Rogue Rocketeer

Sidearm Pitching: A Simple System

Sidearm Pitching: A Simple System

Forward - Why Sidearm?

When I first tried out as a pitcher in my over age 45 baseball league, I had been only pitching batting practice to my junior high players; I delivered pitches from every angle on the protractor. In my first game in winter league, I did the same. I must have hurled over 200 pitches. I found that my overhand fastball was less than overpowering. I thought I had my greatest success came throwing sidearm as I had in my two or three starts as a little leaguer. So I decided to stick with sidearm. My first pitch, the sinker, was built in to the delivery. The rest of the pitching arsenal I would have to create myself. This is my exposition of the system of pitching I developed. I think any sidearm pitcher will find at least some benefit to understanding my system. 

If you been around baseball in recent years you have may have a been told that throwing sidearm will injure your arm. Perhaps in future editions of this monograph I can add a detailed section on why that is not the case at all. In fact, sidearm is easier on the arm. 

OK, you take my word for it that sidearm is a safe way to throw, but now you are told that, yes, you may be an effective gimmick relief pitcher, but you will short circuit your development and never be a starter. Batters will quickly adjust to you and really hit you hard if they see you again in the same game. This I have also found to be untrue. I have thrown complete game victories; I find that batters often become more perplexed with my delivery the more they see it. Even batters who have gotten hits have reported that they hate to bat against my sidearm delivery. 

Section 1 The Windup

I use a no windup delivery. Most of the movements in a typical delivery do not help propel the ball toward home plate. With fewer moving parts, fewer things can go wrong. You will also tire less quickly because you are expending less energy. With no one on base, I look in for the sign, rock back on my striding foot, turn my pivot almost perpendicular to a line going toward home plate, then stride toward home while driving off my pivot foot. I start on the far glove hand side of the pitching plate, but where you stand on the pitching plate is a matter of personal preference. The pitching motion should be natural and relaxed while still exploding toward home plate. 

When runners are on base, I always pitch from the stretch. I start with the ball in my  throwing hand in my sinking fastball grip hanging at my side with the glove hanging on the other side. My pivot foot is in the almost perpendicular position I use to drive toward home plate. My striding foot is in front of my pivot foot, slightly offset toward the glove side.  I do not move my striding foot before the delivery. I simply bring my throwing hand with the ball together with the glove hand in front of me, hanging in a relaxed manner in front of me for the necessary moment of pause. I then step directly toward home while driving off my pivot foot to deliver the pitch. 

From either the wind up or the stretch I finish in a good fielding position facing home plate. My pivot foot comes down slightly ahead of where my striding foot lands, but I am still facing home, ready to field a batted ball. 

Section 2 The Sidearm Throw

Sidearmers at release have their arm in the same place, relative to their spine, as any other pitcher. Typically a pitcher will release the baseball at a point where, observed from directly in front (as a catcher would), a straight line can be drawn from the glove side shoulder through the throwing shoulder and on through to the throwing hand. This 180-degree angle may have some variation from pitcher to pitcher. The arm may diverge from the 180-degree line at a 5-degree, or so, angle either above or below the shoulder. I recommend the throwing hand below the shoulder line as the hand above the shoulder line (hyper-abduction) can damage the shoulder. 

If a sidearm pitch is not distinguished from a regular pitch by arm to shoulder line angle, then what makes a sidearm pitch? The answer is: the same thing that makes an overhand pitch - trunk tilt. An overhand pitch features trunk tilt toward the glove hand side, while a sidearm pitch features trunk tilt toward the throwing hand side, or zero tilt, which would be a Randy Johnson or Satchel Paige brand of sidearm. Extreme trunk tilt to the throwing hand side leads to a submarine style of sidearm. 

Some people find throwing sidearm very natural and comfortable. If you have spent time skipping flat rocks off a pond, you have thrown sidearm. 

Section 3 The Pitches

My system includes three basic pitches: a sinking fastball, a slider, and a change of pace. The sinker and the slider both have some variations according to speed, but I start all pitches from my sinker grip. I make small, undetectable grip changes mid-delivery or right before delivery to throw the slider or change up.  

