Economists question Bettmans math

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

Not exactly IMO.
Economics is not an exact science, sure; however, as you have said, the framework is almost a proven science that will produce the same results under an ideal world. Of course, as we know, nothing in the real world is controlled like those in a lab, but the probability of production of similar result is fairly high to omit the little difference that pay very little to none effects here.

Personaly political and economical influences certainly plays a big role in the intuition of any presidents, or any senior business managers. But that doesnt mean they are doing anything different from any other senior or presidents have been doing. They are just doing the same thing with the same theory in a different way.

Right, usually those methods conflict with each other and some economic nerdytypes get real zealous about it. Case in point, Keynesian "socialism" vs Hayakism "laissez faire". My point is you can take the economics in the NHL and ask economists to find a way to fix things. You're going to get a bunch of different responses usually.

So an economist that says Bettman's methods wont' work is as qualified as a peanut vendor commenting on Schumacher's racing strategies.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Oh yes the real world does, if there was no competition between my suppliers the cost of doing business would be astronomical.

Bingo. There isn't any real competition between player A and player B to play for an NHL team. The only competition is between teams for the player.

I have yet to hear of an NHL player undercut another to get a contract, the NHLPA would do whatever they could to stop that from happening.

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

Don't worry, I'm sure everyone will soon be shouting down the economists because they're idiots who "don't get it".

Economist are idiots who "don't get it"

 

[Sammy*]

Actually to get specific information they have chat rooms divided into specific regional locations, every time an employee of mine has left I have asked him/her where they got the numbers and benefits packages from, the answer has always been the same. Sorry but not even I can get into the site as it is a secure website.

I am not asking you (or me) to obtain access the secure website, just the URL itself.
I am a little skeptical, cause I think you are in the same business as me & I have never heard of this.

 

[ladybugblue]

Did they not agree to a cap??? And so what you are saying is that the owners you defend have no intention of curbing there bad habits that got us in this mess in the first place???? OK the owners got us in this mess and they have no intention of correcting there mistakes, boy I would sure defend that.

It was proposed too late with too little time to negiotiate. If it was proposed a week or even the weekend maybe they could have worked it out but end of the day on Monday was too late to work out all of the details. It was a major concession but I think both sides ran out of time. I wouldn't want to put a deal together in too rushed a fashion as both sides could agree on something that would blow up in all of their faces.

I honestly think they should keep working on it regardless of the season and see what they can come up with and cover all the issues so we can see the conclusion of this. Some people say they are glad it is over but I am not as we now have to go through all of this all over again. I would rather they continue working on it and get everything ready for next year.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

Right, usually those methods conflict with each other and some economic nerdytypes get real zealous about it. Case in point, Keynesian "socialism" vs Hayakism "laissez faire". My point is you can take the economics in the NHL and ask economists to find a way to fix things. You're going to get a bunch of different responses usually.

So an economist that says Bettman's methods wont' work is as qualified as a peanut vendor commenting on Schumacher's racing strategies.

I agree what you are saying, but I dont understand your case in point as I am not sure how you relate the comparison of those 2 vs "NHL vs owners". NHL and owners are both a form of keynesian and lasissez faire IMO, as the NHL is trying to change the policy of the entire leage. (like changing the economic policy of a country.. hypothetically speaking only), and league is also acting on the principle as neo-lassez faire in that they combine their efforts in attempt to control cost and production. (see where i am getting at? )

we can discuss pages on how segments of different theories can apply here and there, but IMO, none of those theories work here or make much sense. It is your knowledge of the theory and blend them and apply them to understand this NHL CBA situation that matters.

but anyhow

 

[joechip]

I think it's hilarious that you dismiss the credentials of REAL economists, as opposed to "self-taught" ones such as you.

That was the point PNC, that most REAL economists are not credible, based on ideological bias in the process, the arguments they make, their place in history... etc. etc. [edit : dangling "don'" snipped]

Ecnomics as a 'science' has a terribly checkered history and most 'experts' are nothing more than partisan hacks for a particular public group: republicans, democrats, enviro-greens, professional athletes and the like.

I've spent my off-time, my leisure time, educating myself in economics and philosophy, publish my thoughts on this subject daily and invite criticisms of those arguments, because I have a real interest in that area of knowledge. Do I need a degree to discuss marginal tax rates, time preference, or monetary policy? Armed with that knowledge I know that I can speak towards questioning the motives of the quoted economists with a reasonable amount of certainty. If I couldn't I would keep my mouth shut. The point of the post was to, in fact, do just that, and tempt y'all to do a little critical thinking of their statements. I found their assertions lacking.

