At 06:26 PM 2/27/2002 -0800, t-and-f-digest wrote.. >Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 05:54:34 -0500 >From: "Michael Rohl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX) > >NEtters >David Anderson wrote: > >If enough people want to participate in a sport (demand) then schools will > >eventually offer the sport (supply), if they have an incentive to do so. > >This is based on the belief in "the invisible hand." Which of course, >doesn't exsist.
When I saw the original post, I winced as a practicing economist. But I decide to sit back and wait for the kneejerk response that Michael Rohl's epitomizes. It's the classic debate between the extreme individualists and the radical egalitarians. And you're both wrong. Contrary to Michael's statement, market forces and the "invisible hand" have been generally extremely successful in pushing beneficial economic transformation. The failure of the 70 year experiment in centralized social economic control was an utter failure, and that set of nations is still trying to recover any semblance of productivity a decade later. Probably the single best comparison is the relative environmental conditions between the market economies of Western Europe and North America and the socialized economies of Eastern Europe and Asia. The environmental destruction under Communism is an order of magnitude worse in every single way. And that difference can be largely attributed to the "invisible hand" and individual incentives. Markets work best so far. But having said that, markets are far from perfect, and not necessarily appropriate in all cases. Social conditions can impede individuals and institutions from properly responding to market incentives. The failure to acknowledge the start up problems and transaction costs in new markets is the key reason why market economies have not done well in Eastern Europe or Russia. The same problem exists in introducing sports for women. There needs to be a kick start, and Title IX provided that jump. Phil Ponebshek's observations are on point. Too many governmental programs (e.g., the 1873 Mining Act) continue well beyond their original purpose, and Title IX may now fall into that category. I strongly believe that it is now creating reverse discrimination. The only way to actually comply with it would be to undermine the commercial nature of collegiate athletics. That has its pluses and minuses, and those who push Title IX issues tend to come from the radical egalitarian camp that would like to see the toppling of market economies. Richard McCann M.Cubed, Davis, California (530) 757-6363