The sinker grip is  a standard four seam grip. I use this grip because the natural sidearm spin is sideways toward the throwing hand side. Using the four seam grip allows for maximum speed and lateral or downward movement. At release, a slight bit of pronation, or turning the palm from facing home to facing down, can give more movement and protect the elbow joint. This pitch tends to ride in on same side batters, often resulting in weak handle hits or harmless pulled foul balls. The opposite side hitters, it is often thrown away hoping in induce an easy grounder to second base. To either lefty of righty batters, work the corners with this pitch keeping it low in the strike zone to induce ground balls. 

For the slider, I simply change my sinker grip by moving my index finger over to meet my middle finger. I may make a small adjustment of my thumb for comfort and to help impart the characteristic slider spin, a spiral. I believe my way of imparting spin to the slider is unique and also easier on the arm than other ways. I throw the slider with my palm facing up while I literally spin or twirl the baseball between my index and middle fingers and my thumb. Otherwise, the arm motion feels just like the sinker. This pitch tends to do the opposite of the sinker. It tails, sometimes radically, away from same side batters and toward opposite side batters. I have had success with it back as a ‘back up’ breaking ball to same side batters and thrown to outside corner. As always, work the corners for success. When the slider is really tailing, I have had success with it anywhere near the plate as a swing and miss or a called strike. The slider can also be used as change up. Simply ‘pull a string’ at release for a super slow, floating version that can have comical swing and miss results.

The change up is a very effective pitch and a rarity among sidearm pitchers. Starting again from my sinker grip, I simply shift the baseball slightly toward my palm so it is against the meaty part below the index and middle fingers while moving my thumb up to the side of the baseball. I hold the ball between my thumb and ring finger while my index and middle fingers are lifted just slightly off the baseball and held loosely. I deliver the pitch in the same way as the sinker. The index and middle fingers ‘roll’ across the baseball as it is released. The side spin imparted and slower speed make for a very effective pitch. 

The similar delivery and simplicity of changing grips means that you will not be tipping off your pitches.

Erk Russell's Four F Filosophy for Flag Football

Every player, I believe, begins the season with plenty of desire to play hard, play smart, and have fun. A coach has many important matters to attend to when a season starts. Perhaps not attended to is the question: Am I going to be fueling my players' desire to play or will I actually extinguish much of their internal fire for the game? The short answer: If you are an authoritarian, militaristic coach who relies on punishing mistakes with exercise, yelling, and filling practice with rituals which contribute virtually nothing to playing well in games, then you are a coach who is likely killing your players' desire to play. While there is no one way to coaching success, a more positive approach fuels the desire to play that every player has when the season starts.

Erk Russell's Four F Philosophy provides a framework for positive coaching:

1) Firm- Develop a sound philosophy and stick to it. On offense we run plays as quickly as possible without a huddle or a snap count. Our system is sound and yet contrarian. Running the option from a tight formation means that most opponents have little chance to prepare specifically for us. On defense we run a zone scheme that relies on all players filling their roles. We know that every play is not going to succeed, but if we firmly stick to our schemes, we will have success.*

 2) Fair – Every player contributes in every game. We do tend to specialize linemen, but all others play offense and defense. This gives players variety and gives tremendous flexibility to the coach. There are at least two players experienced in every position. As coach it is important to always encourage every player, as every role is important. When players make mistakes, reassure them and give them advice on how to do better next time.

 3) Fundamental – Talk, show, do, then repeat, and repeat. Practice is filled with doing what it takes to succeed: running plays well. Adjustments are made and pointers are given between plays. Keep it simple: We can attack any part of field on offense yet our system is simple; we use only one formation. We learn foundational plays without a defense in one week and then run them against a defense in the second week of practice. New plays or variations to current plays are added over the course of the season. We do not waste time on drills, especially “character building” drills. Character lessons are built into the nature of the game and require no special drills and certainly do not require extra punishments.

 4) Fun – Perhaps first among equals is fun. All games are popular primarily because they are fun. Killing the spirit of fun kills player desire to play, period. Players who know their roles and can play well while not having their time wasted on mindless, and sometimes punitive drills will be having fun. They will look forward to practice and games. They will be confident because they know what they are doing; they have done it many times. Enjoy the time with your players; encourage them, teach them, joke around with them sometimes. Everything should be done in the spirit of fun.