BTW, finding my assertions hilarious speaks to your ignorance on matters economic more than my arrogance (though I am, in fact, quite arrogant ).

Ta,

 

[SuperUnknown]

Trust is the issue here and always has been. The owners have lied in the past and what to say they are not lying now by cooking the books. I like a lot of pro-players do not believe the owners and will not until the books are looked at by a third party that can get info from all sources. In a word, the owners are lying until they prove otherwise. Now that is what wrong and it will not be fixed until trust of the owners by the players is earned. END OF STORY

So why did Goodenow moan about everything yesterday except the trust and numbers issue?

Why did Goodenow say trust wasn't an issue and that the numbers were good?

The Levitt report and methodology are sound by accounting standards, what more do you want?

 

[Cully9]

AND WHY SHOULD HIS REPORT NOT BE SECOND GUESSED ? Is he above the status of a human being or maybe he is a god ? That garbage you just spouted is the most unbelievable nonsense I have seen on this board in a long time. Have you ever heard of garbage in equals garbage out. If the numbers were wrong or incompelete then that makes the report totally incorrect. And until the owners prove every number they use is true then there is the possibility of error. It is for them to prove the numbers are a true statement of their situation and not for the players just to belueve what ever comes to them as gospel.

Trust is the issue here and always has been. The owners have lied in the past and what to say they are not lying now by cooking the books. I like a lot of pro-players do not believe the owners and will not until the books are looked at by a third party that can get info from all sources. In a word, the owners are lying until they prove otherwise. Now that is what wrong and it will not be fixed until trust of the owners by the players is earned. END OF STORY

If trust was such an issue, you'd think that the PA might take the NHL up on its offer to audit each team's finances...unless they're afraid of what they might find. Ask Mario Lemieux; he's not doubting the owners' position now that he's seen both sides.

 

[Digger12]

In a word, the owners are lying until they prove otherwise.

Guilty until proven innocent?

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

Since this seems to be an thread on the economics of the NHL..

I am very surprised that no one has mentioned about the elasticity of the basic NHL framework.

Or did i just missed it somewhere along the thread.. anyhow.

van, your business supply and demand are both elastic, whereas, NHL owners (the demand) is inelastic as it is fixed, and the supply, however, is not purely inelastic as there are always new players who have the talent to replace the current supply. (ie. Sydney Crosby)..

This point alone would destroy all comparison between other industries with the one in NHL.

Oh, and this provides an obvious advantage to the owners due to the pure fact that they are inlastic, a straight horizontal line across the SD chart.. they are the price setters and i think the players have forgotten that.

That's an excellent way to describe it. Although I'm not sure of owners being highly or perfectly elastic.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

That was the point PNC, that most REAL economists are not credible, based on ideological bias in the process, the arguments they make, their place in history... etc. etc. Don'

Ecnomics as a 'science' has a terribly checkered history and most 'experts' are nothing more than partisan hacks for a particular public group: republicans, democrats, enviro-greens, professional athletes and the like.

I've spent my off-time, my leisure time, educating myself in economics and philosophy, publish my thoughts on this subject daily and invite criticisms of those arguments, because I have a real interest in that area of knowledge. Do I need a degree to discuss marginal tax rates, time preference, or monetary policy? Armed with that knowledge I know that I can speak towards questioning the motives of the quoted economists with a reasonable amount of certainty. If I couldn't I would keep my mouth shut. The point of the post was to, in fact, do just that, and tempt y'all to do a little critical thinking of their statements. I found their assertions lacking.

BTW, finding my assertions hilarious speaks to your ignorance on matters economic more than my arrogance (though I am, in fact, quite arrogant ).

Ta,

LoL.

I am not sure if you're an accountant or a economist or whichever, but as you probably know, all financials are biased since the definition of the expenses are dependant variables.

both sides trying to make their argument viable, using the same financials. (lol), thats probably you see "whack" in their statement.

This matter, ultimated comes down to, what intuitins do you have in what and who to believe. Thats it. Pro owner or Pro player, it doesnt matter IMO. We're all at loss here, as fans.

