Team Canada 2010: Final Picks

With the roster scheduled to be announced tomorrow at noon, this is my last chnace to post my picks for Canada's hockey team at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Not a lot of changes from what I've said the last two times. See here and here. Marleau has played his way on to the team (it helps that he is part of the league's most potent line, which can be transplanted wholesale to the national team). In contrast, Lecavalier and Carter have played themselves off the team. Note that Jordan Staal is on the team on the strength of his penalty killing. Also, Keith has replaced Phaneuf and Fleury has replaced Price.

--- Rick Nash --- Sidney Crosby - Jarome Iginla
Patrick Marleau - Joe Thornton - Dany Heatley
Jonathon Toews - Ryan Getzlaf - Corey Perry
- Ryan Smyth --- Mike Richards - Shane Doan
------------------ Jordan Staal ----------------

--- Pronger ----- Weber ---
--- Keith -------- Boyle ----
Niedermayer - Bouwmeester
----------- Green -----------

Brodeur
Luongo
Fleury

Introduction to Microeconomics: H1N1 Edition

Health officials in Ottawa have enacted a policy that will prevent people from waiting in line at H1N1 vaccination clinics on behalf of another. This policy effectively prohibits one of the few ways in which the inefficiency of the rationing system can be diminished.

Normally, market prices ensure that demand equals supply. If there is too much demand for a good or service, then the price will rise until enough potential consumers exit the market to re-establish equilibrium. And vice versa. The market for H1N1 vaccines is a great example of an unbalanced market. Demand for the innoculations far outstrips the ability of health authorities to deliver them. People are routinely lining up for five hours or more to receive the vaccination. A co-worker of mine regaled me this morning with the story of how he and his father-in-law showed up outside a clinic at 3:30am on Saturday; twenty others had beaten them there.

Now, these shots could be priced in such a way that these long waits would disappear. But selling the vaccine at a market price seems distinctly immoral to Canadian sensibilities. Fair enough. It is desirable that all members of our soceity have access to the H1N1 vaccine--should they desire it--with regard to income or ability to pay.

But when a good is rationed, long and undesirable queues are inescapable. And these queues place a disproportionate burden on some segments of society, in the same way that a market price would weigh more heavily on low income individuals. More speciifcally, queueing imposes a larger opportunity cost on those whose time is more valuable, i.e. high earners. A corporate executive or an electrician must give up 5+ hours of productive work just to get the vaccination. That is a huge cost relative to the McDonalds wage earner or the unemployed person.

With the great disparity in opportunity costs between individuals, the new policy makes little sense. Why shouldn't a person who earns $100 an hour (your lawyer or account perhaps) be able to pay somebody $15 an hour to save his place in line? Such a transaction would be beneficial for everbody by vastly decreasing the inefficiency of the vaccination campaign. H1N1 will impose a large enough economic cost without enacting such foolish policies.

We Are the Pirates Who Download Anything

I wonder if these two G&M stories are connected.

Oct 20: Canada has earned a dubious distinction as a world hub for illegitimate file-sharing websites and a leader in Internet piracy. Canada now hosts five of the most popular pirate sites in the world.

Oct 21: If you've ever tried to access popular video-streaming sites Hulu and BBC iPlayer and music-streaming services such as Spotify and Pandora, you've probably been greeted with an apologetic – yet blunt – message telling you that, sorry, the service isn't available in Canada.

MLB Player Awards 2009

The MLB regular season is over, so it's time to hand out the individual awards for this past year of big league baseball.

MVP

American League: Joe Mauer, MIN. The consensus pick among baseball writers appears to be Joe Mauer and I can't say I disagree. He will lead the AL in batting, OBP and SLG%, a feat that has not been replicated since George Brett's MVP-winning 1980 season. Consider Mauer's excellent defence at catcher and his team's improbable run without Justin Morneau, and he becomes a heavy favourite.
Runners-Up: Mark Teixeira, NYY; Miguel Cabrera, DET
Pre-season rankings: 1. Justin Morneau, MIN; 2. Miguel Cabrera, DET; 3. Mark Teixeira, NYY.

National League: Albert Pujols, STL. As I predicted in April, Pujols will win his third MVP award in five years. Among other categories, he leads the league in home runs, runs scored, OBP, SLG%, and extra base hits. While his most recent attempt at the triple crown will fall short, Pujols will still rank in the top 3 for RBI and batting average. I could go on but no further evidence is necesssary.
Runners-Up: Hanley Ramirez, FLA; Chase Utley, PHI.
Pre-season rankings: 1. Albert Pujols, STL; 2. David Wright, NYM; 3. Manny Ramirez, LAD.

Cy Young

American League: Zach Greinke, KC. Greinke leads the league in ERA (2.06) and sports an incredible strikeout-to-walk ratio (237 K, 49 BB). Moreover, his solid 16-8 record should not be a drawback when no pitcher reached the 20-win plateau. But the real reason Greinke should win this award is that unlike the other candidtates, he dominated all season. Felix Hernandez didn't heat up until June and Roy Halladay swooned briefly in August. C.C. Sabathia also had less than stellar moments. Greinke, on the other hand, started the season with an incredible 40+ inning run and ended it the same way, with barely a bump in between.
Runners-Up: Felix Hernandez, SEA; Roy Halladay, TOR.
Pre-season rankings: 1. Roy Halladay, TOR; 2. Jon Lester, BOS; 3. C.C. Sabathia, NYY.

National League: Chris Carpenter, STL.The NL Cy Young will probably have the tightest voting of all the individual awards this year. But Carpenter's league-leading ERA (2.24), his 81% winning percentage (17-4 record), and his incredible stretch run give him the edge over team-mate Adam Wainwright (19-8, 2.63 ERA) and strikeout machine Tim Lincecum (15-7, 2.48 ERA).
Runners-Up: Adam Wainwright, STL; Tim Lincecum, SF.
Pre-season rankings: 1. Johan Santana, NYM; 2. Brandon Webb, ARI; 3. Tim Lincecum, SF.

