Bill Simmons owns ESPN.com. Each of his columns generates somewhere in the neighborhood of one and a half million page views. In 2007, he was ranked as the 12th-most influential person in sports. Since that time, he's published a #1 NYT best seller, produced ESPN's award-winning 30 for 30 series, and launched his own satellite web site, Grantland.com, off ESPN.com's main site. His influence has not shrunk since 2007.
I ask myself what's the big deal with Simmons. He's not exceptionally intelligent, by traditional metrics. He overvalues his own experience horribly. He has such a Boston-based bias that he's frequently intolerable, but his bias toward his own experience extends much farther. For example, he recently argued that Anderson Varejao, who is averaging 10 points, 11 rebounds, and fewer than 1 block per game, should be an all star in 2012. Why, despite mediocre statistics, should Varejao be an all star?
"Varejao was never getting Carmelo's starting spot, but he deserves it. And if you don't believe me, you didn't watch the Cavs beat the Clippers without Kyrie Irving on Wednesday night."
This article was published February 10th. Presumably, Mr. Simmons wrote the article on the 8th or the 9th. And on the 7th he watched Varejao play an excellent game while he watched the Cavs beat his new adopted team, the Los Angeles Clippers. Therefore, Varejao should be an all star.
Q.E.D.
Inane, irrational comments like these are common in Bill Simmons's writing. So why is he so popular?
I think the answer is "readable relevant content in volume." And by that, I mean, his writing, his style, and his voice, are eminently engaging and readable. And then there's so much of it. And he gets it out right away. Nobody provides more relevant contemporaneous commentary, on any subject, than Bill Simmons. He chucks out engaging 3000-word columns on hours-old topics with greater frequency and aplomb than anyone. Whether it's Michael Jackson or the lockout or the Super Bowl or the NBA draft, he writes thousands of words and he gets it out there before the traditional columnists write and publish 300.
Bill Simmons produces lot of good content fast. That's it.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
100% wrong, 100% of the time
Felix Salmon tweeted a quote from this article today, which included this doozy of a quote:
"100% of the time it is better to rent, rather than own"
Like Felix, I was a skeptic on housing for a long time. I whined non-stop about housing prices between 2005 and 2009. Unlike Felix (I'm assuming), I purchased a house last year. I did it because, over a long enough period of time, I believe it's always better to buy than to rent. The question is how long it will take you to break even on your investment. If you buy during the worst of bubbles, it might take you 150 years to make the purchase worth your while. If you buy when rents are high and house values are low, or when house prices are going up, you can make your money back very quickly. Most of the time, the question is more complicated, and whether it is better to buy or rent depends on supply-demand questions that are very specific to each location, inflation rates, and the opportunity costs associated with alternative investment opportunities.
There are plenty of calculators that allow you to play with the variables, but, over time, paper money will lose value, rents will increase, and a house that is well maintained and in a decent location will be an excellent store of wealth, relative to other investment opportunities for most people.
"100% of the time it is better to rent, rather than own"
Like Felix, I was a skeptic on housing for a long time. I whined non-stop about housing prices between 2005 and 2009. Unlike Felix (I'm assuming), I purchased a house last year. I did it because, over a long enough period of time, I believe it's always better to buy than to rent. The question is how long it will take you to break even on your investment. If you buy during the worst of bubbles, it might take you 150 years to make the purchase worth your while. If you buy when rents are high and house values are low, or when house prices are going up, you can make your money back very quickly. Most of the time, the question is more complicated, and whether it is better to buy or rent depends on supply-demand questions that are very specific to each location, inflation rates, and the opportunity costs associated with alternative investment opportunities.
There are plenty of calculators that allow you to play with the variables, but, over time, paper money will lose value, rents will increase, and a house that is well maintained and in a decent location will be an excellent store of wealth, relative to other investment opportunities for most people.
Words with no content
I'm going to try to start writing again. This is a goal I have had a few times over the past couple of years. The only difference is that now I'm likely to have the time to write to do it, not just now but in the coming months.