Fuel your players' desire to play. Do not be seduced by militaristic approaches where the answer to every problem is, in some way, to “get tough” with players. “Get tough” coaching is lazy, counter-productive coaching. Use Erk Russell's Four F Philosophy of Firm, Fair, Fundamental, and Fun to provide the positive experience every player deserves and will remember fondly, win or lose.

*I am in a constant quest for better ways to do things. I make most majors changes in the off-season. In season we make “adjustments” usually.

 Erk Russell Bio Courtesy: GeorgiaSouthernEagles.com Release: 01/08/2008 Led Georgia Southern Football Team to an unprecedented National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I-AA record three national championships in the 1980's. Followed back-to-back championships in 1985 and 1986 with a perfect 15-0 title performance in 1989. Arrived in Statesboro in 1981 to restart a football program which had been dormant for 40-years and averaged 10.4 wins a year over the next eight seasons. Headed into first season in 1982 with walk-ons and enjoyed 7-3-1 record. Joined NCAA I-AA in 1984 and won 70 of 84 games in six seasons. Led Eagles to five postseason berths from 1985 to 1989, garnering three championships, one second place finish and one quarterfinal appearance. Won 37 consecutive games at Allen E. Paulson Stadium, including 1989 Championship game. Retired as America's winningest football coach with 83-22-1 (.788) record. Named Coach-of-the-Year on 19 occasions. Inducted into Georgia Sports Hall of Fame in 1987. Born July 23, 1926 in Birmingham, Alabama. Earned Bachelors and Masters degrees from Auburn, where he was last four-sport letterman in Tiger history (football, basketball, baseball and tennis). Spent 17 seasons as assistant at Georgia where his defensive teams were known as the "Junkyard Dogs".
 

How To Watch Soccer: A Dumb Method for a Dumb Game

I have never liked soccer. I do not think my gym class in middle school ever got five minutes into a game of soccer before someone asked why we had to play this dumb game that does not allow you to use your hands. Everyone agreed and soon we were playing something similar, but sensible, like team handball. Like many Americans, you might be caught up in the mini-frenzy surrounding the latest iteration of the World Cup being played in South Africa.

If you have not watched a lot of soccer, you may be wondering how this game ever became popular in the first place. In the unlikely circumstance that you know any of their names, the players are still generally unrecognizable due to the wide camera angle required to cover the action on such an expansive playing field (a necessity caused by the relative lack of control that comes from using the feet to control a ball). If you have the patience to watch long enough to see a goal scored, you will likely be underwhelmed by its being scored on a penalty kick, a lucky carom, a shot off a player's head, or an embarrassing miscue by a goalie. "Quality" goals, where actual skill is rewarded, seem to be a rarity. The game appears to be a drawn-out series of mistakes, collisions, penalties, passes to no one, and balls going out of bounds.

Perhaps you have figured out that it is not that you just do not understand soccer, the problem is that soccer is indeed a dumb game. Any game where you cannot use your hands, your head is a ball-striking implement, and success is nearly impossible when the game is played properly just does not appeal to Americans used to games like football, baseball, and basketball where success is actually possible in the course of a well-played game. American sports actually have situations that unfold over the course of the game. This unlike soccer, where one minute of a game seems just like any other minute.

But you are still caught-up in the orgy of chauvinistic nationalism known as the World Cup--what to do? When I watched a player from Ghana get a bloody nose by diverting a ball kicked at point blank range with his face, an idea came to me. As I had been watching this game to ridicule the absurdity of the game, I thought why not turn watching soccer into a drinking game. What a perfect way to commemorate (and later forget totally) every dumb thing that happens in a soccer game.

Here are the rules:

Drink every time a player: falls down, hits a ball with his head, kicks a ball to no one.

Also drink every time the ball goes out of bounds.

If a kick to no one goes out of bounds, remember to drink twice.

Feel free add other drinking opportunities as the absurdity of the game unfolds before you. Although I think the above should provide the entertainment that a soccer game lacks as a sporting event.

N.B. This is humor (or an attempt at it), I do not recommend drinking games that include alcohol.