In hindsight, my pre-season projections were undone by injuries to David Wright, Johan Santana, Brandon Webb, and Justin Morneau. Man-Ram's suspension was also costly. On the plus side, I did predict that Greinke would be among the AL leaders in both ERA and Ks, although I didn't expect enough wins for him to seriously contend for the Cy Young.

NHL Regular Season 2009-10: Part II

Sometimes sports projections are tedious. Like now, when we can pretty much count on a third straight MVP-calibre season from Alexander Ovechkin. And until oldtimes like Brodeur and Lidstrom actually slow down, they will remain strong contenders for end-of-year hardware.

In the MVP category, I forecast Ryan Getzlaf and Rick Nash to take big steps forward and put themselves in the mix alongside the perennial candidates.

Chris Pronger will make his strongest case for the Norris trophy in years. His assignment in Philly will be to shut down the East's top stars, namely guys like Crosby, Ovechkin and Parise. This is a tougher assignment than in the West, where rosters are balanced rather than top-heavy. Look for Duncan Keith to finally be recognized as an elite defenceman, and for Bouwmeester to finally make good on his potential.

Here are my five top choices for the major trophies:

Hart Memorial
1. Alexander Ovechkin, WSH; 2. Sidney Crosby, PIT; 3. Ryan Getzlaf, ANA; 4. Evgeni Malkin, PIT; 5. Rich Nash, CLB.

Art Ross
1. Alexander Ovechkin, WSH; 2. Evgeni Malkin, PIT; 3. Sidney Crosby, PIT; 4. Pavel Datsyuk, DET; 5. Joe Thornton, SJ.

Maurice Richard
1. Alexander Ovechkin, WSH; 2. Ilya Kovalchuk, ATL; 3. Rick Nash, CLB; 4. Dany Heatley, SJ; 5. Marian Gaborik, NYR.

James Norris
1. Chris Pronger, PHI; 2. Duncan Keith, CHI; 3. Jay Bouwmeester, CGY; 4. Nicklas Lidstrom, DET; 5. Zdeno Chara, BOS.

Georges Vezina
1. Roberto Luongo, VCR; 2. Martin Brodeur, NJ; 3. Tim Thomas, BOS; 4. Cam Ward, CAR; 5. Henrik Lundqvist, NYR.

Frank J. Selke
1. Mike Richards, PHI; 2. Mikko Koivu, MIN; 3. Ryan Kesler, VCR; 4. Sami Pahlsson, CLB; 5. Joe Pavelski, SJ.

Jack Adams
1. Brent Sutter, CHI; 2. Andy Murray, STL; 3. Mike Babcock, DET; 4. Bruce Boudreau, WSH; 5. Todd McLellan, SJ.

Calder Memorial
1. John Tavares, NYI; 2. James van Riemsdyk, PHI; 3. Victor Hedman, TB; 4. Viktor Stalberg, TOR; 5. Matt Gilroy, NYR.

NHL Regular Season 2009-10: Part I

The puck drops tonight so it's time for my pre-season predictions. I have built a sophisticated mathematical model which incorporates thousands of variables including natural skills progression/regression, injury risk, overall team talent, and divisional difficulty. Using a few exogenous assumptions, the model will generate expected performances for every player and team in the league. However, it's more fun if I just use my intuition so the projection reported here are based not on my dynamic model, but on my own hockey sense.

Eastern Conference
1. Washington (President's Trophy)
2. Pittsburgh
3. Boston
4. Philadelphia
5. Carolina
6. New Jersey
7. Montreal
8. New York Rangers
9. Ottawa
10. Florida
11. Toronto
12. Tampa Bay
13. Buffalo
14. Atlanta
15. New York Islanders

Western Conference

1. San Jose
2. Detroit
3. Calgary
4. Chicago
5. Anaheim
6. Vancouver
7. St. Louis
8. Columbus
9. Edmonton
10. Nashville
11. Dallas
12. Los Angeles
13. Minnesota
14. Phoenix
15. Colorado

Stanley Cup Champion: Chicago Blackhawks
Runner-up: Philadelphia Flyers

Individal projections to follow.

Econopinions

Via Greg Mankiw, a new survey of economist policy views from the American Economic Association.

Back to Basics

Here's an interesting article about alleviating poverty in Namibia through a negative income tax. Wait, is that something Milton Friedman would advocate?!

The sanitation folks are jolly friendly blokes...but not right now

When people ask my opinion on unions (or, as happens more frequently, when I give it sans solicitation), I usually use the example of garbage collection to illustrate how unions distort the market. Garbage collection is a job that demands little if any skill. Workers need no talent or brains, just an able body and a capacity to endure the disagreable stench. A single garbageman is easily replaceable and hardly essential to our daily lives. In short, a garbageman's labour should be worth fairly little on the market.

But if all garbagemen band together they can exert upward wage pressure well in excess of their actual value as individual workers. This is the power of collusion, a criminal offense under Canadian law except when practiced by labour unions. The union uses denial of garbage collection services to distort the market outcome for members. They want us to believe that the value of any one individual's services is equal to the value of their collective services. This is false. None of us care if one garbageman holds out for a higher wage, but if they do it as a group then we notice. Toronto is sadly being held captive in this very same situation right now.

If you are a union symphatizer, let me ask you this: would you mind if gasoline stations or grocery stores conspired to keep prices at an elevated level? If yes, that your unconditional support of striking unions is rank hypocrisy. There is no difference between collusion to keep wages above market levels and collusion to keep any other price above market level.

p.s. Ontario residents have another even more detrimental strike action to fear this summer.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Harper

Here's how the Globe & Mail describes the justification for an additional $9.5 billion public investment in bankrupt GM:

"Driven by a desperate fear of losing the bulk of Ontario's auto manufacturing sector, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Dalton McGuinty have insisted they have little option but to help in the restructurings of GM and Chrysler LLC. Without Canadian government involvement, the U.S. government would insist the companies relocate assembly operations south of the border in order to prevent American taxpayers from subsidizing Canadian jobs, they argue."

But today the paper reports that "Ottawa is set to launch an unprecedented ad campaign aimed at selling Canada to potential corporate investors in places like Japan, Britain, Germany, France, and even the troubled United States."

