RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘economy’

Give and Take

27 Dec

In this season of giving, here are two counter-intuitive truths about how Internet music piracy and product knock-offs benefit the original creators.

#1: In November, TechNewsDaily published a story about two studies showing that those who practice Internet piracy, “stealing” all that music, are actually the ones spending more on downloading music. Concerns can still be made as perhaps these pro-piracy people would have bought more had they not taken what they did for free. But I think a wiser take is that the act of listening for free allows a freer flow of new music that wouldn’t have been listened to prior. Once exposed, the listener has the chance to financially compensate the creator–and apparently they do.

More exposure equals more money, and stopping this file-sharing could very well hurt the music (and film, presumably) industry. This leads to this second counter-intuitive truth about piracy.

#2: All those knock-off products–watches, handbags, cell phones–which are also targeted by law enforcement and the makers of the original products for stealing ideas/styles/technology. But according to the book, The Knock-Off Economy, featured here on the Freakonomics Blog shows that these knock-offs actually lead to increased sales of the real items being knocked-off. (In America, it’s harder to imagine this phenomena because we just don’t see that many knock-off products.) But when living in China, I saw stores with nothing but imitation goods. It’s in places like this that the theory holds that the advertising from the knock-off products make the real ones that much more desirable.

I can also imagine that owning that fake, cheap Louis Vuitton hand bag also increases the desire to own the real thing. Or maybe it’s the idea that if something is worth imitating then the real thing must be awesome, and seeing all the fake ones around makes people want the real thing to stand out among all the posers. For whatever reason, it’s true that fighting the knock-offs could mean hurting the makers of the real thing.

In all, we’re realizing a new plateau of the definition of stealing–insomuch as differentiating physical from intellectual property. The grey area that is intellectual property (how can you own an idea, anyway?) results in the grey that is the mixed results of stealing ideas. Sometimes using someone else’s ideas is harmful to the person who came up with them. This I won’t argue. If I write a book and someone else takes it and sells it as their own, I’m the loser. But at the same time, if, say, Time Magazine reprinted an article of mine without permission and sold a ton of magazines, this “theft” would probably help me.

The idea of the intellectual property holder being helped by stealing is in stark contrast to the zero-sum theft that we all imagine: taking your car means one more car for me and one less for you. Ideas are not zero-sum, though. Just because I use your idea doesn’t mean you can’t. In fact, if it’s not used by others, your ideas won’t make you a dime. The fear of letting others use your idea without compensation, whether it’s listening to music for free or making a like product, is understandable. But by getting their ideas out there–even for free, as the two above examples show–it increases the demand for the product at the same time.

This is the model for writers. I write these articles, offer them at no charge to get my name out there, and then use the leverage of any recognition I can manage to find a paying job(s), sell books, or maybe get paid to speak one day.

Technology and a growing, global market is changing our ideas of how non-physical property is compensated. We’re seeing some odd effects of “theft”. As is shown from tech companies like Google, from writers and musicians, and from consultants, one must be a great giver first in order to make money. Google gives away its email, maps service, and tons of other software. Many Internet consultants blog for free, giving away their best tips to gain an audience (and the chance to get exclusive contracts for paid consulting gigs.)

The result is an ever-freeing flow of ideas–whether software, art, or tips to grow your business–available to an ever-growing, worldwide audience. This should lead to great innovation and wealth in the years to come.

to new plateaus,

-Brandon

 
1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Election Reflection: Why We Voted the Way We Did

13 Nov

The either/or (Republican or Democrat) aspect of U.S. elections provide voters with the fewest of options. Yet with so many issues to consider, it hardly seems like two is enough.

It also makes it difficult to make sense out of what happened last week because there are multiple reasons why one might vote for, say, a Democrat: you might be an Iron Range blue dog big on organized labor; you might be an elderly person worried about social security and medicare; you could have been a voter looking to promote progressive policy. One could offer a similar bevy of reasons why someone voted Republican.

The first lesson here, then, is to keep in mind the multiple mentalities either side encompasses. It makes it tough to stereotype what an Obama or Romney supporter looks like (despite our desires to do so.) It also makes knowing which factors were the loudest hard to discern. But I’ll take a shot at it…

As much as they say the economy is usually the number one factor when electing a president (and I’d bet them right this year as well if, say, the economy was really bad at present), I think we discovered a factor more near and dear this election.

