Playing the Game, or Not

Two men in the city's Central Park offered each other a welcoming hug, meeting for what might have been the thousandth time in their middle-aged lives. From their initial introduction, soon after graduating from different universities, they shared a dual bond: respect for each other and dissatisfaction with the world around them.

"Mr. Olduvai, I've been looking forward to this conversation since you pissed me off last time."

"Well, I can't promise it won't happen again, Mr. Rueul. But really I'm just glad Ada is giving up her time with you today. She's okay? And Marga?"

"Ada's fine ... thanks. She's been liking her alone time, so it's no problem. And Marga's back at school now. She left last Sunday. Her last semester."

Already!

"We're getting old, Jorge."

We are. And that makes time precious. So ...?

"Go for it."

The last thing we were talking about, Sam ... was ... freedom, I think.

"Exactly when you were pissing me off."

Without warning or rustle, a dozen starlings flew from a hackberry tree beside the asphalt path. Sounds of joyful children spilled from a playground nearby. But the two men were determined to hash out ideas of economic delusion that had percolated in their talks. Their challenge this day was that while they agreed there was delusion, Jorge saw delusion in society at large, while Sam saw delusion in Jorge.

How can freedom annoy you, Sam? I was trying to make the point that the only limit to it is fairness. Then you had to leave.

"Well, I have time now. And what you don't understand is that one man's fairness is another man's oppression."

Fairness is an equality of opportunity ...

"See? That's oppression. I'm already annoyed."

I didn't say anything oppressive!

"You said 'equality of opportunity.' Equality — economic equality — means taking from someone who has and giving to someone who doesn't. And that has nothing to do with fairness. But it has a lot to do with the oppression of success."

Well, now you're not being fair.

"Why not?"

Because you had asked me last time we met what I mean by fairness. And now you're using your own definition to assume what I mean.

"That's what it usually means."

So you're assuming the usual ...?

"You're right ... I shouldn't assume, especially with you, Jorge. Forgive me?"

I might.

"So, what do you mean?"

Fairness is an equality of opportunity, nothing else. It has nothing to do with taking what belongs to someone to give to someone else. It's the potential in every moment of economic life. It's like sports that way.

"Economics is like sports?"

A good sport provides the opportunity for excellence to each competitor at every moment they play. That's a fair game, Sam. Otherwise, it will lack integrity and won't hold our interest. The same goes for a good economy; it also provides opportunity for everyone who's in it. That's a fair economy. Without the right rules for equal opportunity throughout, dishonor will infect its politics. People with the means will just jockey for advantage instead of honing real skill. Making the rules then becomes more important than playing the game.

"When you talk about equality of opportunity in sports ... are a person's advantages in skill or height or whatever still valid, without compensating competitors?"

Of course. Personal advantages are natural. Some athletes are going to be better than others — quicker or stronger, as you say. But when the game is good, the rules themselves won't favor one player over another. And the referees don't give anyone special treatment. A game with integrity simply gives uniform opportunity to all. It doesn't equalize ability.

"So it's the same in economics, I hope. Natural advantages, like stamina or brainpower or strength, don't need compensating either, right?"

Absolutely. Our differences actually make for good drama; they create favorites and underdogs and give us something to root for. It helps make our economic system popular.

"I don't think of economics as being popular."

Well, it needs to be, Sam. Everyone is part of the economy. So if the system isn't popular, the system is in trouble.

"A lot going on with fairness in sports, isn't there?"

Well, it needs to work, to keep people interested. It's why when stones or bottles are on the field, they're removed. It's all about fairness — keeping luck to a minimum so talent and skill can dominate. That's why games are cancelled in bad weather; heavy rain or wind can erase a difference in ability, or can change the skill set needed to win.

"Okay, but what does this have to do with economics?"

Everything.

"We're going to cancel the economy if it starts to rain?"

Very cute.

"Jorge, it's your analogy."

The point is that it's the rules and conditions for a game that have to be fair.

"I realize that. It's still a bad analogy."

Why?

"For the same reason we don't cancel the economy when it rains. Sports can be postponed. But economic needs don't go away no matter the weather. In fact, some needs grow because the weather's bad."

Sam, unless there's a huge event, like a hurricane or a flood in a place that doesn't normally get them, weather doesn't make economics unfair. But a muddy field can ruin a sport.