What kind of policy objective can be met by engaging in these two opposing strategies? Harper's government is distorting the market to keep a defunct and anachronistic automaker afloat, thereby saving a few thousand jobs in vote-rich Ontario. At the same time, it is trying to attract new capital investments from foreign firms. But has it not occurred to them that by giving preferential treatment to the Detroit Three, they are discouraging foreign automakers from setting up shop in Canada or from expanding their operations here?

Suppose we ignore GM and Chrysler's pleas for cash. What would happen? Perhaps some plants will close. Maybe they all will. But if Southern Ontario is really an efficient location to build motor vehicles, than all that idle plant and equipment (not too mention raw labour and human capital) will be an attractive buy for other automakers, e.g. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai. Wouldn't it be better to have solvent and dynamic companies producing cars in Canada rather than basketcase companies run by the Obama administration?

The federal government's plan to attract greater foreign direct investment is a sign that they have not abandoned all their economic principles. But the taxpayer-funded stake in GM is a more telling sign that this government's commitment to sound economic policy is tenuous at best.

Optimal Height Tax

Here's an earlier version of an NBER working paper written by Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl. The abstract:

Should the income tax system include a tax credit for short taxpayers and a tax surcharge for tall ones? This paper shows that the standard Utilitarian framework for tax policy analysis answers this question in the affirmative. Moreover, based on the empirical distribution of height and wages, the optimal heighttax is substantial: a tall person earning $50,000 should pay about $4,500 more in taxes than a short person earning the same income. This result has two possible interpretations. One interpretation is that individual attributes correlated with wages, such as height, should be considered more widely for determining tax liabilities. Alternatively, if policies such as a tax on height are rejected, then the standard Utilitarian framework must in some way fail to capture our intuitive notions of distributive justice.

Tall people would undoubtebly object to such a possible. But if height is positively related to utility in other ways, then they can at least be comforted knowing that their absolute utility is higher even if marginal utility is equalized. Assuming persons are completely identical in all other ways of course.

Morally Hazardous Politics

Employment Insurance hasbeen at the forefront of our country's political discourse recently. The Tories are instituting training programs for "long-tenured workers" but have opted against major changes. The opposition parties want a more dramatic overhaul of eligibility requirements. You can read about the details here, here, here and here.

So who is in the right? Should the government make it easier to qualify for EI benefits, as the Liberals and New Democrats want? Or are current eligibility rules sufficient, as the Conservatives claim?

I'm inclined to side with the government on this one. Remember that EI is an insurance program. It is not a social program in the same way that medicare or public education are. The latter programs are available to all regardless of personal circumstances. EI is designed for workers, and its benefits are limited to specific situations.

Like any insurance policy, EI comes with a premium. This is paid by workers and their employers each pay period. Earnings are insured up to a maximum level ($42,300 in 2009) and a rate is applied (1.73% in 2009) until the maximum annual contribution is reached.

Most undergrad economics students will encounter the concept of moral hazard sometime in their studies. Simply put, moral hazard is the adverse impact that insurance can have on the insuree's behaviour. If I can be protected from a the consequences of a risky activity, then my disincentive to engage in that risky activity is lowered. For example, suppose that there are two home security systems to choose from. Suppose also that the more expensive one is the optimal choice. But if I have homeowner's insurance, I might be inclined to purchase the cheaper one.
Insurance companies deal with this type of situation all the time. In the above scenario, the company might charge me a different premium based on the type of security I have at my house. If the premium is set correctly, I will purchase the optimal system.

Of course, there are costs to this type of supervision. The insurance company must weigh the cost of monitoring my behaviour against the potential savings. In the context of EI, the cost of applying different premiums based on measured risk would be obscene. For this reason, there is only one rate.

So how does the government address the conflict of moral hazard? One way it does this is by only paying benefits to workers who are laid off. Otherwise there would be a perverse incentive to get yourself fired. It also addresses moral hazard by adjusting benefits based on observed unemployment rates. If the unemployment rate in my region is low, the likelihood of finding another job is high. So instead of letting me milk off the government teat for an extended period of time, the EI system encourages me to get back into the workforce as soon as possible. On the other hand, if I live in a high unemployment region, it is more difficult to find a new job and the government will be compassionate toward me.

Is this fair? Frankly, no. Everyone pays the same premium, but not everyone is eligible for the same benefits. This aspect of EI is part of the social safety net. It's not "fair" that the rich contribute proportionally more to our collective health care costs either. But I don't hear a lot of complaints from the masses on that one.

My point, I guess, is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way EI is currently set up. Eligibility should be based on the respective probability of finding a new job so equalizing qualification standards across the country would be the wrong policy. I cannot speak to whether the requirements are optimally set or not. That's a job for government economists. But the principle is sound. One change I'd like to see considerd is factoring in expected near-term changes in regional unemployment rates. Then the system could better anticipate the needs of an economic downturn.

Another point: EI is an "automatic stabilizer". These policies help cushion the economy from shocks, both positive and negative. Automatic stabilizers should be designed ex ante so as to adjust correctly to various situations. EI, therefore, should not be tinkered with when times are extreme. If there is a serious problem with it, the fault lies with the original policymakers (the Liberal Party) and not the current government.

On a final note, some commentators (example here) have supreme confidence in the work ethic of mankind and therefore dismiss arguments based on moral hazard. This is foolish. Man is obsessed first with his own survival. When this is assured, his concern turns to how he can reap maximum benefits without exercising more than the minimum effort. In short, when self-preservation is not in question, man is a lazy animal. Don't not be deceived: moral hazard is at play everywhere.

Assorted links

Seal hunt: Maybe I'm amazed by the way you hate our seal whacking.

Suds Still Strong: It's nice to know that some industries are doing alright.

Gladwell-Simmons II: Ultimate rematch: The concept of inliers is fun and speak to the truth about the importance of timing is in the world of sports. I sometimes wonder if Roger Bannister would have broken 4 minutes if he didn't have such a great rival in John Landy.

Tintin Gay Rumours: Can't say I ever picked up on this while reading Tintin as a kid, but then again the racist overtones of some of the stories also eluded me.