No, not foreign policy. This factor reliably does play second fiddle to concerns over jobs and the economy. The Ace up the victorious Democrats’ sleeves (or perhaps it was some Republicans foolishly showing their cards)–or however you want to portray it–was the issue over of women’s rights. With a few exceptions, (such as Minnesota’s Michele Bachmann) the “tax and spend” labels tossed from Republican candidates to their Democratic opponents couldn’t outweigh the labels being tossed the other direction.

One such label was that if Romney was elected, women’s rights would fall back 50 years. This, and labels much worse, were helped along because each week it seemed like there was a new headline highlighting what a Republican candidate said regarding the most intimate and emotional of women’s issues: abortion and rape.

Once that first Republican candidate offered his opinion, there were perpetual attempts from the media and a public with a watchful eye prompting further opportunities for more soundbites and talking points. The Republicans were simply being honest about their ideology: that abortion is wrong even in cases of rape, and that God has a plan for each of us. Said separately, I don’t think these things would ruffle too many feathers. Frankly, these are philosophical stances many in America have and many voters acknowledge as belonging to many conservatives. But it became the hot-button thing to do when putting the two pieces together and getting down to the brass tacks of what these beliefs actually suggest about the rights of women and atrocities like rape. In the end, we got statements saying that rape doesn’t cause pregnancy and that rape can be God’s will.

I wasn’t surprised by these conclusions–not because that’s what we expect from Republicans, but because that’s the logical conclusion anyone would come to with a belief that God is completely in charge. A lot of people believe this. And the funny part is that if someone suggests a murder was God’s will–depending on the murder, I suppose–it probably wouldn’t have been nearly as controversial.

Rape is different, though. It’s an act of incomprehensible terror and violation. From what I gather, to most women, it’s worse than murder, and a willingness of these politicians to speak about it–especially in this fashion–was a clear no win, particularly from female voters. In a contest of brands, there was no contest. The Republican brand was trashed; there was no way most women were going to vote for Republicans.

Voting is the act of choosing your favorite candidate, or choosing the one you think will do the best job. I also believe that voting is an act of choosing the person who will serve your best interests. That’s why the economy will trump foreign policy. For most voters, it’s more important to have a job than to have good foreign policy. That’s also why, I believe, voters cared more about these very personal, intimate issues over the economy. Who cares if we all have jobs if women are being raped?! This, I believe, really was the thought in many voters’ minds.

We vote for that which is most concerning to us, and with that, the old-fashioned ideas held by these Republican candidates were deemed more troublesome than America’s economic problems. And because of a two-party system, and a contest of brands, all Republicans paid the price.

Admittedly, this is a tough case for me to make because I think it even escapes many voters’ minds. Here are the results of a National Public Radio (NPR) poll taken just two weeks before the election, October 23-25:

“Which of the following types of issues are most likely to affect your vote for president and Congress this year: economic issues like jobs and unemployment; fiscal issues like taxes, spending, deficits, and debt; social issues like abortion and gay marriage; or national security issues like terrorism, Afghanistan, and Libya?”

    %      
 

Economic issues

 57      
 

Fiscal issues

 16      
 

Social issues

 14      
 

National security issues

 8      
 

None/Other/Unsure

 5

People responded overwhelmingly about the economy. But if the economy was really the dominant priority, why weren’t budget hawks elected? If these issues mattered to the degree that they would “affect your vote” as the question stated, Romney/Ryan should have won in a landslide.

But Obama won. And here in Minnesota, the Democratic candidates did very well, too. In the end, I don’t think there was room for concern about children being slaughtered by American drones in the Middle East, Guatemalan farmers decapitated south of the border because of our Drug War, or our continuing financial woes of debt and foreign indebtedness. I think, this year, it came down to the sentiment exemplified in websites like this: www.republicansforrape.org

I think we learned that, for most people, an interpreted threat to oneself–exaggerated (even imaginary) or not–is the ultimate voting motivator.

to new plateaus,

-Brandon

 
2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Selective Recognition and the Greek Financial Crisis

10 Aug

Continuing from the last post, we look at the most recent example of bonafide financial turmoil: Greece.