Catching With a Vintage Baseball Glove

I spent most of the baseball seasons from 1974 to 1979 either playing baseball, poring over my baseball cards, reading about baseball, or daydreaming about baseball. I thought back then that if there were any justice the universe, someone who loved baseball as much as I did would have to be a big leaguer some day. Well that did not happen but I continued on as a fan until I lost interest finally during the steroid era. Since I have had only a lukewarm interest in baseball for the last ten years or so, I from time to time quip that I have forgotten more about baseball history than most people know. I believe this to be literally true.

When my daughters expressed an interest in playing fastpitch softball recently, my interest in baseball was rekindled. As I played catch with my daughter I realized how much I loved and missed baseball. Not so much the modern game, where most players hideously wear their baseball pants down over their socks, but the game before the modern glove, say, before World War 2. I had been a Yankee fan for most of my life but I had always been captivated by the picture of the sliding Pepper Martin of the 1934 "Gashouse Gang" St. Louis Cardinals that hung on my bedroom wall. That picture captured the raw, hustling, and fun style of play I loved and tried to emulate as a skinny shortstop for the Thatcher Men's Club team of the Elmira Small Fry baseball league. So in my rebirth as a baseball fan, I decided that it was the St. Louis Cardinals for me. Again, I am not as much a fan of the modern team but of the 1934 World Series Champion team. My favorite player on the team is Joe Medwick. He was also Yogi Berra's favorite as a youth growing up in St. Louis.




The evolution of the baseball glove has always fascinated me. Just looking at an old glove that is so small and has not even got stitching between the fingers makes one wonder how those old timers caught a ball with those things. On the other hand, I was always contemptuous of the modern "peach basket" gloves that emerged during my youth and are still going strong. They just seemed like cheating to me. So I simply had to buy a vintage glove and try it for myself. I won a Joe Medwick autographed model on ebay. What follows are my observations on catching a baseball with a vintage glove.

My first observation is catching with vintage glove requires a more heightened level of alertness than a regular glove. Playing with a modern glove is fun but can be a pretty nonchalant venture. One needs to be on his toes and two hands should be used on every catch possible with a vintage glove or you will drop a lot of balls.

Next, vintage gloves can hurt. My hand swelled considerably after catching about twenty balls tossed underhand in to the air. This taught me that catching a baseball with a vintage glove was very much like catching a football: catch with two "soft" hands taking momentum off the incoming ball by easing it in toward your body and quickly get it into your throwing hand. If ESPN calls great fielding plays "Web Gems" because most great catches are made in the web of the modern glove, then great plays with a vintage glove should perhaps be called "Palm Pearls".



Finally, it is clear that there are balls that would be easy catches with a modern glove that will not be caught with a vintage glove. Chances that come in low to the backhand side are the toughest to deal with.

Catching and throwing a baseball is one of life's purest joys. There is nothing wrong with a modern glove, but every baseball lover should experience catching with a vintage glove. It is pure bliss.

How I Rediscovered Swill Beer

Like many folks these days, I have in varying degrees incorporated red wine, coffee, tea, cocoa and even beer into my daily routine after reading about their health benefits. Concerning wine and beer, let it be said that I have never been a big drinker. I started trying to drink one beer like a porter, stout, or pale ale every day because I read that they had the most antioxidants; I did grow to actually like them, savoring them for their taste. This despite the fact that, as my daughter reminded me, I do not drink beer for the taste but for the health benefits.

My trip into porters, stouts, and pale ales led me into the fascinating world of craft brewing. Craft brewing, or micro-brewing, is a classic reaction to the kind of blandness that inflicts many mass-produced products. Mass production has always helped the common man; it also creates the opportunity for small time producers who can make custom, niche products often with "snob appeal".

To most craft brewers, mass-produced beers of Anheuser-Busch, Coors, and Miller are "swill", unworthy of the beer connoisseur. Thus the craft brewing culture bred a new kind of beer drinker, the beer snob. The beer snob often claims to be able tell what kind of barley, hops, yeast, and adjuncts are used in a beer and render a verdict on said beer's worthiness. "Adjunct" is dirty word in the world of beer snobbery. An adjunct is some other grain, usually corn or rice, that brewers of swill use to replace some of the barley malt of the standard water, barley malt, hops, and yeast that make up beer. Use of adjuncts by craft brewers is a cardinal sin to many beer snobs.

