one is Jordan's true heir.

John Hollinger, ESPN Insider: No and no. If anyone is the heir, it's LeBron James.

Greg Anthony, ESPN Insider: He is the only player I've seen who is every bit as competitive as MJ. The next step is becoming as smart as MJ. Learning to channel all of that competitive spirit and having it bring out the best in his teammates. He's on his way.

Is Kobe the MVP this season?

Legler: He is not the MVP to this point because, as great as he has been individually, the Lakers would have an even better record if Bryant sacrificed some of his scoring to maximize the contributions of Lamar Odom and Smush Parker. Bryant has been the most outstanding player, but Chauncey Billups or Steve Nash has been the MVP.

Chris Broussard, ESPN the Magazine: Right now, the MVP race is between Kobe and Nash. If Kobe continues to play as he has the past month-and-a-half and the Lakers continue to win, he has to be the MVP. But if he returns to earth and the Lakers finish slightly above .500, it will probably be Nash.

Bucher: This would be easier to answer if MVP were ever defined. He's the best player in the league right now, for sure. Most Valuable? OK, just nudging out Nash, because the Lakers are a playoff team right now and without Kobe they'd be duking it out for the No. 1 pick in the lottery.

Shouler: If Chamberlain was denied the MVP in 1962, the year he averaged 50.4 points, 25.7 rebounds per game, and scored 100, then logic dictates that setting individual scoring records should not earn you an MVP this year.

So there you have it folks. And I have to say, I concur on both counts. I think people forget how special MJ was. And we aren't talking about a league of pansies where people were much less physical. We are talking the era where Shaq-like centers walked the earth. An era where hip checks and perimeter fouls weren't called as much, and perimeter players had to face a more physical game and yet had a harder time getting to the foul line. The 81 was remarkable. Absolutely absurd. Probably cements Kobe as the 2nd best 2-guard of all-time - behind Jordan. But until I see a dynasty led by him, without a dominant big, until I see a great defensive stopper, until I see a guy who hits more than 29% of his "clutch time" shots, until I see 5 regular season MVPs, until I see 10 scoring titles, until I see a PER average just shy of Shaq - and btw Kobe's high will be this year at around 29 making it lower than MJ's average for nearly 3/4ths of his career, until I see him making the playoffs every year despite the state of his team until he is near 40 (he already failed this), until I see him bring out the best in his teammates, there is no way to justify the argument that Kobe is as great as MJ.

As for the MVP bit, see my Awards post below. I argue for Nash, by the way.

Awards

The Ennis Del Mar Award for Balls the Size of Apples
Big Ben. Roethlisberger wen't bezerk this post season. Led the Steelers to 86 points - read that again, 86 points - against the #1, #2, #3 seeds on the road. 7 Tds for 1 interception. Threw the ball at nearly 70%. Check out this ridiculousness. Nearly 300 yds on 75% throwing for 2 TDs and 1 rushing TD. Only Gannon and Montana have had better performances historically, with games of 286 yds and 3 passing TDs and 1 running TD for Gannon and 331 yds and 3 passing Tds and 1 rushing TD for Montana. How's that for historical context? Oh, and that isn't the only all-time great style comparison to be made. Roethlisberger will be the second youngest QB of all time (1st is Dan Marino) to play in a Superbowl. And if he wins, he beats out Tom Brady as the youngest QB to win the big game. Oh yah. And he is easily the winningest QB currently playing. He is 26-4 as a starter. Yes, read that again. Jesus. That is an 87% win percent. Big Ben, I wish I knew how to quit you.


The John Stockton Award for Most Underrated Star Who Should Win the MVP This Season But Won't
Steve Nash. Just ridiculous. He is solely responsible for 44 points per game. This is the second highest total, behind Kobe at 45~. And he proved haters wrong by, along with Marion, leading a team with James Jones, Raja Bell, Brian Grant, Jared Reiner, Barbosa, and Diaw to the #2 spot in the Western Conference. I don't think we fathom just how good Nash is.