NHL Playoffs: Round 2 Predictions

First, a recap. I was 7/8 in the first round, missing only the Anaheim upset. Of course, I did say that the Ducks would take it to six games, so I was partly right. Not too shabby overall. Now onto the next round:

Western Conference

2 Detroit vs 8 Anaheim
- The Ducks are definitely better than an eighth seed, but Detroit is not San Jose. Detroit in 6.

3 Vancouver vs 4 Chicago
- Chicago is a great team, but the Canucks' defence is healthy and their goaltender is peaking, two things that could not be said about the Flames. Vancouver in 7.

Eastern Conference

1 Boston vs 6 Carolina
- The 'Canes played well against the Devils, but Boston is a deeper, more talented squad. And Chara will shut down Staal. Boston in 6.

2 Washington vs 4 Pittsburgh
- The match-up that the NHL has yearned for these past four years is here. Two superstars and a seasoned goalie is a better formula than one superstar and a rookie in net. Pittsburgh in 7.

NHL Playoffs: Round 1 Predictions

My sense is that there will be a couple of tight series in Round 1 but most will be rather unbalanced. Here's my predictions:

Western Conference

1 San Jose vs. 8 Anaheim
- Projects to be one of the best first round series, but the all-round impressive Sharks will prevail. San Jose in 6.

2 Detroit vs. 7 Columbus
- Columbus will simply be over-matched by the star-studded Red Wings. Detroit in 5.

3 Vancouver vs. 6 St. Louis
- How did St. Louis rise to 6th? What a finish. Unfortunately their lack of playoff experience will show against the solid D and excellent goaltending of the Canucks. Vancouver in 5.

4 Chicago vs. 6 Calgary
- Chicago will prove themselves by taking care of the Flames but Iginla and co. will not go quietly. Maybe the most unpredictable match-up. Chicago in 7.

Eastern Conference

1 Boston vs. 8 Montreal
- The storied rivalry will have to wait till next season to resume in force. The deep and hungry Bruins will dominate the hapless Habs. Boston in 5.

2 Washington vs. 7 New York Rangers
- Lundqvist may steal one and Theodore will probably give one away. Washington in 6.

3 New Jersey vs 6 Carolina
- Not a good match-up for the Devils. Parise will find it difficult to lead this team to victory against the streaking Hurricanes. Carolina in 6.

4 Pittsburgh vs 5 Philadelphia
- Has the potential to be the most exciting series with loads of firepower at both ends. But goaltending favours the Penguins, who showed they are a legitimate Stanley Cup threat last post-season. Pittsburgh in 6.

Just to give you a sense of what I am thinking long-term, here is my roster for the office playoff pool.

Sidney Crosby, PIT
Daniel Sedin, VCR
Chris Kunitz, PIT
Bill Guerin, PIT
Ryan Clowe, SJ
Petr Sykora, PIT
Devin Setoguchi, SJ
Jordan Staal, PIT
Alex Burrows, VCR
Ruslan Fedotenko, PIT
Sami Salo, VCR
Tyler Kennedy, PIT

NHL Hardware

Now that the NHL regular season has ended, here are my picks for the major awards. Playoff predictions to follow soon.

HART MEMORIAL

Winner: Alexander Ovechkin, WAS
What to say? Alexander the Great is the greatest hockey player in the League today and no other player has as large an impact on his team's success. The stats I really like: his 243 hits and 528 shots.
Runners-Up: Pavel Datsyuk, DET; Zach Parise, NJ.

JAMES NORRIS

Winner: Mike Green, WAS
It's been awhile since a defenceman scored 30 goals and that's hard to overlook. He's a force on the power play but also at even strength. And he's not the defensive liability some think he is.
Runners-Up: Zdeno Charo, BOS; Niklas Lidstrom, DET.

VEZINA TROPHY

Winner: Steve Mason, CLB
His 10 shut-outs lead the league despite starting the year in the AHL and a mid-season bout with mono. He wouldn't be the first rookie goaltender to win the Vezina but let's hope he sticks around longer than Jim Carey.
Runners-up: Tim Thomas, BOS; Niklas Backstrom, MIN.

CALDER MEMORIAL

Winner: Steve Mason, CLB
See above for explanation. No rookie skater can match his achievements this year.
Runners-Up: Pekka Rinne, NSH; Bobby Ryan, ANA.

FRANK J. SELKE

Winner: Mike Richards, PHI
This trophy is usually awarded based on reputation and in Richards' case the reputation is warranted. He checks, hits, blocks shots, kills penalties, scores shorties - everything that typically earns Selke consideration.
Runners-Up: Mikko Koivu, MIN; Craig Conry, CGY.

JACK ADAMS

Winner: Joel Quenneville, CHI
Expectations were high for the Blackhawks from the outset. After faltering through the first couple of weeks Quenneville was brought in and he delivered. The young Hawks quietly emerged as one of the League's elite teams. Plus, I don't think Quenneville received the respect he deserved for the job he did in Colorado last season.
Runners-Up: Claude Julien, BOS; Andy Murray, STL.

MLB Predictions 2009: Part II

Here are my best guesses (1 through 3) for various individual categories including the major awards and a few important statistical categories. Note that I exclude saves because it is a generally stupid statistic.

American League

MVP: 1. Justin Morneau, MIN; 2. Miguel Cabrera; 3. Mark Teixeira, NYY.
Batting: 1. Miguel Cabrera, DET; 1. Robinson Cano, NYY; 3. Derek Jeter, NYY.
Home Runs: 1. Miguel Cabrera, DET; 2. Josh Hamilton, TEX; 3. Mark Teixeira, NYY.
RBI: 1. Mark Teixeira, NYY; 2. Justin Morneau, TEX; 3. Jason Bay, BOS.
Steals: 1. Jacoby Ellsbury, BOS; 2. B.J. Upton, TB; 3. Brian Roberts, BAL.