In Wednesday’s article, I shared how when it comes to economic or political themes, people are selective with their perspectives. We talked about rich people and how some people only see the wealthy as fleecing the public for their own gain. On the other hand, others view rich folk as deserving of their rewards because of the growth and service they provide. We saw that recognizing this split in perspective goes a long way to understanding why and how two groups can be at odds while fighting the same enemy: Occupiers and Tea Partiers both are mad at Wall Street, but one sees capitalism’s failure while  the other, Washington’s. One wants to use government to reach a little deeper into the rich’s pockets; the other wants to lesson government’s role.

Now let’s look at Greece. And we can do so through the eyes of these same two groups. The Occupier-type points their finger at what they notice: tax evasion by the rich or controlling powers from continental and world banking institutions.

Watch out, dude’s got an umbrella!

The New Yorker stated a year ago:

“Explanations of how Greece got in this mess typically focus on profligate public spending. But its fiscal woes are also due to a simple fact: tax evasion is the national pastime…It makes the system unduly regressive, since the rich cheat more.”

Referring to the all the violent protests, Zach Zill at SocialWorker.org writes, “Greek workers are right to resist efforts to make them pay for a crisis caused by bankers, business executives and politicians.”

Meanwhile, the Tea Party-type notices the unsustainable public spending, the necessity to cut back, and thus, the perceived oddity of the protests when its the protester’s own country that’s threatened if spending cuts aren’t made.

Each side points out that which gets their goad. The important part is to notice our tendency to lock into a certain perspective. It’s great to notice a cause to a problem, but why not notice more than one–from varying angles?

Ideology.

We come to the table already with a specific tint on the world shaped by our ideology, and we view the issue through this lens which filters out the data that doesn’t fit.

This is basic stuff, but it’s also easily abandoned. A new plateau is to recognize the merit to various perspectives and recognize our own selective attention to that which is convenient to your ideology.

 

Beyond this, I emailed Greek economic analyst, and Athens native, Robert G. Danon who writes at rgdanon.blogspot.com and whose Twitter is rgdanon. I wanted a better understanding on Greece: the reason for their money mess and the protesters’ anger. In response to my inquiry, he wrote (with my writing in parentheses):

“Over the course of the last three decades we had to a large extent a socialist government run by PASOK with a manifesto of deficit spending and promises of increased electoral public employment in exchange for votes. The centre-right NEW DEMOCRACY party also lay claim and embraced this modus operandi, effectively condoning this behaviour.

“This was effortlessly carried out as Greece was the beneficiary of very low interest rates courtesy of the Euro, and the party euphoria that ensued having no regard to the longer term structural imbalances prevalent throughout this period. Equally, massive transfers of wealth occurred to help the periphery catch up with the core. (I’m honestly not sure what this last statement means.) It goes without saying that this money did not find a home in productive investment but rather in excessive consumption, lavish living, and Swiss and local bank accounts. Europe turned a blind eye as it was in many ways easier.

“At some point Greece had to pay the ferry man. Lending seized and the Troika (the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank) imposed its lending conditions. The problem is this bloated Government sector of…public servants has never been cut to size, a large part of which earn excessive salaries, a large part of which is totally redundant and of course is being maintained at the expense of the private sector, which in neglect, is being asked to pay an ever increasing share of taxes. It is self-evident that this process has a dead end and we have reached it.”

Got all that?

Great.

have an awesome weekend!

-Brandon

 

 
No Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Eat the Rich

08 Aug

Are you mad at rich people? Do you respect them? The class warfare debate is as alive as ever, and an article in the New York Times stirred the coals with this piece. It says that France’s new Socialist President, François Hollande, is eyeing a 75% income tax for French citizens who make over $1.25M a year.

This is music to some folks’ ears, but to others the music sounds more like the theme to Jaws. It’s a matter of perspective, dependent on how you see the rich. Indeed, there are different ways to get to “the top”, and herein lies the disconnect in reactions to this news.

And this disconnect is very polarized today.

Tough economic times (caused in large part by some rich people) has the less-wealthy eyeing the more fortunate with scorn and jealously. The scorn for the rich’s irresponsible actions; the jealousy because as families scratch for food money, rich folk can wonder which color their new Mercedes should be.