"Still, sports is entertainment. Economics is about the nitty-gritty of life. Professional sport is more of a fantasy job that only a few of us get to do. And we only get to watch while we're not busy earning a living. So it seems to be apart from real life for most of us. I mean, when you're watching a game, and a player runs and gets near to scoring, and the fans cheer louder as he goes, if only for a second nothing else matters. It's a transporting moment. I don't think about my mortgage. I don't think about the chores Ada has waiting for me in the house. I don't get occupied with whether my Marga's done her homework or not. But when I'm doing my job, those things occur to me all the time."

Sam, sports are reality. And we've been playing them for a very long time. Ask the ancient Greeks. They're a part of us.

And economically, sports are very serious. Just think of all the human time and energy we devote to games. Beyond the athletes and judges, think of all the manufacturers who make the equipment and souvenirs, the molded glass and concrete and metal in the stadium, or the cameras, microphones, and lights and the people to work them. And the electricity ... all the people and equipment at the power company. Sam, think of the human effort devoted just to watching at the stadium as you and Ada do, with the mass transportation systems or roads built to get you there.

"I get it."

Or think of watching at home as I do — all the video screens around the country needed to satisfy couch potatoes like me and the sports bar crowds. And all the food and drink we consume that has to be harvested, packaged, shipped, prepared, and served. Think of all the deals cut as part of a media broadcast ... with the talent and crew, the sponsors and advertisers, and the people who make their products.

"I get it, Jorge."

One sporting event can generate as much economic value as a small city does in a year. So how is it not part of real life?

"It's big business, no question. But there's a difference between being a big business and being a serious part of life. Athletes just happen to have some talent to entertain. It's not like they're thought of as being major contributors to society. They're just lucky to be skilled at whatever sport is paying big money when they're young."

The fact that one happens to have the skills demanded by their time doesn't mean they're a lesser contributor to society. Suppose someone invents a better-cooking, easier-cleaning line of pots and pans that makes chefs happier. Ten years earlier, the technology for it didn't exist. Ten years later, and someone else would have already invented it. So that person with that skill set is lucky too, just like an athlete. Are they also unimportant in their contribution?

"No, of course not. But there are degrees of contribution. You say 'demanded by our time,' but you can't equate cooking, or say what doctors, nurses, and emergency responders do in saving lives, with people who play a game for a living. You can't. Yet the athletes can be paid so much more."

So, why not equate them?

"They're not contributing anything real, Jorge. It's just entertainment."

Contribution is a matter of perspective, isn't it, Sam? Person-to-person, yes, doctors have the greatest impact, far exceeding that of athletes. However, an athlete who has become wealthy from his sport has likely inspired others to find their own abilities or has elicited joy in many, many fans. Could the huge impact on a single person by a doctor be equaled in significance by an entertainer's smaller impact on millions?

"Okay, suppose that instead of doctor, I said research scientist. And he discovers a drug that can help millions or even billions of people. The impact on humanity would be gargantuan, and he'd probably still make less than a top athlete."

He'd still be lucky to have an intellect to fit the demands of his day. It's just not for economics to sort through the morality of relative rewards. Money flows according to desires and rules. Market forces judge profitability, not morality.

But that scientist would be honored in his time and remembered in history. Jonas Salk gave us a cure for polio in 1955. The same year Roy Campanella was a baseball MVP. Don't you think more children are learning about Jonas Salk than Roy Campanella, by far? It's not economics' place to assess what history will remember. Historians do that. Economics is concerned with the present. And only part of the present — our ability to create or trade in products and services. All else, for the most part, is outside of economics.

Just as morality doesn't guide calculations of economic value, the judgment of history is not guided by profit. Many cultures used slaves to achieve economic success. And many business empires rose in violation of laws. Sam, influence and wealth are not the same. Economics and history are two separate and distinct judges.

Anyway, it's mostly leaders who are making choices that affect our many lives. And I'm not even talking about going to war. I can see by your face that I need to explain ...

"No, I get it. I just don't want to assume I know where you're going."

Good. Let's think of life as being divided into economic events, like when you as an individual are engaged in buying or selling a product or service, and noneconomic events, which would be every other moment of your day. And to keep it simple, let's also assume that everyone is good; evil doesn't exist.

"If you're not going to make a realistic example, Jorge, what's the point?"

Simplifying can make a point easier to see and not get lost — like viewing a single root in isolation on the forest floor instead of intertwined with scores of others. Evil's real, but it's an extra and twisty root when it comes to seeing how laws affect people.

"Uh huh ... we're saints now. Got it."

