We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
“The Grenadians realized what was happening and attempted to score an own goal as well …” Michael Jennings just emailed me the link to this, “You may have seen this” being the title of his email. No, I hadn’t. “This” starts thus:
There was an unusual match between Barbados and Grenada.
I’ll say. Read the whole thing. Really, read the whole thing. It’s a classic of perverse incentives, showing how the wrong kind of rules can cause everyone to want to do badly. It’s about much more than football, in other words.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The Law of Unintended Consequences always asserts itself, doesn’t it?
Thus it is always when some boob, or collection of boobs, has more authority than intelligence.
Why did the Grenadians go for an own goal? Was this a grudge match, and they hated the other side, and so had a motive other than winning? (We have the same rivalry, but friendlier, here between Aus and Kiwiland- an amusing song a few years ago had the line “I don’t care whether we win or lose, so long as we beat New Zealand!”)
This is how government regulations, which raise barriers to entry and encourage the formation of oligopolys and monopolies, wind up encouraging the creation of subsidies and contract set-asides for “disadvantaged” and “women owned” businesses that really are not, where executives give their wives or secretaries 51% ownership in the company in order to earn government contracts (which works great until the inevitable divorce).
I’m a veteran and I get some points added if I own a business and bid on government contracts.
I saw this on the blogs of both Tim Worstall and Tyler Cowen (independently) before I sent you the link, so a hat tip to them is probably due.
That lead me to another post on the same blog.
I think that quote from Rob Fisher describes perfectly why “futbol” (especially the FIFA brand) is so popular in Europe and not in the US. The on-field officials wield enormous power, their rulings appear arbitrary, there is no appeal (not even the ability to play the game “under protest”) and no interest in any technological “fix”; even the length of the game is unknown until regulation time expires and some official adds an arbitrary amount of extra time for unexplained reasons (an obvious invitation to favoritism). The basic game itself isn’t bad (although we Americans would prefer more scoring); it’s the essentially capricious nature of the officiating we can’t abide.
Well, that and the drama queens flopping for penalties. Play through the booboo, bubbette.
Nuke Gray: With the score tied 2-2, Grenada were going for an own goal because if Barbados won by only one goal, Grenada would advance on better goal differential (GRE +1, BAR 0). (Grenada would also have been happy to score a regular goal and win the game outright, but presumably they figured that it would be easier to score an intentional own goal.) Barbados needed to win by at least two goals to advance on better goal differential (BAR +1, GRE 0).
Since an overtime goal would count double (under the weird rules of this tournament), it was to Barbados’ advantage to have the game tied at the end of regulation, because then they would have a chance to score a single goal that would count double and give them a two-goal victory.