And in a time when the rich and the poor are also being more polarized, it’s no surprise, then, that all the rich get categorized as the enemy: the 1%. But while some rich get to be so at the expense of the middle and lower classes, and while they do leverage their governments to create the rules in their favor, this doesn’t define the majority of millionaires out there.

For most rich people, their wealth is an indication of  how hard they work, what they do with their money, and the resultant growth they generate to the economy and job market. A salesman gets a 10% commission and sells a ton of product; an inventor creates a device that makes life better for others; a business owner expands and can now offer jobs to more workers. These folks are the lifeblood of an economy. And as they increase the size of the pie, they should be rewarded, and we should be thankful for them because our eight-hour work day in an air-conditioned office, enough extra money to by iPads, and the resources to provide education and a social safety net wouldn’t be there without them. Laborers make the economy go, but these rich are responsible for seeing it elevate from the agricultural to the industrial to the electronic.

A protester wouldn’t have the luxury of spare time and extra money to take off of work and buy the paper and markers needed to make and hold up his sign:

To take this thinking further (and what may sound crazy in these economically trying days), it would actually benefit a country to tax these rich folks less. Let these doers, these job creators, these wise investors, keep more money because they’re doing a wonderful job with it–certainly a more efficient job than government has the removed capability to be.

But people who don’t like the rich either don’t understand this or only focus on those rich folks who get rich at the expense of others. It’s understandable people conflate the two, but know there’s a big difference between a Goldman Sachs exec, and say, John Mackey, the founder of Whole Foods. And the irony is that while taking your frustrations out on the rich, you’re going to harm all the rich, and this will include taking away resources from those who use them best for all. It’s cutting your own nose to spite to your face.

Mackey (left) has created thousands of jobs. Lloyd Blankfein (right), CEO of Goldman Sachs, played a big role in the financial crisis then got billions in bail out money.

The idea is to grasp this difference.

Our inability to do so allows this sloppy idea that it’s simply the rich vs. the poor.  The bourgeoisie vs.  proletariat. It’s simplistic and inaccurate when both the poor and rich work together as they do so often. It’s incomplete to see the rich as all Goldman Sachs types; similarly, it’s incomplete to exclude them when considering the upper class. Both the rich-defenders and the rich-haters are right in their own way given what they’re focused on. We can broaden our perspectives to include both truths.

When doing so, we see that our common concern is in eliminating the ability for the “bad” rich folks from fleecing the poorer. Eliminate the enabling laws, prosecute those who steal, use the power of organized labor to stand up to abusive bosses, and have sensible regulations for working conditions. In other words, stop doing what’s been done so much in U.S. history: using government to help allow the bad rich to thrive.

to new plateaus,

-Brandon

 

 
No Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

 

New Plateaus Geography Spotlight # 3 – São Tomé and Príncipe

29 Jul

*This article was co-written with the help of the talented and intelligent, Thomas Brandt. If you’re ever interested in contributing ideas or material to New Plateaus, please express it. :)

Gosh, with a name like São Tomé and Príncipe you’ve got to assume some kind of western European influence, huh? But that doesn’t help a whole heck of a lot in trying to pinpoint this place considering western Europe colonized much of the world.

Hmmmm.

Okay, how’s this for a clue?:

There.

Africa is one colorful continent. Which flag is your favorite? I like the red and black of Egypt. The blue/yellow star of Ethiopia is pretty sparkly. How about that wicked machete in Angola?

Unfortunately, we can’t even see the flag of the country featured in this article because it’s so darn small. The island nation of São Tomé and Príncipe are the pair of small spots snuggled into the corner, south of Africa’s top half and west of its bottom half. If you need more help, I got my best man on the case:

 

 

And if you turn your head to the right Africa sort of looks like a horse or dragon.

Too lazy to turn your head and use your imagination? No worries New Plateaus has tech skillz your ya, too:

Afridragon

 

Alright let’s get back to the topic at hand—dragons.  Whoops, I mean São Tomé and Príncipe. Haha. (Sadly, though, these islands don’t even show up on the dragon map.) Guess we better go in for a close-up:

Yeah, they’re small, but not insignificant. São Tomé and Príncipe is a historically-telling and beautiful country, a unique African/European offering.