I've been disappointed with myself lately about not doing more. I want to write and play music and produce something professionally. But the reality is that I haven't been doing much of anything lately. For the first time in a long time, I feel as if I don't have much to say. But I think that such a conclusion is overly simplistic. We all have stuff to say, and our ability to communicate our ideas in a compelling way is likely commensurate with the amount of time we spend practicing our craft. Sadly, as I haven't been practicing much lately, I doubt I'm very good.
I've been disappointed with myself lately about not doing more. I want to write and play music and produce something professionally. But the reality is that I haven't been doing much of anything lately. For the first time in a long time, I feel as if I don't have much to say. But I think that such a conclusion is overly simplistic. We all have stuff to say, and our ability to communicate our ideas in a compelling way is likely commensurate with the amount of time we spend practicing our craft. Sadly, as I haven't been practicing much lately, I doubt I'm very good.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Debt Ceiling, Poopship Destroyer
National politicians, such as Senators and Congresspeople, are some of the busiest people you'll ever meet, but, near as I can tell, they don't do much. Their deputies shoehorn more fundraisers, meetings and events into their calendars daily than I could tolerate over the course of a year. It's not that onerous mentally, though, as they aren't required to do much at these events. They speak a lot and greet people all of the time, but the speeches aren't new and few of the people must be remembered. They just have to be there, smiling and present. Their presence is important, because they are important. QED.
When Senators and Congresspeople do act, we quickly discover why we prefer that they avoid action at all costs. Of all these avoidable acts, few could have been avoided as easily as the poop-ship that is the debt ceiling. The USS Debt Ceiling is truly foul: a dinghy that sails only in the stinkiest water. It festers. It sails laboriously, if at all. Ultimately, the only thing the boat could ever accomplish is preventing other ships from going where they need to go. But there it is, sailing around our national bathtub, threatening everything in sight.
Only two developed countries have chosen to a erect a "debt ceiling," an internally imposed limit on the amount of borrowing that the country can do at any given time. The US and Denmark are the only ones. This is not common. Usually, lender-borrower practices, private or public, are governed by the interest rate at which a lender is willing to lend and the rates at which a borrower is willing to borrow. Sometimes, lenders will arbitrarily set limits on the amounts borrowed, as is the case with credit-card limits. But a borrower who sets an arbitrary limit. his own spending is less common.
The reason is simple: well, why would you? If someone's willing to subsidize your standard of living by giving you a low-interest loan and you need the money, you should take it. Or least you should give yourself the option. There's no reason to force yourself into thievery or prostitution if it's not absolutely necessary, right? Wrong.
We need to get spending under control, as the argument goes, and for that reason, we have imposed a debt ceiling. Not that anyone cares about the number that the US has as its current debt ceiling, or the next number that will come after this debt ceiling -- they don't. The real issue is that the United States spends nearly twice the amount it brings in each year through tax revenue. That's a big effing problem. And solving the problem would require the United States to eliminate something that cannot be eliminated, politically or practically, such as the armed forces. Or the department of education. Or social security. Or increase revenue by raising taxes. None of the these things will happen.
The real issues will not be confronted by people whose primary incentive is to get re-elected. You don't get re-elected by raising taxes or eliminating the army or the department of education. And it is unclear whether sailing around a poop-ship such as the USS Debt Ceiling will get you elected, either. But there are some who would like to believe that it gives off the impression that we are confronting the issues. We are not. We are sailing around a poop-ship around a filth-ridden bathtub. We'd be better off playing with a rubber ducky.
Our debt problem will get resolved eventually. By some combination of default or severe devaluation, and only when the alternatives are worse. Until such time, expect more poop-ships and similar vessels. They're the only boat Congress knows how to build.
When Senators and Congresspeople do act, we quickly discover why we prefer that they avoid action at all costs. Of all these avoidable acts, few could have been avoided as easily as the poop-ship that is the debt ceiling. The USS Debt Ceiling is truly foul: a dinghy that sails only in the stinkiest water. It festers. It sails laboriously, if at all. Ultimately, the only thing the boat could ever accomplish is preventing other ships from going where they need to go. But there it is, sailing around our national bathtub, threatening everything in sight.