The Jake Plummer Award for Taking a Big Dump in a Big Game
Before yesterday, I would have given it to either Peyton Manning or LeBron James. But the Manning thing isn't really news. His playoff record is something like a 30% winning percentage. And James? Jesus. But that is for another day. Anyway, Jake the Snake found a way to steal it from them and reclaim his award.


Guy You Want to Piss Off the Least Or He Might Kill You Award
Kobe Bryant. 81 points. Holy shit. That is one scary dude. Had Kobe not gone off, this would have gone to Steve Smith. After not getting any touches in the first quarter, he asks to be put in on the punt return. Lo' and behold - he returns it for a touchdown. But anyway, that does not compare to Bryant's going off.


The Award For Most Ridiculous Basketball Question Asked By a Guy Very Passionate About Basketball
Jiwon. Check out this beautiful exchange..

CHronoxseverANCE: he played against Bill Rusell
jlw0n: who's bill russell?
CHronoxseverANCE: ....
CHronoxseverANCE: ok
jlw0n: some old vet
jlw0n: retired?
CHronoxseverANCE: you cant talk abt basketball
CHronoxseverANCE: ever
jlw0n: lol
jlw0n: hahahahahahhahah
jlw0n: slightly rings the bell
jlw0n: wait
jlw0n: did he ever play on the lakers
jlw0n: was he a bald regg
CHronoxseverANCE: ...
CHronoxseverANCE: that is kareem
jlw0n: maybe it's some other russell then
jlw0n: there was a kareem russell?
jlw0n: ohhhh yea
CHronoxseverANCE: byron russell
CHronoxseverANCE: umm ...

But Jiwon, no worries. You are still the MVP of my heart.

The 2008 Olympic Team

Well it's that time again. Colangelo is getting a team together. Unfortunately, we will not be seeing some of our best players on the squad. Duncan hated his experience and will not play. Garnett doesn't feel like it - he already has a gold. And McGrady has too many back problems. Also, keep in mind that last time we learned that we have to make a team as opposed to a star-studded jersey selling machine.

In my opinion, we lacked people who understood that they indeed were role players. We also lacked people who could hit the (albeit shallow) 3 ball. So we couldn't spread out defenses. Moreover, we lacked a true point guard. We had a bunch of hybrids in Marbury, AI and D Wade. AI and Wade have since evolved into strong point guards, but I argue that we could do with another strong playmaker. Finally, I think we could do with at least one defensive specialist. Imagine if we could shut down Manu. Do you really think Argentina would do so well then?

The 12 I see fitting best:

PG: Chauncey Billups, Dwyane Wade** (2)
SG: Kobe Bryant, Michael Redd* (2)

I think J Kidd and AI will be too old by 2008. I know Iverson wants to play, and I'm as big an Iverson fan as anyone. But I don't know that an old AI brings anything to the table. All of his strengths, aside from his passion and toughness, rely on his physical gifts. So a 34 year old AI on the squad? I'd be a little concerned.

*Like with many players, Kobe does not get along with Ray Allen. Hence we take Redd. (Yes, Kobe is just that good.)
**Like Allen, and many other players in the league, Wade has had issues with Bryant. The difference is, Wade, the league's leader in the Roland Rating measure (a composite of on/off court and netPER), is not replacable. Allen can be swapped for Redd.

SF: LeBron James, Tayshaun Prince, Rashard Lewis (3)
None of these guys have overblown egos and feel comfortable taking back seats. LeBron is a no brainer, and as we have seen, he is (a little too) unselfish at times - especially in the clutch. Tayshaun gives you Superman in a role player. He can be the lockdown guy. He can hit 3's. He can create his own shots. Whatever. Shard is money from beyond the arc.

PF: Chris Bosh, Shawn Marion (2)
These guys are unique in the same way (being able to guard bigs at the perimeter and being able to spread the defense) for different reasons.