First, though, we gotta learn how to say the darn name. This is a challenge. The Portuguese say, “Suh-ooo  too-meh  ee  Pddih-say-pay” And you need to say it with the “Suh” having an nasally “uh”, the “to” sounding like the English word “to”, the “dd” being like a rolled Spanish “r”, and yes, that’s right–no ‘n” sound. Try it again if you like:

“Suh-ooo  too-meh  ee  Pddih-say-pay”

If you don’t like maybe you prefer the English version:

“sow-to-may and prin-si-pay”

That was easy.

Whatever you call them, (I like to call them St. P) they stand as some of the prettiest places on Earth:

Not the image that comes to mind when you think of Africa is it?

Well, it is to these guys:

toitles :)

Canoeing anyone?

Aha! So there are people here! At least one, anyway.

Actually, there are about 165,ooo lucky inhabitants of these pair of paradises. Let’s do the quick history of these folks:

The islands of São Tomé and Príncipe were first settled by Portuguese explores in the late fifteenth century. This is late considering that much more remote islands in the world had been inhabited for millennia before that. But that’s the official history.

São Tomé was discovered on St. Thomas’ day (according to the Western calendar), which is December 21, and Príncipe (originally called Santo Antão) was discovered on St. Anthony’s day (according to the Western calendar), which is January 17.  It was eventually decided that the Prince of Portugal (to whom the natives paid sugar duties) was more important than St. Anthony, so the name of the smaller island was changed in 1502.

The Portuguese started quite the sugar operation, and these islands became Africa’s leading sugar exporter. This labor-intensive work brought in a ton of African slaves. In the 1800’s, sugar was replaced with cocoa and coffee as the islands’ cash crops.

But though the crops changed, slavery still exploited the labor force. Revolts and cries for independence began to come about in the 1900’s, and by 1975 São Tomé and Príncipe gained its independence, and the leader of the revolutionary group which fought for its independence became its first president:

His name was Manuel Pinto da Costa. Black man, Portuguese name.

Say, ‘Hi, Manuel.’

Today,  the country is led by President Fradique de Menezes. It hasn’t been the smoothest ride for this island nation as democratic reform in the 90’s, a brief army take-over in 2003, and an attempted recent coup have all wrinkled the nation’s sails.

Also wrinkling the sails has been economic struggle. Independence can be hard for a fledgling state, and the 80’s and 90’s weren’t great for this country’s bottom line. Coming from a position of state control, reforms privatized much of the economy including tourism, banking, and agriculture. The IMF and UN also have been assisting the country throughout this millennium. Recently, a deal was struck between São Tomé and Príncipe and Niger regarding oil reserves under the ocean, allowing Western energy companies to bid for the rights to drill and allowing tens of millions of dollars to come into São Tomé and Príncipe.

Geographically, these equator-hugging lands enjoy warm—but not hot—days with some inland/highland cooling variation. If you go there you can count on 80 degrees. São Tomé is just 30 x 20 miles in size and Príncipe about 20 x 4. They’re small. As in 5th smallest country in the world small. And of the 165K inhabitants, all but around 6K live on São Tomé. Of these, the lion’s share are African descendents from slaves or more-recent immigrants. Additionally, there are some Portuguese, Jewish, and Chinese inhabitants. (The Jewish population was sent here by Portugal in the 1500’s because they didn’t want them in their country, and the Chinese are from Macau: another former Portuguese colony now in present-day China.)

The language of the country is Portuguese.

Now hello to the Sao Tomeans:

schoolchildren

culture time

And enjoy this slideshow if you have two minutes to enjoy the sights and soundtrack of São Tomé e Príncipe! You get to see and hear the unique blend of Euro/Afro and more wonderful views these islands offer:

This country does a nice job of showcasing the variety within sometimes-glossed-over Africa. It also does a nice job of revealing humanity’s past interactions and fruit of those past encounters. It’s a wee nugget of a country but even within the smallest of countries lies an enormous potential for sights, sounds, experiences, and lessons.

til next time,

 

-Brandon

 
1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Vikings Stadium Kerfuffle

24 Apr

On April 10th, I attended a community forum where Minneapolis mayor RT Rybak made his pitch to citizens about the Viking stadium proposal. I use the word pitch, but it was more like a declaration. The mayor and the council had approved the measure with its $150 million price tag for the city.