Cy Young: 1. Roy Halladay, TPR; 2. Jon Lester, BOS; 3. C.C. Sabathia, NYY.
ERA: 1. Roy Halladay, TOR; 2. Jon Lester, BOS; 3. Zach Greinke, KC.
Wins: 1. C.C. Sabathia, NYY; 2. Jon Lester, BOS; 3. Roy Halladay, TOR.
Ks: 1. Felix Hernandez, SEA; 2. Scott Kazmir, TB; 3. Zach Greinke, KC.

Rookie: 1. David Price, TB; 2. Matt Wieters, BAL; 3. Travis Snider, TOR.

National League

MVP: 1. Albert Pujols, STL; 2. David Wright, NYM; 3. Manny Ramirez, LAD.
Batting: 1. Albert Pujols, STL; 2. Manny Ramirez, LAD; 3. Hanley Ramirez, FLA.
Home Runs: 1. Ryan Howard, PHI; 2. Prince Fielder, MIL; 3. Albert Pujols, STL.
RBI: 1. Ryan Howard, PHI; 2. Albert Pujols, STL; 3. David Wright, NYM.
Steals: 1. Jose Reyes, NYM; 2. Hanley Ramirez, FLA; 3. Jimmy Rollins, PHI.

Cy Young: 1. Johan Santana, NYM; 2. Brandon Webb, ARI; 3. Tim Lincecum, SF.
ERA: 1. Tim Lincecum, SF; 2. Johan Santana, NYM; 3. Jake Peavy, SD.
Wins: 1. Johan Santana, NYM; 2. Brandon Webb,ARI; 3. Chad Billingsley, LAD.
Ks: 1. Tim Lincecum, SF; 2. Johan Santana, NYM; 3. Cole Hamels, PHI.

Rookie: 1. Cameron Maybin, FLA; 2. Colby Rasmus, STL; 3. Dexter Fowler, COL.

MLB Predictions 2009

The major league season opens next week. Here are my predictions for the final standings. The * indicates wild card berth for the post-season. Predictions for various awards and statistical categories will follow later.

American League
EAST
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees*
Tampa Bay Rays
Toronto Blue Jays
Baltimore Orioles
CENTRAL
Minnesota Twins
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Kansas City Royals
Chicago White Sox
WEST
Los Angeles Angels
Oakland Athletics
Texas Rangers
Seattle Mariners

National League
EAST
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies*
Atlanta Braves
Florida Marlins
Washington Nationals
CENTRAL
St. Louis Cardinals
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
Milwaukee Brewers
Houston Astros
Pittsburgh Pirates
WEST
Los Angeles Dodgers
Arizona Diamondbacks
San Francisco Giants
Colorado Rockies
San Diego Padres

Outside Influence?

Here is a story that illustrates some of my concerns with NATO. The current secretary-general's term ends this summer and various names have been floated as his successor, among them Peter Mackay and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. But apparently Turkey objects to the Dane's candidacy because he was "unsympathetic" when a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammad in 2006. We all remember the outrage this little incident stirred in the Muslim world. The National Post reports: "(Turkey's) Prime Minister Tayyip Erogan said Muslim countries wanted Turkey to block [Rasmussen's] appointment."

What is truly outrageous is the idea that Turkey is being influenced at all by other Muslim countries. NATO appointments should be made with NATO's best interests in mind, not the feelings of non-member states. There is some merit to the argument that NATO would be better off with a less antagonizing appointment, but this is a decision for NATO to make.

It may seem like an outdated notion, but NATO is a military alliance that binds countries one to another. A member's action that impacts NATO's sphere should therefore be directed first and foremost by the interest of its allies. NATO countries would do well to remember this, whether they are old members (like the U.S.) or new members (like Turkey).

Multiculture Wars

There was an interesting op-ed piece in today's G&M on immigration and integration. I tend to agree with the author. Multiculturalism as Canadians typically understand and express it is not a cultural phenomenom but a political one. In fact, it is just one of many policies/initiatives that the Liberal Party of Canada has established over the last half-century in an effort to equate Canadian values with Liberal values. This 'program' has generally met with success.

Universal health care is another example. I do not mean that our health care system is not important to or valued by Canadians. Quite the opposite. But the Canada Health Act is not a 'value'. Generosity and compassion are values. The sense that none of us should have to face largely random catastrophic costs alone is a value. Public health insurance, on the other hand, is merely a vehicle through which those values are expressed.

Federal multiculturalism is a lot like the Canada Health Act. It reflects various realties that exist across the country, but it is not of itself a Canadian value. But by imposing a standard, bureaucratic vision of cultural diversity, the official policies have ultimately undermined, diluted and distorted the expression of actual multiculturalism. I don't agree that official multicultarism has been an "indulgence toward immigrants". I think it more likely that this policy has been a hindrance to immigrants, inhibiting their ability to integrate into Canadian society. If it does anything, federal policy ought to focus on strengthening the (civic) national identity.

There goes my hero

Watch him as he goes. There's goes my hero. He's extraordinary.

The greatest wide receiver in Canadian football history hung up his cleats today. The Blue and Gold were blessed to have his services for fourteen great seasons. I only wish the supporting cast had been up to the task of delivering the championship he sorely deserved. Yours truly is not the only Winnipegger who will harbour eternal love for the Turtleman.

The Baconator

This man is my hero. Truly bacon is the sustenance of the gods. Although I feel unworthy to join this noble pioneer in his quest for the carnivore's nirvana, I will consume in solidarity with him by eating as much bacon as I can for the rest of the month.

T minus one year

There is one year remaining until the start of 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver. This fact was announced amid great fanfare this week. Will the Own the Podium program deliver on its promise to send Canada to the top of the medal standings? We will have to leap-frog Germany and the United States to do, but I don't think it's a complete fantasy. Canada has a great group of winter athletes, especially in speed skating. With an improved alpine team, we should contend for more medals than ever before. And anything less than four medals in curling and hockey would be a bitter disappointment. Speaking of hockey, it won't be long before we start seeing predictions for the men's roster in newspapers across the country. So why don't I get the ball rolling. Here are my picks, in possible line and pairing combinations.