Marion, among the most underrated players in the league, is the undersized 4 who can guard 3's and 4's in the US. He should have no problem staying with the 4's in the international game who can step out to the perimeter. This year, he is the best defender on the most efficient defensive team, and he has always been a very talented (and underrated) defender at that. His method is unique. He is one of the few 4's who gets a lot of steals and strips - but keep in mind that he isn't really a 4. Still, that doesn't prevent him from being a shot blocking threat, and he is averaging 2 blocks per game this season! Lastly, it doesn't hurt that, at his peak, Marion could hit the 3 at nearly 40%.

Bosh is very young. He is turning 22 this March. He is fairly lean (barely heavier than Bryant and Wade), but he plays the 4. He is a solid defender in the classical power forward sense - blocked shots and forcing misses - as opposed to Marion's strange but effective half-guard half-forward sense. He also has a nice shooting touch from mid-to-long range.

C: Amare Stoudemire, Dwight Howard (2)
Amare is an offensive beast. Dwight Howard is a defensive beast. Both are pretty young. (In fact, Howard, 20, is younger than me.)

Developing kids: Channing Frye (PF/C) or Chris Paul (PG) for the experience (1)
I like the idea of taking at least one of these two very young players. I think developing a young team will pay dividends inthe future. LeBron (22 at these olympics), Bosh (22), Howard (22), Stoudemire (26), and Wade (26) make a nice core. But at least some of them probably won't be healthy in the future. Maybe, god forbid, Stoudemire's surgery doesn't pan out. Or maybe his knee goes Chris Webber. And whatever it is, Amare and D Wade are 30 by 2012. So I think giving Frye or Paul a taste of the olympics will be a good learning experience, and will put us in a position to replace whoever leaves the team for 2012. Chris Paul has proven himself to be just that good at the point. Frye seems to have a very high "basketball IQ", and while he is still a subpar boarder, the US rarely has problems there because we are a lot bigger than the rest. He gives us yet another big who can step out and hit a midrange jumper.


Attributes of this team:
1. Range: Of the first 9 players I listed, only Wade and Bosh aren't threats from deep. More interestingly, Marion, Lewis, Billups, and Redd shoot or have shot about 40% from the NBA 3 point line (longer than the FIBA 3 pt line). And Tay, LeBron, and Kobe certainly hit reasonably well, (36%, 35%, 34% over their careers, respectively). We need range to be able to spread out the defense and render the zones ineffective. Lastly, we really need ranged players who can knock down open looks because three of our guys are uniquely physically gifted and are able to break down the zone and force it to collapse: Amare, DWade, and LeBron. We can always dump it into Amare, who is the Beast in the X-Men sense, and LeBron and D Wade can easily get into the middle of the zone and then dish it back to some open spot up shooter. So to exploit the strengths of these 3, it is key to have a great ranged team.

2. Egos: Wade, LeBron, Tayshaun, Billups, Rashard, Marion, Bosh, Howard all seem to have proven that they are not really egos. Most of them don't mind playing second fiddle to a player who has it going. (Even LeBron gives it up to hot teammates all the time.) The only concern here might be Bryant. But hopefully his "desire to kill everyone", as LeBron puts it, allows him to truly be a team player. And if not, at least we know that people may defer to him anyway.

3. Defense: Inside and out. I've said Kobe is overrated on defense. But that wasn't saying he was bad. He is undoubtedly very good and certainly takes it seriously. I just meant that he shouldn't be getting such high praise and motivating voters to make him DPOY. Recall that the international game requires more perimeter defense. It's like guarding the Kings and Mavs of 4 years ago. Bosh, Marion, and Frye give you that lateral movement from bigs who can guard other bigs outside and inside. With Dwight Howard, you get a beast inside who will be among the best shotblockers and rebounders, if not the best, in the entire international tournament. Tayshaun Prince is a key lockdown defender who can take out any SF or SG - and he is most effective when he has a good shotblocker. Thus, he can be paired with Dwight Howard. And Billups and Wade can hold their own against most any PG. There are, of course, a few defensive holes: LeBron James, Rashard Lewis, Michael Redd, and Amare Stoudemire. But since the international game isn't really conducive to grind-it-out defense, I suppose that's ok.