(Since this forum took place, a State committee defeated the bill, throwing everything back up in the air. As I write this, more is being done to try and sew together the loose ends of the stadium deal including a visit to the Capitol by the NFL commissioner.)

Regardless of how this issue resolves itself, this night was important as crucial points about this debate surfaced and revealed themselves: points about policy, economics, and our love of sports.

I arrived wondering why the mayor willingly walked into the lion’s den of angry Minneapolis tax payers when the decision to approve the stadium was already made. I gave him props for giving citizens their say and facing their challenges. But now I suspect he agreed to do this forum as part of a deal to coax on-the-fence city council member, Sandy Colvin Roy (nervous about voter disapproval), over to his side. I can imagine the conversation going something like, “Sandy, you go along with the stadium, and I’ll appear in your ward to back you up and make the case for the stadium.”

Whatever the reason, there he was at the Lake Nikomis Community Center:

Stating his case

with those in attendance in favor of the stadium:

and those against:

Should the citizens have the chance to vote on the stadium?

Many communities in New England are known for holding lengthy town hall meetings where residents have their say on all aspects of the budget. Most of America, though, elects representatives to do this bidding for them—-though at the risk of giving politicians a longer leash. When it comes to this issue, Mayor Rybak’s favors the latter, claiming that it’s his and the city council’s job to decide how to spend city money—including this stadium—and that the time for public decision-making comes at the ballot box every four years.

That’s an easy claim for the Mayor to make as anyone on the DFL ticket wins in Minneapolis. But, it doesn’t mean his point is without merit. And many do agree with him. The stadium, though, straddles the line of who should be able to decide, and many in attendance wanted a chance to vote.

What are the economic benefits of building a stadium?

This was the dominant theme of the night. Indeed, this is the benefit advocates tout loudest—and in this case, very loud, as not building a stadium also involves the threat of losing an NFL franchise.

This point is an easy one to offer as everyone can picture the economic activity of builders building, players playing, and stadium employees working—all on account of building a stadium and the Vikings franchise. Conversely, we can feel the lack if the stadium wasn’t built, and especially, if the Vikings left town.

So it’s not surprising that economic and job claims are an effective argument and persuade people all the way up from citizen to city council to governor. And interesting is how even in a time of recession, the case to spend a huge sum of money can be bolstered on account of this argument.

More interesting, though, is that this argument—which can so clearly support the stadium supporters—has also been undermined time and again. It keeps getting used because it works to win the debate, but for the intellectually curious and honest, there’s really no need to keep retreading these points. This isn’t the first stadium ever built, and by examining all the stadium projects in the U.S.—dozens of them, as economists have done—the numbers show that a community doesn’t gain much from a sports franchise, let alone building a stadium.

One has to remember that tax dollars are a zero-sum game. If they aren’t spent on a stadium, they would be spent elsewhere, employing other—or perhaps even the same–workers doing something else. Regarding the franchise, if people didn’t spend money to see a game, they’d spend their money to entertain themselves another way. Did we feel a blip when the Northstars left town?

This isn’t to say that stadiums and sports teams don’t offer jobs–of course they do, but are these jobs better than what would have been? It’s also not to say that stadiums and teams don’t grow the economy. But the numbers tell us they largely tend not to. Economist and Freakonomics author, Steven Levitt, writes, “Sports do not create many jobs or generate much economic growth. And such evidence has proven to be quite persuasive. In fact, a survey of economists by Gregory Mankiw noted that 85% of economists agree that local and state governments should not subsidize professional sports.” See here. They also found that the studies that do that show significant job and economic growth are ones conducted by those with economic interest in seeing the stadium built. Neutral studies show insignificant gains.

So when getting down to nuts and bolts, we find that this debate is really about three things: status—having a flashy new stadium; revitalizing a neighborhood in Minneapolis; mostly, though, it’s about Purple Pride—fear of losing the Vikings to another city.

But what is this attachment to the Vikings worth?