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

I agree what you are saying, but I dont understand your case in point as I am not sure how you relate the comparison of those 2 vs "NHL vs owners". NHL and owners are both a form of keynesian and lasissez faire IMO, as the NHL is trying to change the policy of the entire leage. (like changing the economic policy of a country.. hypothetically speaking only), and league is also acting on the principle as neo-lassez faire in that they combine their efforts in attempt to control cost and production. (see where i am getting at? )

we can discuss pages on how segments of different theories can apply here and there, but IMO, none of those theories work here or make much sense. It is your knowledge of the theory and blend them and apply them to understand this NHL CBA situation that matters.

but anyhow

I'm just saying to take the original article with a grain of salt.

I usually ignore nutjobs like vanlady and wetcoaster.

 

[joechip]

van, your business supply and demand are both elastic, whereas, NHL owners (the demand) is inelastic as it is fixed, and the supply, however, is not purely inelastic as there are always new players who have the talent to replace the current supply. (ie. Sydney Crosby)..

This point alone would destroy all comparison between other industries with the one in NHL.

Outstanding point!

The poster who brought up games theory also made an excellent point.

These are Franchises within a closed system that inter-compete. The framework for the rules has to allow for a balancing act amongst all the competitors or some will always tend to lose and others will always tend to win.

Again, I bring up the point about how Anti-Trust law has forced this situation upon the owners and because of that, the relationship between owner and players is at it's present, untenable state.

Ta,

 

[joechip]

LoL.

I am not sure if you're an accountant or a economist or whichever, but as you probably know, all financials are biased since the definition of the expenses are dependant variables.

both sides trying to make their argument viable, using the same financials. (lol), thats probably you see "whack" in their statement.

This matter, ultimated comes down to, what intuitins do you have in what and who to believe. Thats it. Pro owner or Pro player, it doesnt matter IMO. We're all at loss here, as fans.

I'm neither professionally (a chemist and lab manager). And, I agree completely that we are the real losers here. I don't care who is right or wrong, that analysis is facile and without merit. Financials are someone else's problem. All I care about, as an economic actor, is how much my tickets/Cable package costs and does the product on the ice justify my time/money?

The owners have the leverage in that they can shut down their buisness before accepting a CBA. That's their end-game scenario. the players don't have one, as Bettman alluded to yesterday during the press conference. Like it or not.

Remove Anti-Trust from the picture, and games get played in a week. So, in my ideological fog, I'm saying it's the Government's fault we're not watching hockey. The Players and the Owners are just making the worst of a bad situation.

Ta,

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

That's an excellent way to describe it. Although I'm not sure of owners being highly or perfectly elastic.

Well, correct me if I am wrong. Elasticity in simple teams is just a measure of responsiveness to changes. (any change, economical or political)

My understanding of the price elastcity of demand is that,

Proportions of Q change / proportions of the Q change, which leads to

( Qf - Qi / (Qf + Qi)/2 ) / Pf - Pi / (( Pf + Pi) /2 )

Now, we know the Q will be 1, because we know that there are 30 teams. It is fixed. Quantity demanded will remain the same because there are only 24 players per team (or 22? sorry, excuse y hockey knowledge).

Now, as I recall, if Q > 1 the equation is highly elastic, and if Q < 1, it is highly inelastic. as P approaches infinity, Efxn. (how the hell you type sigma here).. anyway, you will reach perfect inelasticity... in this case.

If the consumer (players), wants a 10% price increase (salary), and owners says no (0%), then we have an inelasticity of demand here where 0/x = 0.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

I'm neither professionally (a chemist and lab manager). And, I agree completely that we are the real losers here. I don't care who is right or wrong, that analysis is facile and without merit. Financials are someone else's problem. All I care about, as an economic actor, is how much my tickets/Cable package costs and does the product on the ice justify my time/money?

The owners have the leverage in that they can shut down their buisness before accepting a CBA. That's their end-game scenario. the players don't have one, as Bettman alluded to yesterday during the press conference. Like it or not.

Remove Anti-Trust from the picture, and games get played in a week. So, in my ideological fog, I'm saying it's the Government's fault we're not watching hockey. The Players and the Owners are just making the worst of a bad situation.

Ta,

Exactly, and this leads to my exact point in other thread (forgot which one), that Goodnew shold get fired. (Betterman too)

He underestimated NHL's will to take the risk to shut down the operation entirely and thus affecting the entire hockey market, which is a fairly specialized and particular segment if you ask me.

He dared the owners, and now, he has lost.

Its all downhill for the players at this point, where as i think you or someone have said that, the future revenue of the NHL, at least short term wise, will probably decline. With decrease in expected revenue, how the heck do the players believe that they will sweeten their offer?