Only two developed countries have chosen to a erect a "debt ceiling," an internally imposed limit on the amount of borrowing that the country can do at any given time. The US and Denmark are the only ones. This is not common. Usually, lender-borrower practices, private or public, are governed by the interest rate at which a lender is willing to lend and the rates at which a borrower is willing to borrow. Sometimes, lenders will arbitrarily set limits on the amounts borrowed, as is the case with credit-card limits. But a borrower who sets an arbitrary limit. his own spending is less common.
The reason is simple: well, why would you? If someone's willing to subsidize your standard of living by giving you a low-interest loan and you need the money, you should take it. Or least you should give yourself the option. There's no reason to force yourself into thievery or prostitution if it's not absolutely necessary, right? Wrong.
We need to get spending under control, as the argument goes, and for that reason, we have imposed a debt ceiling. Not that anyone cares about the number that the US has as its current debt ceiling, or the next number that will come after this debt ceiling -- they don't. The real issue is that the United States spends nearly twice the amount it brings in each year through tax revenue. That's a big effing problem. And solving the problem would require the United States to eliminate something that cannot be eliminated, politically or practically, such as the armed forces. Or the department of education. Or social security. Or increase revenue by raising taxes. None of the these things will happen.
The real issues will not be confronted by people whose primary incentive is to get re-elected. You don't get re-elected by raising taxes or eliminating the army or the department of education. And it is unclear whether sailing around a poop-ship such as the USS Debt Ceiling will get you elected, either. But there are some who would like to believe that it gives off the impression that we are confronting the issues. We are not. We are sailing around a poop-ship around a filth-ridden bathtub. We'd be better off playing with a rubber ducky.
Our debt problem will get resolved eventually. By some combination of default or severe devaluation, and only when the alternatives are worse. Until such time, expect more poop-ships and similar vessels. They're the only boat Congress knows how to build.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
NBA lockout
The NBA may have overestimated the leverage it has over its players with this lockout business. This throws a chainsaw into the NBA owner's negotiating strategy. Lockouts are effective if you have a monopoly or near-monopoly over your labor pool. This had been true for most major American sports, specifically baseball, football, and basketball, since they were invented. But it's less true now for basketball than it has ever been. Basketball is the second most popular team sport in many parts of Europe and perhaps South America. Many of these teams have rivalries that run deep and owners with the resources to acquire expensive assets that might help them bully their rivals -- and perhaps show off their wealth to a few friends. And with the economy going well for the top 1/1000th of 1%, they might just pull the trigger.
While not all NBA players have the option to go abroad, its most important players will. The 9th man on an NBA bench has little leverage regardless. True superstars have infinite leverage, but also have the wealth and resources to avoid the most serious consequences of a lockout (not being able to pay the bills). It's the folks between those two categories that will determine what gets negotiated when.
Part of me thinks D-Will is bluffing. But if he's not, and if enough European owners are willing to bring on some foreigners to put on a show, NBA owners might find they were playing a trump card in a game where, in reality, there was none they had to play.
While not all NBA players have the option to go abroad, its most important players will. The 9th man on an NBA bench has little leverage regardless. True superstars have infinite leverage, but also have the wealth and resources to avoid the most serious consequences of a lockout (not being able to pay the bills). It's the folks between those two categories that will determine what gets negotiated when.
Part of me thinks D-Will is bluffing. But if he's not, and if enough European owners are willing to bring on some foreigners to put on a show, NBA owners might find they were playing a trump card in a game where, in reality, there was none they had to play.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Kenneth Faried and Denver's tolerance
Denver is my home. It is where I was raised, and where I have decided to settle. I know its strengths and weaknesses well. It is majestic in some ways, but mediocre and unimpressive in others. It has better weather than most realize and immediate access to phenomenal landscapes and natural playgrounds, as most know full well.
