Re: Pardon my enthusiasm

[Kestas <Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu>]

A couple of quick points, because this is becoming a non-basketball
discussion:

At 13:56 1/7/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Right, but if you *only* looked at this issue using an economic model, 
>your first sentence (in the above paragraph) is impossible.  No one can be 
>"overpaid" because, by definition, people are paid what they are "worth".  

As I stated in the previous post, it's possible because of long-term
contracts (not to mention things like subsidies, utilities, monopolies and
other "glitches" of market economies). People are signed based on what the
management/owner *projects* they will deliver, and mistakes are made. Thus,
for the duration of the contract, such an employee is overpaid. Actually,
you essentially state the same thing below:

>This is *probably* true, but never underestimate the strangeness of a 
>market.  Pitino (or even McCarty) may get a big payoff again merely 
>because some franchise needs (or thinks they need) what these guys have to 
>offer.  

As for your other points, sure, subjectively, you can think of any
profession as more or less deserving, worthless or invaluable. I know
people for whom sports is an entirely worthless endeavor, and therefore,
all athletes are overpaid by definition. But such people may attach a great
value to the work of classical musicians, for example. (Btw, by "worth", I
had meant the value placed on the person's work, of course, not the
person). Subjective assignments of  "deservedness" to particular
professions are fine, as long as they're not used in socially reengineering
our society by a ruling class who "knows better" what's good for us than we
do ourselves. History shows that such attempts lead to disastrous
consequences. 
Kestas