I dont know.. I dont get it.


I am not really pro-owner or pro-player.. (Im pro-owner logically/business speaking, but pro-player hockey-speaking).. lol

 

[vanlady]

I am not asking you (or me) to obtain access the secure website, just the URL itself.
I am a little skeptical, cause I think you are in the same business as me & I have never heard of this.

I doubt it, I don't have a general focus, my specialty is security. I don't have the link because I have never attained the credentials required to obtain access. The only reason I even know of the site is the fact that one of my employees showed it to me before they left. To say I was shocked was an understatement. I have looked for it in google and can't even find it.

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

Well, correct me if I am wrong. Elasticity in simple teams is just a measure of responsiveness to changes. (any change, economical or political)

My understanding of the price elastcity of demand is that,

Proportions of Q change / proportions of the Q change, which leads to

( Qf - Qi / (Qf + Qi)/2 ) / Pf - Pi / (( Pf + Pi) /2 )

Now, we know the Q will be 1, because we know that there are 30 teams. It is fixed. Quantity demanded will remain the same because there are only 24 players per team (or 22? sorry, excuse y hockey knowledge).

Now, as I recall, if Q > 1 the equation is highly elastic, and if Q < 1, it is highly inelastic. as P approaches infinity, Efxn. (how the hell you type sigma here).. anyway, you will reach perfect inelasticity... in this case.

If the consumer (players), wants a 10% price increase (salary), and owners says no (0%), then we have an inelasticity of demand here where 0/x = 0.

fwir (and it isn't much), Es or Ed is the (change between price)/(change between qty demanded). Your giving the price elasticity, and that may be valid for the supply side (players), but not for the owners side).

If we say the owners are perf/high elastic, demand will change severely depending on if the price for players goes up or down. We've seen from Sather that no matter the cost, if he wants Holik as his checking centre, he'll pay whatever price irregardless if he's way way out of the equilibrium s/d point.

So its kinda hard to say that owners are elastic or inelastic. They all spend differently depending on the conditions.

Not saying you're wrong, the formula does work out, 0 < Ed < 1 = elastic demand, 1 < Ed = inelastic demand. I'm just not convinced.

Supply side however, players are totally inelastic, I totally agree.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

fwir (and it isn't much), Es or Ed is the (change between price)/(change between qty demanded). Your giving the price elasticity, and that may be valid for the supply side (players), but not for the owners side).

If we say the owners are perf/high elastic, demand will change severely depending on if the price for players goes up or down. We've seen from Sather that no matter the cost, if he wants Holik as his checking centre, he'll pay whatever price irregardless if he's way way out of the equilibrium s/d point.

So its kinda hard to say that owners are elastic or inelastic. They all spend differently depending on the conditions.

Not saying you're wrong, the formula does work out, 0 < Ed < 1 = elastic demand, 1 < Ed = inelastic demand. I'm just not convinced.

Supply side however, players are totally inelastic, I totally agree.

Ahh.. !!! I get it

I see why we have a difference here.

First of all, I think you are talking about as if NHL were still playing today. then, yes, you are correct. I agree, but my case was set on todays NHL, where there is no NHL. (ok, complicated, i know).. there is no NHL today, and there is no game today. The supply can change, but that does not change the price of the product (the salary ultimately speaking). You know what I mean? Now, if players go very low price.. say 1M/year salary for Sakic, who cares? No one is hiring or signing Sakic at 1M, because there is no owner, no product. Demand remains the same regardless of the price levels, and therefore, owners (the demand), is the inelastic price setter in this case IMO.

I think this is the major difference in our presumptions. Oh yea, and my point would be completely reversed if it were to be put in with your presumption, yes.

 

[joechip]

Its all downhill for the players at this point, where as i think you or someone have said that, the future revenue of the NHL, at least short term wise, will probably decline. With decrease in expected revenue, how the heck do the players believe that they will sweeten their offer?

I dont know.. I dont get it.


I am not really pro-owner or pro-player.. (Im pro-owner logically/business speaking, but pro-player hockey-speaking).. lol

I think Goodenow's job is toast. Bettman, once this is finished, will step aside "for the good of the game" because too many players hate his guts.

As well, I don't understand the player's position other than being caught in a bluff and refusing to show their cards, hoping to bore the guy into folding. They are screwed, I think.