----- Rick Nash ---- Sidney Crosby -- Dany Heatley -
Vincent Lecavalier - Joe Thornton --- Jarome Iginla -
---Simon Gagne --- Ryan Getzlaf --- Martin St. Louis
---Ryan Smyth ---- Mike Richards -- Shane Doan ---
-------------------- Jeff Carter ---------------------

-- Chris Pronger --- Jay Bouwmeester -------------------- Roberto Luongo
Scott Niedermayer ---- Shea Weber ----------------------- Martin Brodeur
-- Dion Phaneuf ------- Dan Boyle ------------------------- Carey Price
------------- Mike Green --------------

The Canadian management will have more difficulty than any other country in picking their team simply because no one comes close to matching our depth. A perfect illustration is the case of Marc Savard who will likely be left off the squad. What other country couldn't find room for a perpetual 90 point scorer?! Savard is one of three possible replacements I see for the team. The others are Jonathon Toews and Brendan Morrow. I would promote Morrow to the team if Smyth were injured or otherwise unable to play. Some may question my selection of Smyth, but how can you not put "Captain Canada" on the team? If ever the team was playing unmotivated hockey, Ryan Smyth is the guy I would tap to get the team rolling.

Let's check how my team has changed since I did this exercise on the blog last year.

On forward we have four changes. IN: Smyth, St. Louis, Carter, Doan. OUT: Spezza, Perry, Toews, Sakic. Note that all four new forwards were on the "Second Team" from last year. Why the changes? For one, Jeff Carter has jumped past both Perry and Toews this season. He is also a solid penalty killer. Spezza has regressed and probably didn't deserve his spot last time. And Burnaby Joe's future is very uncertain at this point. I do regret leaving Toews off the roster. He is a rising star and, more importantly, we ought to have a Manitoba connection like we did in 2012 (Fleury and Belfour). But Toews can still play his way onto this team with an excellent start to next season.

Also, here's Yzerman, quoted in today's National Post: "I guess my feeling is, good players with good hockey sense can play any forward position. In reality, that will happen with one or two centremen, but one thing that's important to keep in mind is that guys who are natural wingers and have played the position their entire careers pick up little nuances of playing wing."

And this: "My idea of a checking line is three guys who are great in both ends of the rink."

Thus, it makes a lot of sense to think guys like Doan, Smyth, and St. Louis (all solid natural wingers) will have a good chance of making the team. How good of a two-way line would Smyth (or Morrow), Mike Richards, and Doan make!

The changes on defence number two. IN: Boyle, Niedermayer. OUT: Redden, Campbell. But note what I said at the time: "One noticeable absence on the blue line is Scott Niedermayer. I question whether he will still be playing in two years. If he is, then I would select him in a heartbeat. He is the world’s second best defenseman (after Niklas Lidstrom of course). The likely deletion is Wade Redden."

Redden would be deleted in any case on account of his poor play these last two seasons. His stock was already plummeting when I selected the team before but, being a long time fan of his, I was loathe to cast him aside. I'm also substituting Boyle for Campbell (much like the Sharks did) because I think he provides an upgrade.

In net, I am now predicting that Price will be the undressed goaltender for the team instead J-S Giguere, regardless of his current struggles.

I am already greatly excited for this tournament. In a NHL playoff format, I think Canada would have a 90% chance of winning gold. With single elimination, the task is that much harder. Run into a hot Henrik Lundqvist or Miika Kiprusoff and you're going home early. Remember when Martin Gerber turned away 50-some shots in Turin to blank Team Canada? Moreover, even Canada cannot match the firepower on Russia's top two lines:

Ovechkin Malkin Semin
Kovalchuk Datsyuk Kovalev

Scary! The talent falls off after that of course for the Ruskies. The Americans, on the other hand, will have a pretty terrible team. Zach Parise and Patrick Kane are good players, but they shouldn't be the highlights yet.

Anyways, we're guaranteed some exciting hockey. To the eventual Team Canada: Bonne chance, les gars!

Flowery Language

Gay rights groupe, Egale Canada, is raising a stink about Mike Milbury's use of the term "pansification" on Hockey Night in Canada in a discussion about banning fighting. The word, according to the organization, is a "derogatory, stereotypical slur". But, as my brother points out, many people would consider the term offensive to women, not gays. In common use, a "pansy" is a "girly man". The term is not directly associated with homosexuals in today's language. There are plenty of other terms used for that purpose, most of which begin with the letter 'f'. So by making a big stink, isn't Egale Canada merely reminding everyone that the term 'pansy' was originally a gay slur?

Don Cherry has come out (pun intended) against the use of the term and in support of homosexuals in sport. Of course, his reference to the "head of the gays", in typical Cherry eloquence, made me laugh.

Goofus and Gallant

This bus driver is a hero. This one, on the other hand, is most definitely not a hero. More proof here.

Argle-bargle or fooferah?

The first three stories on this evening's news were related to labour disputes.

1. York University - Province is drafting back-to-back legislation.
2. OC Transpo - The most recent round of talks has failed between the City of Ottawa and bus operators.
3. Journal de Montreal - Prominent French-language newspaper locks out its employees over various disputes.

We will probably soon be hearing more about the following story which didn't make it onto tonight's program:

4. CAW - Auto Companies Push to Cut Labour Costs

Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but this is starting to get ridiculous. But first, full disclosure: I've never been a very union-friendly person. I have been a member of two unions. I was a member of UFCW for three years. But I was a part-time employee and so the union didn't give me much of a thought. And as a university student, I suppose I was of some student union. I don't know what it was called; all I know was that they were focused solely on reducing tuition fees and shaking their fists at Israel, two things I'm not pariculary into. My experience with unions, then, has informed me that unions have a very narrow set of concerns, none of which have to do with the betterment of society.

In economic terms, a union is best understood as a cartel. The suppliers (workers) band together in order to raise their wage above the market price. A union is usually backed by law or social pressures. In fact, it must be; otherwise the cartel would not be able to enforce its program on individual members. For example, a worker who crosses the picket line is a "scab" and faces alientation from the community (and maybe even physical violence). These arrangements, legal and social alike, allow the union to exert an artificial collective strength.