Culturally, though, it is a minor-league city at best. The music scene is sub par, and there is not much to speak of in arts and theater. The foodie scene is improving, but that's coming from humble beginnings.
As a citizen of Denver, I'm a fan of the Denver Nuggets. As a white male, this makes me an anomaly. Most white males favor the Broncos, Rockies, or Avalanche. I could come up with lots of theories for this, but the easiest one is that Denver is a pretty WASP-y city, and basketball is not exactly the WASP-iest of sports nowadays.
By way of example, John Elway is very Denver. Carmelo Anthony never was. Joe Sakic, though Canadian, was fully embraced by city. Alex English, sorta kinda. Todd Helton and Troy Tulowitzki? Check and check. The great skywalker David Thompson, Michael Jordan's hero? You'd barely know he played here.
And the most popular Nugget today? Chris Andersen. He of drug suspensions and 5.6 points and 4.9 rebounds-a-game fame.
In case you're not familiar with all these names, the popular ones in Denver are all white and the less-than-super-popular ones are black. Maybe that's an accident and maybe it ain't. But I have my suspicions.
The Nuggets drafted Kenneth Faried a couple of weeks ago. He will be a good Litmus test for the perhaps-burgeoning-in-cosmopolitan-character city and its ability to accept less WASP-y sports figures. He's a high-flying, super energetic, mega-intense rebounding machine. He holds the NCAA college basketball record for total rebounds collected in his career. He led tiny Morehead State, his alma mater, to the second round of the NCAA tournament.
But he's black. And he's a Muslim. And his mother is a lesbian (not sure exactly how those last two go together.) He's got crazy-long dreads. But if you separate out that stuff, he's exactly the same type of player as Chris Andersen, except he's probably better.
I can't wait to see how he's treated.
Culturally, though, it is a minor-league city at best. The music scene is sub par, and there is not much to speak of in arts and theater. The foodie scene is improving, but that's coming from humble beginnings.
As a citizen of Denver, I'm a fan of the Denver Nuggets. As a white male, this makes me an anomaly. Most white males favor the Broncos, Rockies, or Avalanche. I could come up with lots of theories for this, but the easiest one is that Denver is a pretty WASP-y city, and basketball is not exactly the WASP-iest of sports nowadays.
By way of example, John Elway is very Denver. Carmelo Anthony never was. Joe Sakic, though Canadian, was fully embraced by city. Alex English, sorta kinda. Todd Helton and Troy Tulowitzki? Check and check. The great skywalker David Thompson, Michael Jordan's hero? You'd barely know he played here.
And the most popular Nugget today? Chris Andersen. He of drug suspensions and 5.6 points and 4.9 rebounds-a-game fame.
In case you're not familiar with all these names, the popular ones in Denver are all white and the less-than-super-popular ones are black. Maybe that's an accident and maybe it ain't. But I have my suspicions.
The Nuggets drafted Kenneth Faried a couple of weeks ago. He will be a good Litmus test for the perhaps-burgeoning-in-cosmopolitan-character city and its ability to accept less WASP-y sports figures. He's a high-flying, super energetic, mega-intense rebounding machine. He holds the NCAA college basketball record for total rebounds collected in his career. He led tiny Morehead State, his alma mater, to the second round of the NCAA tournament.
But he's black. And he's a Muslim. And his mother is a lesbian (not sure exactly how those last two go together.) He's got crazy-long dreads. But if you separate out that stuff, he's exactly the same type of player as Chris Andersen, except he's probably better.
I can't wait to see how he's treated.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Western Europe and Corruption
Sepp Blatter, Dominque Strauss-Kahn, and Jacques Rogge -- the heads of FIFA, the IMF, and International Olympic Committee -- come from three different countries (Switzerland, France, and Belgium), so I suppose I shouldn't dump them into the same laundry basket, but, I do. They're old, jowly white men with slick hair (fact); they come from (at least partially) French-speaking countries (fact), and they're in charge of major international organizations (fact). And they apparently can get away with doing whatever the fuck they want (opinion).