Well, back at the neighborhood forum, Mayor Rybak thought the stadium was a money saving proposal. He thought it was smart for Minneapolis citizens to go along with the plan because this plan also included an agreement for the city to retain more of the entertainment tax dollars that the state usually absorbs. The city, then, could use that money to do things that property taxes are normally used for. So his warning to us in the audience was: if we don’t build this stadium, your property taxes will go up.

Even stadium backers, I assume, need to scratch their heads at that rationale.

But maybe not.

Because despite using this same kind of child-like monetary logic when justifying my need for a new car some years back, today it’s radical to oppose this stadium at the expense of the Vikings leaving Minnesota. People love the Vikings. Plus, the momentum of this national conversation has normalized subsidization in almost every case. But rising up 10,000 feet we can look down and see that our whole perspective and behavior regarding stadium building in this country has been skewed as the NFL leverages people’s addiction to football to its utmost.

Truths have been twisted. The onus isn’t on us to come up with a plan for a stadium. Zygi Wilf can enjoy our market and take advantage of our team and state pride, but not exploit that pride by having us plan and pay for their place of business. The NFL wants a team here as bad as we want one. Yet right now our governor is doing the NFL’s bidding no matter the expense to our state and communities.

People go broke trying to keep up with the Joneses and last I checked, we were in a recession. We ought to be demonstrating some Minnesotan common sense and tightening our belts. Instead, we’re buying luxuries when we can’t pay for essentials, building a billion dollar stadium with the idea that it will save us money, and banking on building it on the back of gambler’s losses.

The house that gambling built.

Yet it’s considered radical to oppose this stadium—“Are you crazy?! Do you want to see the Vikings leave!?”

At this monetary and moral price—and if that is the ultimatum—then yes.

That’s not to say we don’t welcome a franchise, of course. I’d just like to know why the stadium can’t be built privately, like the baseball park in San Francisco or Gillette Stadium, the home of the New England Patriots. Or why can’t there be a system where the public can donate on their own accord? I grew up loving the Vikings and might just chip in if given the opportunity.

The reason these two points aren’t seriously considered is because they haven’t needed to be. Why wouldn’t the NFL and owners take taxpayer money since taxpayers are willing to give it? In large part, this is about a drug dealer squeezing all they can from their sports junkies.

Let’s sober up, Minnesota.

As someone who disapproved of the Twin’s stadium, I admit being impressed that first home-opener. I remember walking around First Avenue and the energy in the air was palpable with Twins fever and Minnesota spirit. I heard the ‘ding ding’ of the light rail cars go by as Twins jersey-wearing fans ate outside their favorite sportsbar under a gorgeous sunny day. More fans walked the sidewalks, and one lady said to me, “It finally feels like a real city.”

So putting the brakes on this stadium effort would be a serious buzzkill, I know. It would also seem awkward to be the stick in the mud while all these other cities in the U.S. regularly cough up their dough for billionaire’s stadiums. But in time, cooler heads prevail and studies show that these “highs”—economic and physical—wear off.

America’s radicals: the Tea Party, the Occupiers—ever-distancing themselves from one another—are, in a strange twist, in agreement in their opposition to this stadium. Tea Partiers dislike taxes; Occupiers hate giving more of their money to the 1%. In today’s America, these “radicals” aren’t that radical anymore. In St. Paul, who’s left supporting the stadium, so far, is our DFL Governor with support from Republican representatives.

It is my hope that these moderates realize that all that we’re forfeiting with this stadium deal is much greater than the benefit of watching the Vikings play.

 
8 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Fore!

19 May

I returned home to Zhuhai from Hong Kong. And last week I had the cool chance to check out a fancy-schmancy golf club here in south China. Since the grass must be getting greener these days back in Bemidji, I’ll provide a timely, seasonal piece here for ya. So for all you putters, drivers and chippers out there, pull up a chair (I reckon you already are seated) and come play 18 with me, or at least enjoy the 19th by reading this post. :)

If you’re not a golfer, don’t feel out of place. This is just one more interesting look at something we’re familiar with, but done with a Chinese twist. Plus, I’m not a very serious golfer, anyway. I played in high school because of a girl and I’ve only played a couple rounds per summer since. Heck, I had as much fun with my caddy as I did smacking the little white, dimpled spheres.