4. Clutch factor: Kobe Bryant has made ridiculous shots. This year, especially, he has been ridiculous. Billups has made ridiculous shots. Dwyane Wade, however limited in range, has made ridiculous shots since his rookie year, and in his sophomore year, hit both clutch outside jumpers and drilled clutch free throws in a conference Championship series. We have seen Tay hit big threes. And while these 4 may be the super clutch guys, the rest of the squad isn't too shabby either.

5. Age: This is a very young team. By its second run, D Wade, LeBron, and Amare will be seasoned vets. My bet is that at least one of them will have a ring by then. Not only does the age give us an athletic edge, which we always have regardless of age, but it gives us a core that can stay together for two olympics. Hopefully, the experienced team can help develop the new crop, and so on and so forth.


I think if this team lacks one thing, it is definitely an "energy" role player. It might be a little too mellow of a team. I was kind of considering Nate Robinson.

What Major?

Well I saw this on Jiwon's blog and took it. It turns out, I scored identically on Math and Philosophy and therefore had to take a tie-breaker. Do these results seem surprising to anyone?

You scored as Philosophy. You should be a Philosophy major! Like the Philosopher, you are contemplative and you enjoy thinking about the purpose for humanity's existence. Mathematics 100% Philosophy 100% English 92% Engineering 92% Journalism 75% Anthropology 75% Psychology 75% Sociology 75% Art 42% Dance 33% Linguistics 25% Theater 25% Biology 17% Chemistry 17% What is your Perfect Major? created with QuizFarm.com

Should the National Endowment for the Arts Exist?

Nothing fancy. Just that question - should the National Endowment for the Arts exist? Should its funding be expanded or cut to 0? Or do we go the Tyler Cowen route in The Good and Plenty?

Two Films, Both Starring Colin Farrell

Two films will be coming out this year that I have been looking forward to, mainly because of the directors involved. Coincidentally, both films star Colin Farrell.

The New World (Terrence Malick)
Terrence Malick is interesting because he has only directed 4 full length films in his career, including The New World. More interestingly, he directed Badlands in 1973, Days of Heaven in 1978, and then took a 20 year hiatus from film making, only to come back in 1998 with The Thin Red Line and pick up several oscar nominations for achievement in directing and writing.

Malick, in fact, is a former football star who then graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard while majoring in philosophy. As if that wasn't enough, he went on to be a Rhodes Scholar. His advisor was the very famous Gilbert Ryle. Because they had several philosophical disagreements, Malick left before completing a Ph.D. He did, however, get his translation of Heidegger's The Essence of Reason published, and by the age of 24 or 25, he secured a position at MIT teaching philosophy. He only stayed for a year, and by 26 he had moved to the American Film Institute and gotten an MFA. The rest is history.

With Christian Bale, Colin Farrell, and Christopher Plummer headlining, this movie should be interesting.

Miami Vice (Michael Mann)
About a decade ago, Joss Whedon turned his campy and corny movie Buffy: The Vampire Slayer into one of the most successful television shows in recent history. It quickly gained a cult following, as did its spin-off Angel, and Whedon's next project, Firefly. All three garnered much critical acclaim. I cannot tell you how many professors I have met who are fans of these shows.

I bring this up because many people seem to be tired of silver-screen sequels and remakes of old television shows. And, the idea of remaking corny and campy, though critically acclaimed, Miami Vice, seems to irk people. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that this film will be to the show what the Whedon shows were to the original Buffy film. The 2006 Miami Vice will be a much darker, more developed, well-made cops and robbers film. And, more likely than not, it will probably be one of the better films of 2006.