The first two have tried their luck getting into scandals, with varying degrees of success. Sepp Blatter may or may not have been involved in a bribery scandal to sell their World Cup to oil barons (Qatar). As of yet, the allegations haven't worked their way through the system. Unfortunately, "the system" (FIFA) is the same corrupt, dank netherworld that created the corruption in the first place (FIFA). They hired Kissinger to help them deal with the allegations. Yes, yes, I see. Hiring Kissinger to help your organization improve transparency is like hiring Caligula to help you enforce a government austerity program.
Dominique Strauss has had the misfortune of committing his alleged misdeeds in a jurisdiction where his name doesn't carry sovereign immunity. But he's living in high luxury while on house arrest, so things are ok for the time being. I don't pretend to have any insight into what happened with the maid in NYC, and I won't condemn him for rape just yet. But it is a catastrophic hypocrisy for the international monetary fund, the organization dedicated to enforcing austerity programs on the world's most direly indebted nations, to be living his lifestyle. It sends a compelling "fuck-you-lowly-pig-take-and-like-it" message that can only end badly.
These narrow rants aside, the exploits of these two doodlefucks raises a more important question: how come the Frenchies (or, perhaps more accurately, Western Europeans) are in charge of all the international agencies? France, Switzerland, and Belgium, adjoining nations, have less than 1/35th of the world's population, but they manage to control all the major international governing bodies. Surely, there are at least a handful of smart folks available from South America, Africa, North America, India, Japan, or China capable of managing these posts. But their names don't appear on the lists of candidates.
As someone who is gleefully unaware of how international politics works, this strikes me as confusing. Western European nations, despite (or perhaps because of) a millennium of imperial dominance, have managed to sweet-talk the smaller nations into supporting their candidacies against those of candidates from other nations, large and small. Other powers, such as the US, Japan, and China, are failing at building effective voting blocks to get the votes. So are smaller countries. I don't know why. But I know that oligarchies tend toward corruption, stagnation, and insularity, and that's what I think we're seeing out of these jowly old clowns.
The first two have tried their luck getting into scandals, with varying degrees of success. Sepp Blatter may or may not have been involved in a bribery scandal to sell their World Cup to oil barons (Qatar). As of yet, the allegations haven't worked their way through the system. Unfortunately, "the system" (FIFA) is the same corrupt, dank netherworld that created the corruption in the first place (FIFA). They hired Kissinger to help them deal with the allegations. Yes, yes, I see. Hiring Kissinger to help your organization improve transparency is like hiring Caligula to help you enforce a government austerity program.
Dominique Strauss has had the misfortune of committing his alleged misdeeds in a jurisdiction where his name doesn't carry sovereign immunity. But he's living in high luxury while on house arrest, so things are ok for the time being. I don't pretend to have any insight into what happened with the maid in NYC, and I won't condemn him for rape just yet. But it is a catastrophic hypocrisy for the international monetary fund, the organization dedicated to enforcing austerity programs on the world's most direly indebted nations, to be living his lifestyle. It sends a compelling "fuck-you-lowly-pig-take-and-like-it" message that can only end badly.
These narrow rants aside, the exploits of these two doodlefucks raises a more important question: how come the Frenchies (or, perhaps more accurately, Western Europeans) are in charge of all the international agencies? France, Switzerland, and Belgium, adjoining nations, have less than 1/35th of the world's population, but they manage to control all the major international governing bodies. Surely, there are at least a handful of smart folks available from South America, Africa, North America, India, Japan, or China capable of managing these posts. But their names don't appear on the lists of candidates.
As someone who is gleefully unaware of how international politics works, this strikes me as confusing. Western European nations, despite (or perhaps because of) a millennium of imperial dominance, have managed to sweet-talk the smaller nations into supporting their candidacies against those of candidates from other nations, large and small. Other powers, such as the US, Japan, and China, are failing at building effective voting blocks to get the votes. So are smaller countries. I don't know why. But I know that oligarchies tend toward corruption, stagnation, and insularity, and that's what I think we're seeing out of these jowly old clowns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)