Many people are sympathetic to the labour movement's cause, and thus are willing to accept striking powers as a "right". But we should be clear on something. The process by which a union achieves its goals is no different in structure that the process by which OPEC influence the price of oil (with especially devastating results for the West in the 1970s) or by which MLB owners agreed not to bid on each other's free agents in the 1980s. The word we usually use to refer to this type of activity is collusion. It is a criminal offence in Canada, except of course in the context of labour unions. In that case we call it legal strike action. I find it very odd that our government penalizes corporate collusion so heavily (rightly so!) while actually supporting labour collusion.

Unions are often perceived by the public as the defenders of the downtrodden. Indeed, unions have successfully cast themselves in this image, so-called promoters of social equality. But is this true? Maybe it was during the early stages of the labour movement. But those days are long gone and now unions are simply anachronistic institutions designed solely for the benefit of its members. There is no great social objective at stake. It is not altruism that drives unions in today's Canada. Quite the contrary, unions are motivated by the profit motive just like the corporations they so frequently abuse. Our laws and attitudes towards unions should be changed to reflect the fact that they are no different than the business to which they sell their services.

I think the recent spate of labour disputes is indicative of the union's moral decay. First, York University. Contract faculty, teaching assistants, and research assistants have now been on strike for nearly three months. This strike has cost 50,000 students a year's worth of schooling. And if the strike ends so that the lost semesters can be squeezed into the summer months, that means students will not be able to take summer jobs, an important source of income for many. I sympathize especially with those students who were poised to graduate this spring. Plans for grad school or careers will have to be put off. So what exactly was in the rejected offer? Nothing less than a 10+% wage increase over three years. That's an incredibly rich deal, especially considering the economic climate. The reason why the union is so against the deal is the duration. They want a two-year deal rather than a three-year deal so that the contract ends at the same time as most contracts at Ontario university. CUPE wants to time negotiations so that they have even greater bargaining power.

And let me tell you a little something about TAs. I was a TA at an Ontario university and these were the terms of my deal: $33/hr for 120 hours per semester. I probably only did 30-40 hours of TA-related work per semester, making my hourly wage over $100/hr. In fact, we were told from the outset that it was unlikely anybody would put in more than 60 hours. Being a TA is not just a way for profs to offload some grunt work; it's primarily a way to help fund graduate students. Apparently York's TAs already have one of the best set-ups in the province. The contract faculty have a rough time and I can understand their position (but of course they know all this before the make the career choice). But the TAs at York are displaying nothing but greed. Shame!

In Ottawa, bus drivers have been on strike since mid-December. The Union, which had been without a contract for awhile, planned their strike to coincide with the onset of winter, university exams, the Christmas holiday season, and the World Junior tournament. This is not a coincidence. The wage offer is an increase of 3.5% the first year and then 2% the two following years. But the union is adamant that it will not give up its scheduling rights, something the city wants to reclaim. As it stands right now, the union controls the schedule, a concession they "earned" during the last bus strike. This is very beneficial for the drivers since they can choose their shifts to maximize overtime. The city, understandably, wants to reverse this. Where else do you hear of workers at a large company choosing their exact hours?

The strike has had devastating effects for some people. Everyday in Ottawa one hears stories of people losing their jobs because they have no way of getting to work. Many of the elderly are shut in their homes, their only mode of transportation cut off. Traffic is terrible at rush hours and people walk (or bike!) kilometers every day through snow and cold. Downtown business are feeling the strike especially hard. It is, above all, the most vulnerable members of society that are bearing the burden of this strike.

The Ottawa bus strike and the York strike are similar in that the costs of the action are being borne primarily by the users, not the workers or management. This is not like a strike at, say, Ford. If Ford workers go on strike, consumers merely switch to one of its competitors. But if you're a student at York you have no alternative until the next academic year starts. You've committed yourself to that school. And if you're a user of public transit, where do you turn? You're a little bit better off than the student. You can turn to carpools are walking, but these are very inferior alternatives.

This is one of the greatest injustices perpetuated by unions on the rest of society. Because of the legal and social institutions that grant them massive market power, they are able to make decisions that affect outsiders without accounting for those external impacts. And why would they? Unions have no reason to consider students or bus riders or whoever else may be seriously affected by their actions. They are simply not interested in the common good. Anyone who tells you different is either misguided, delusional, or lying.

The dispute at le Journal is different. It's like my hypothetical strike at Ford. Newspapers readers have others options so although they may prefer le Journal they are not really hard done by. But it is a good example of another major problem with unions. A survey of 1200 Swedish human resource manages indicates that nearly 50 per cent of workers or union reps demand higher wages when they think the firm has the ability to pay. When the company is awash in cash, the union demands a bigger piece of the pie. Fair enough. Wages ought to be related to the value of what is being produced. However, the flip side is that these workers and unions should accept wage cuts when times are bad. But this is extremely rare. Unions are deathly afraid of giving up anything in the way of concessions. Already the CAW is telling the car companies they are unwilling to budge on wages. And at the same time they say they want to help improve cost competitiveness! What a joke. If there is another workers could help reduce costs besides accepting lower wages, they should be doing it anyways. The case is similar at le Journal, management is trying to cope with falling revenues related to changes within the news media sector, especially the rise of the internet. But the union, predictably, resists any changes.

I've always thought it was ironic that the labour movement is associated with the "progressives". Unions are among the least progressive organizations in our society. It is the corporations that are progressive and innovative, each one trying to find an edge over its competitions. Unions simply want to maintain the status quo, relics from another age.

I hope this little sermon has illustrated for you some of the major problems I see with unions. They are anti-competitve, collusive, harmful to outsiders, suppressive and reactionary. I still think unions can have a productive role to play in our economy. But as things stand today, they are not contributing in a positive fashion. We need to change not only the way we regulate labour organizations but also our attitudes toward them.

And away we go...

The federal government has just leaked the news: $64 billion deficit over the next two years! But, as Andrew Coyne asks, can we really spend our way out of this mess? I am also a stimulus skeptic, to borrow Greg Mankiw's phrase. But in this case, I'm not sure who to blame more: the Harper government for excessive "stimulus" or the Liberal-NDP coalition for pushing them to it? Outrageous!