I'm not saying that. The point, Sam, is that we can be masters of our own individuality. We can come and go as we please with whomever we like. We are free in our activities.

"Now that's an ideal!"

But it's all potential. Leaders can impose rules on us whenever they desire. For example, I might not be allowed to gather with you and neighbors on the street to voice a strong opinion. Or we can be put under a curfew. We can be told whom we can't marry. We can be drafted into military service. And we could not say no to any of these things without significant consequences. Saying no to our leaders in the wrong time and place could get our freedom pulled from us altogether.

"Jail ... it certainly happens."

Even in the best societies, people are subject to such decrees from the top. So, in life outside of economics, we are not necessarily masters of our own fates. The opportunity to forge your own path is not always available. It depends on our leaders. Are you with me, Sam?

"So far."

Good. Now, within the —

"Wait."

What?

"If a war is fought for economic purposes, and I'm drafted, isn't my military service within the economic realm? You just said being drafted is noneconomic."

Our leaders determine the purpose of war. They can decide that the greater good is for our economy. And war itself will have a direct impact on different industries within our economy. But you, as a soldier in a war, are not engaged in economics. You're not buying or selling goods or services. Your needs and your chores are given by the military. You follow orders. Your individuality is mostly stripped away for the sake of the team. The larger thrust of a war can be about one thing, while the impact upon an individual can be something else. So when I mention freedom, I'm talking about the individual. That's where freedom, or its lack, is felt — in each of us individually. That's where freedom matters.

"Funny how soldiers have to sacrifice their freedom in order to protect ours. But I'm with you."

Any government is entrusted with power to do as it sees fit. The people's freedom wholly depends upon how wise and paranoid the government is in exerting its power. A dumb and trusting government effectively allows the strong to dominate the weak, so most people wouldn't be any freer under that regime than under a government run by a savvy but paranoid dictator. Freedom is molded by whoever holds power. So, outside of economic life, freedoms are regularly subdued or even trampled upon for the sake of a government preserving what it believes needs protecting — sometimes its own power, sometimes the needs of favored citizens, sometimes the needy.

And it's not necessarily immoral. It's just rare that a government can act in a way that treats everyone equally, except perhaps in establishing a national holiday. And even then, not everyone can have a day off at the same time. Politics and morality are messy within a community. Outside of economics, equality is hard to achieve. But that makes anyone's effort to promote freedom vital, especially in economics, where it can be achieved.

"So that was your point the other day."

Economics is different than politics or morality. From government's point of view, an unthreatening freedom can be found in it, because economics doesn't depend on individual character but on collective belief. Economic freedom comes from our working together. That's what trade is, after all. There's a logic to it that politics and morality don't share. And because a robust economy will actually strengthen the government that oversees it, a good economy can safely be the goal of any political leader. So freedom through economics can definitely be achieved. There's never a reason an individual shouldn't have the ability to forge their own path economically. But one born into dire poverty can't afford to even try. Without some luck, they're stuck trying to not starve. If economics is about individuals making a living, then economic freedom means no leader can ever tell an individual how to earn that living, as some nations have. But it also means no leader in power due to a democratic vote — assuming we, the people, understand our freedom — will make policy that steers us away from it.

"But leaders do steer us, and we do believe in freedom!"

It feels like a contradiction, doesn't it?

"Tax rates affect investment. Inefficient programs waste money and rack up debt. We're steered all the time. You're right. It is a contradiction. It's like they punch holes in the freedom jug, and it's leaking out. Those things eventually dry up the whole works."

That's because we don't know true economic freedom.

"Last time I checked, we live in capitalism. It's a free market. And how do we not even know what freedom is? Every election cycle, that's all we talk about! What do you think we've been talking about this whole walk, so far?"

For our full potential of freedom to exist, there has to be equality of opportunity at every moment, just as in sports. That's what we don't have. And it seems like we don't know how to achieve it.

"Of course we have opportunity. Everyone has opportunity here."

Yet you feel our leaders hold your economic fate in their hands?

"Well ..."

So, what I'm saying is ... if you feel that way, then you don't know true economic freedom.

"I don't understand how I could feel any other way. They're our leaders, our representatives. What they decide is always going to impact all of us."

Their impact is powerful today because they have little understanding of economic freedom and less for the nature of economic opportunity. So they make rules based on assumptions of how things work. Their misunderstanding becomes codified in our system. Stresses begin to show, then cascade, but in economic time, which can be decades. With a better foundation of rules to run the community, your life wouldn't be as sensitive to their decisions.