I never imagined I’d play golf in China, but like a disobedient dog, Fate had other ideas. I was assigned to teach English one-on-one with a 12-year-old named, Michael. (Well, actually, his name is Zhou Zi Qian. But students like to have an English name, too. Thank goodness.) My supervisors mentioned he had a thing for golf. I’d say so—turns out he wins all the youth tournaments in these parts.

His parents are happy with my lessons, so offered Michael and I “a good walk spoiled”—that’s Mark Twain’s definition of golf. Right on. Let’s see what an afternoon of 18 looks like in China!

Geez, how big are the holes?

Lakewood Golf Course: yep, sounds like a golf course to me. It’s sort of like how nursing homes are always sunny and happy, like Bob Ross named them–”Happy Little Trees Retirement Home”.

Here’s a shot of Michael and I:

Yep, he's just 12.

The scenery here was top notch. Pleasant, yet, striking hillsides walled-in parts of this course. The day was gorgeous with me getting just a tad sunburned–perfect, just the way I like my marshmellows. First, though, we had to enter the facilities which matched the high bar set by the environmental beauty:

Wow. See? Who says teachers don't live a high falutin lifestyle?!

Turning right, we were met with the friendly reception:

But because I had to wait for this slow-poke, I was forced to look up and enjoy the art. (C’mon, I’m not here to enjoy things; I’m here to golf!)

After that, it was off to the locker room, where the uniforms of hierarchy are replaced with the evening of nudity.

Plus, I had a reminder that these fancy-pants folks still apparently need a tip or two when it comes to Western toileting:

Old habits die hard.

Okay, now let’s get outside and hit some balls.

Right, guys?

'So I says to the guy...'

Heading out, here was the biggest Chinese variable of this golf course:

The caddy shack, Chinese style.

The similar outfits didn’t surprise me, but the fact that all the caddies were women sure did. But, hey, when in Rome, right? These gals grabbed your bag and like a good waitress were there for your every need. They would bring the clubs, wash the ball, drive the cart, and did a heck of job lining up puts. Once I disagreed and it cost me, my ball arching on the green in a way I didn’t foresee, but she did.

Let’s take a look at who “she” was:

Michael's and my caddy. They wore hardhats underneath the bonnets.

And here’s a shot of the others:

At ease, Ladies. Now go out there and read some greens!

Next, the swinging commenced. And I will say that, once you got used to the caddies, it was really no different than playing most anywhere:

'I like your hat.' 'Shhh!, don't talk.'

Lovely view.

And another.

And another.

She putted for me...and missed.

The dress, the etiquette, the manner of the players, the whole vibe was similar. So the million dollar question is: Is this a good example of Chinese imitation of a Western experience? The Chinese, I have found, so adore Western fashion, music, athletes, technology and try to be like them.

Or is it a statement about the way humans from opposite ends of the world like to do things in the same ways?

Either way, I had to remind myself, “Oh ya, I’m in China playing golf!” Then it was obvious, because everyone from the ground crew to the caddies to the players are Chinese. One race here, but social classes are still in place.

And this was most clear toward the end of the day when I walked to the final tee box and noticed these folks from behind a fence:

They were trying for my attention.

So I saw what they were about:

Lost and found golf balls.

Chances are, they chill out behind the fence in a legal grey-area like so many in China do. The portable food vendors in town are all illegal, but they sell regardless–until the authorities come around and then it’s time to high-tail. At the golf course, a security guard was near the tee box, looking out, perhaps, to make sure these ball-sellers didn’t solicit onto the course property.

I suspect as long as they remained behind the fence, they were okay. Although they were not camera friendly, boy, let me tell you. They ducked and covered when I pulled my camera out. I thought I might not get my change back for a few balls after trying to get a shot.

Spending all day on this kick-butt course, it was a reminder of the poverty here, the attempts to get some of that trickle-down $ action, and the line that divides them–literally–right here at this fence.

Much is said about your world even when you try to escape with a day at the links.

The greens were fast, the wind gusty.
My first swings of the year were rusty.

keep that elbow straight,

to new plateaus,

-Brandon

 
2 Comments

Posted in Culture, Society, Travel