In other (related?) news, should a person really be responsible for maintaining an ex-spouse's ridiculously extravagant lifestyle? Outrageous!

And here's Nicholas Sarkozy proposing a binding price ceiling on oil going to developing countries. That's a great idea if the objective is to ensure all the oil flows to the advanced countries. But the developed world will be shit of luck. "It is in everyone's interest," said the French President stupidly, "to regulate the prices of raw materials, not just oil, not just gas, but all raw materials." I thought Sarkozy was supposed to be pro-market? But I guess he's just French. Outrageous!

Finally, please read this article. The question that needs to be answered is this: are "sweatshops" a necessary step between poverty and prosperity? Discuss.

Move over, Rover, and let Barry take over

I usually don't make remarks on U.S. politics in this space. There are enough unqualified commentators out there. Instead, I prefer to limit my comments to the Canadian sphere. But I will make on exception on this, the day of Barack Obama's inauguration.

When Obama first showed up on the scene a few years ago, I wasn't convinced. The fact that Oprah Winfrey was an early supporter probably contributed to my apprehension as I make it a rule to do the opposite of what Oprah recommends. Anyways, I gradually warmed to him and now see him not only as a man with a great image, but also as a man with great substance and potential. In fact, I think Obama could be one of the greatest US Presidents. Here's why:

1. The depth and persistence of the current economic crisis is probably being overestimated. When the economy turns around sooner than the alarmists project, Obama will be a beneficiary.

2. Obama has the permission of the American public to spend ridiculous amounts of money on "stimulus". Wise decisions re: public infrastructure projects and "green" projects may create a positive legacy related to his administration.

3. He will preside over the end of the war in Iraq and will reap the benefits of ending that conflict.

4. He follows least popular President ever, both internally and externally. By comparison, he will look good even when he screws up.

5. He's black. Being the first person of colour to hold the world's most powerful office will give him lasting historical significance.

He does face some significant challenges. For example, implementing the fiscal stimulus package and then getting the deficit under control after the economy recovers. But I think he had the natural leadership capabilities to steer the US through these tough times.

If you weren't able to catch the telecast of the inauguration, the text and videos of Obama's address can be found here. There wasn't a specific phrase in his speech that stuck in my mind (except perhaps the part about putting aside childish things, but that's only because he's quoting Paul). However, the overall tone and message was clear, direct and inspiring. Some comments:

1. Obama did not refrain from (subtly) expressing disappointment in the previous administration. He was also clear about the extent of the challenges that the US faces. I think we can expect the President to continue to be frank and honest in the future.

2. Obama's big message is "change". But there are several types of change. Based on his inaugural address, I would characterize his vision of change not as transformation but as renewal. He is not seeking to break with the past and create a new political paradigm. Rather, I think he seeks to renew and restore American politics, reclaiming values and principles that have been eroded.

3. When talking about religious diversity, Obama mentioned Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and...non-believers! I think that must be a first. Non-believers are so often excluded from political discourse in the US. But note also that the whole ceremony, including the address, was steeped in Christian language. As mentioned, Obama quoted the New Testament. And the special music composed by John Williams was just a re-arrangement of various hymns.

4. I like this line: "To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." (emphasis mine) It's significant, I think, that Obama has declared as a defender of 'the West'.

Anyways, like millions of people all over the world, I anticipate greatly the changes that Obama and his administration will effect. He is under a lot of pressure and so many have placed their expectations on his shoulders. Is he up to the challenge? We shall see.

The Trouble With Trillions

Remember that Simpsons episode with the trillion dollar bill? Zimbabwe was inspired.

Math-tastic or Un-lumber-able?

A new careers website has released a study in which it ranks 200 occupations based on environment, income, employment outlook, physical demands and stress. According to the study, the top ten are:

1. Mathematician
2. Actuary
3. Statistician
4. Biologist
5. Software Engineer
6. Computer Systems Analyst
7. Historian
8. Sociologist
9. Industrial Designer
10. Accountant

I know what you're asking: Where does Economist rank? Well, maybe you weren't but I'll give you the answer anyway: 11th, marginally out of the top ten. Amongst the worst jobs are Nurse (184), Mail Carrier (189), Garbage Collector (194), Taxi Driver (198) and Lumberjack (200). The complete results are available here.

A brief overview of the rankings reveals a heavy bias towards sedentary, office-type jobs and against jobs requiring any amount of manual labour or exposure to the sun. It seems, then, that the study's authors (who probably work in a sendentary, office-type environment) merely assumed that physical demands are inherently bad and undesirable. There are many people who would disagree with that assumption. Not everyone wants to stare at a computer screen all day and some even prefer fresh air and sunshine (impossible!). For example, people who work in occupations like Auto Mechanic (187) and Butcher (186) probably enjoy the physical element. Even I don't see the sedentary, sun-deprived quality of my job (economist) as a distinct advantage.

The strong performance of math-based jobs compelled me to share these results with a former math professor of mine. I also shared my suspicions about the study's methodology. "How can Sociologist be ranked higher than Economist?" I asked in mock disdain. His response, I think, is quite intuitive.

"I think the lesson to be learned here is: the less people care about what you
do, the happier you are. A sociologist isn't all that different from an
economist. It's just that people care more about what the economist is trying to
model and that puts him under greater stress."

Addendum: Kelly McParland of the National Post also noticed the new study. He likewise notes the methodological bias: "'Bad' jobs are ones in which you actually have to expend physical effort, as opposed to sitting in an office staring at a computer screen." He also gives us his version of the Top Ten Jobs:

1. James Bond
2. Scarlett Johansson's personal masseuse
3. If Scarlett's busy, Penelope Cruz would do
4. Ruler of the Turks and Caicos
5. World's greatest golfer
6. Maybe #5 is unreasonable - How about captain of Tiger Woods' yacht?
7. Text driver at Aston Martin
8. Alexander Ovechkin
9. Warren Buffett, 30 years ago
10. Owner of a small but profitable distillery near the Firth of Forth