People seem to forget that Michael Mann actually was the executive producer of the original Miami Vice television series, and that the series' creator Anthony Yerkovich was the main writer. Interestingly, Yerkovich is now the executive producer of the 2006 film, with Mann directing and writing the screenplay. So I don't believe that the film will stray from the creator's intent, for the original minds are indeed the very people crafting this film.

I think Michael Mann is unquestionably the best director of his genre of films. His last 3 thrillers that he directed and wrote are Collateral, The Insider, and Heat. I felt that Collateral was one of the better films of 2004. We all remember The Insider, starring Al Pacino and Russell Crowe, which garnered 8 oscar nominations, including 3 for Michael Mann. And Heat, starring Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro, is probably the coolest cops and robbers film ever made. Mann isn't a slouch in other genres either. He wrote and directed The Last of the Mohicans and Ali, and produced The Aviator, giving him yet another oscar nomination.

With Jamie Foxx, Colin Farrell, and Gong Li as the main cast members, I have strong hopes for this film as well.

The Real Costs of the Iraq War

I was at Marginal Revolution and found a link to a new Joseph Stiglitz piece. Columbia University Professor Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in 2001, and Harvard's Linda Blimes argue that, once again, the USFG and the White House have severely underestimated the costs of the war in Iraq. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has sanctioned over $500 bn total (which extends through the next decade), but Stiglitz argues that such estimates grossly understate the true cost of the war, despite the White House's insistance that they are overestimating the costs.

The piece is a bit lengthy, but I think it is worth reading the introduction and conclusion at least. There is also a brief on it at The Guardian, with the interesting headline "Iraq War could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist".

I don't have an instinct like Kobe, where I just want to kill everybody

LeBron is a funny funny guy. Here are a few excerpts from his recent article on ESPN.com.

"I think it's important to know the history of the game. That comes from knowing that I'm not going to help its evolution just by playing. You can't be successful in this game if you don't know who got you to this point. Unfortunately, a lot of people my age and younger don't know the history of basketball. If a kid comes up to me and asks me a question about it, I want to be prepared to answer with some knowledge. I want to be able to tie together the past, present and future."

He continues, and talks about how he sees his game. "I don't try to pattern my game after anybody's, but if I had to talk about similarities, I'd look at Penny Hardaway when he was in Orlando. He was a 6'7" point guard. He had flair, he could pass, he'd dunk on you and he could shoot jumpers. Then, I'd look at Oscar Robertson and Magic and the way they were able to dominate games. I don't say I'm going to try to be those guys, but I can see a little bit of my game in each of them. And I'm not really concerned about surpassing them in history. I just hope that one day people will think I was one of the best players to ever play in this league. Ever."

James continues, "I know that'll take titles, though. When I think about the best players in the league, I think of the guys who've won championships, guys like Tim Duncan, Kobe and Shaq. Of all of them, I like Kobe. His knowledge of the game and his killer instinct are what make him so tough. He's great with the ball and without the ball, and the things he can do offensively are kind of unbelievable. I don't think I have an instinct like Kobe, where I just want to kill everybody."

He adds, "But I do want to be the best player on the court every time I step out there."

"It's all about competing, about trying to be the best. It's also important to me to make the team I'm on now the best. I don't want to go ring-chasing, as I call it; you know, going to a team that's already pretty established and trying to win a ring with them. I want to stay with the Cavs and build a champion. And I feel like we're on our way.

Part of being considered the best is having rivalries. I don't have any at this point. Rivalries start in the playoffs. I tell you what, I'll be happy for it to start. I haven't been a part of the playoffs yet, but I will be this year. Then we'll see if a rivalry develops. People try to make rivals out of me and Dwyane Wade, but D-Wade is one of my best friends in the league. I've got the utmost respect for the way he handles himself, the way he plays and the way he's become a leader for his franchise."