I am Anti-Union, Anti-Government intrusion into markets (i.e. Anti-Trust), and therefore cannot support the Union's using Anti-Trust law to hold the fans hostage, which is what happens in every labor negotiation.

The owners have the leverage as they can, ultimately, dissolve the league, sell the Stanley Cup to a new league, implement whatever framework they want and move on. The only thing stopping this plan is a rival league, like the WHA or the proposed-Players League, both of which are ideas I support fully.

As a fan, I want the best Hockey I can get for the least amount of resources expended. That's my goal as an economic actor. Beyond that, I could give a rat's ass about who makes how much money.

The last thing any of us fans should be discussing at this time of the year is what will happen next year. We should be focusing on who has the best chance to win the Cup, but, that's not in the cards.

Ta,

 

[SuperUnknown]

The owners have the leverage as they can, ultimately, dissolve the league, sell the Stanley Cup to a new league, implement whatever framework they want and move on. The only thing stopping this plan is a rival league, like the WHA or the proposed-Players League, both of which are ideas I support fully.

The players league is the worst thing I've heard of. While the players that will get spots on the 6-8 teams of the league will be happy, all the other players that are left behind will want nothing to do with it and will be willing to sign whatever the NHL offers them.

In other words, this would split the players and be the end of the union.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

I think Goodenow's job is toast. Bettman, once this is finished, will step aside "for the good of the game" because too many players hate his guts.

As well, I don't understand the player's position other than being caught in a bluff and refusing to show their cards, hoping to bore the guy into folding. They are screwed, I think.

I am Anti-Union, Anti-Government intrusion into markets (i.e. Anti-Trust), and therefore cannot support the Union's using Anti-Trust law to hold the fans hostage, which is what happens in every labor negotiation.

The owners have the leverage as they can, ultimately, dissolve the league, sell the Stanley Cup to a new league, implement whatever framework they want and move on. The only thing stopping this plan is a rival league, like the WHA or the proposed-Players League, both of which are ideas I support fully.

As a fan, I want the best Hockey I can get for the least amount of resources expended. That's my goal as an economic actor. Beyond that, I could give a rat's ass about who makes how much money.

The last thing any of us fans should be discussing at this time of the year is what will happen next year. We should be focusing on who has the best chance to win the Cup, but, that's not in the cards.

Ta,

In another words, you're a true lasissez faire, who opposes government interventions on economy and market.



well, Im half / half, where i apply my knowledge and do what i believe is right.
haha.. so.. i am not on any side, actually, more of a mixture of everything.. lol

and someone just called me some old jerk having a family to feed and some government job or something..

I'm 24 and in the middle of an intern toward my master.. lol.

anyway.

I guess this thread is pretty much done..

too much to read in the middle.
lol

 

[Jarqui]

I thought the article was a little weak and somewhat shallow.

I think the reasons Bettman provided for why the deal didn't get done made sense to me. More than the article. They did a risk assessment on revenue losses from the lockout to date. Between that, clause seven and the dollar differences on the deal (the effect of raising the cap has an some effect of raising the floor), they were still quite far apart. NHL stuck it's neck out on the revenue risk as far as they wanted to go.

No matter what anyone says, there is a risk going forward with a cap set at next year's revenues that isn't there with linkage. That's a pretty darn good reason to be very careful. The 24% the players gave up may already be gone with the damage done already with this mess.

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

Ahh.. !!! I get it

I see why we have a difference here.

First of all, I think you are talking about as if NHL were still playing today. then, yes, you are correct. I agree, but my case was set on todays NHL, where there is no NHL. (ok, complicated, i know).. there is no NHL today, and there is no game today. The supply can change, but that does not change the price of the product (the salary ultimately speaking). You know what I mean? Now, if players go very low price.. say 1M/year salary for Sakic, who cares? No one is hiring or signing Sakic at 1M, because there is no owner, no product. Demand remains the same regardless of the price levels, and therefore, owners (the demand), is the inelastic price setter in this case IMO.

I think this is the major difference in our presumptions. Oh yea, and my point would be completely reversed if it were to be put in with your presumption, yes.

Well, I guess in that respect it is. You're saying there's no owner so there's really no curve to talk about being elastic or inelastic ... right ?

And joechip is one of those economic nerdytypes I was referring to when I mentioned Keynesian vs Hayakism. Personally I think they are both valid methods depending on the state of the economy. Keynesian methodologies may not be the flava of the month anymore but some of the 3rd world nations need the forced stability in their economy. Especially with globalization.

Too much thinking, playstation time.