I must admit to becoming a small time beer snob myself. I had sworn off any beer produced by Anheuser-Busch, Miller, or any huge brewer. I rationalized that these beers just did not have the taste or health benefits of the porters, stouts, and pale ales I was drinking at a rate of one bottle per day or less. However, I discovered a craft beer, Session Lager, by the small Full Sail brewery in Oregon that would become my bridge back into mass-produced swill.

American beer before Prohibition was dominated by the lagers of 19th Century German immigrants which had displaced the ales of early American times (many of the framers, like Washington and Jefferson, brewed their own ales). It was the German brewers who introduced the adjunct, usually corn, that would characterize American beer. Corn was introduced to tame the the flavor of the six-row barley available in America (German brewers had used two-row barley in Europe). American beer was always lighter in flavor and easier to drink that its European counterparts. Americans were hard-working and America has a hotter climate than Europe so this style, American lager, fit right in.

Prohibition destroyed the American lager. The beer produced after Prohibition, was even lighter. This was the "Western lager" of Coors, Anheuser-Busch, and Miller, the beer that the modern craft brewing movement reacted against and demonized as "adjunct-laden swill". Enter Session Lager.

Some craft brewers decided that pre-Prohibition American lager was not so bad and might be an interesting brew, if only to provide a nice summertime "lawnmower" beer. Session Lager is such a beer. It comes in cool 11-ounce retro stubby bottles. I picked up twelve on a lark and was enchanted. I decided that Session Lager was my new beer of choice. Ever cost-conscious, however, I began to eye the sub-premium swill at the end of the beer cooler like Busch, Milwaukee's Best, etc. with renewed interest. I remembered from my youngers days that of all the awful cheap beer I ever drank, Busch was the best. So I picked up some Busch beer. To my surprise, it wasn't much different than Session Lager. If fact, it was really just as good at two-thirds the price.



So here's my advice: reconsider the swill that you have abandoned. You may be surprised by American lagers that are perhaps more respected around the world than they are in America.

Hot Stove League 1933-34 Part 2

In the midst of our "Great Recession", we should be glad that things, so far, aren't as bad as during the Great Depression of the 1930s. For comparison, we could note that professional sports today are not nearly as bad off as the most popular sport of the Great Depression, big league baseball. However one thing today is much worse: the economic ignorance of the public.

For illustration of this ignorance, I point to the "vulgar Keynesian" notion that consumer spending drives the economy expressed in the absolutely absurd blog post of Washington Redskin Chris Cooley entitled, "Albert Stimulates" which renowned hot air dispenser Jim Rome gushed about . Cooley wrote a tour de force of banality with gems like: "NFL players and new NFL contracts are an fantastic way to stimulate the economy." and "Oh, and lets not forget our friendly car and home taxes - over [$]30,000 a year for me, fun times." Cooley actually celebrates the fact that half of his earnings are eaten by taxes!

Here are the wonders Cooley tells us the big salaries of professional athletes are doing for the economy: "Cars, houses, clothes, food, women, jewelry and all of it at a rapid pace." Lost on Cooley is that the money spent "lavishly" by athletes does nothing special for the economy. "Let's also consider what the market needs for any type of a bottom, or a rebound. Well I guess I can't consider myself enough of an expert to start to explain that but, I'm thinking if we could get someone to stop selling off all their shit and start buying back in I think we would have a start." Again, apparently lost on our oracle of the gridiron is that if someone is selling, someone else must be buying, "So if I was receiving a enormous contract this year I may figure it would be a great time to buy some 50 -75 percent off stock." For him to buy, someone must be selling off.

Cooley sums up his assault on clear thinking, "Huge contracts for athletes mean one thing. Shit tons of money will be poured back into our country. You think these guys are slow play investors who will sit on their money like a goose. Absolutely not, their money is being spent, no questions asked."

A far cry from economic ignorance illustrated by the pompous Chris Cooley, was the good sense displayed by sportswriters, team owners, and baseball players of the 1930s. While the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt had largely bought into the fallacious idea that consumer spending drives the economy (this in spite of the fact that FDR actually campaigned against the outrageous spending of the Hoover administration which had also bought into the spending driven economy), many Americans, including baseball players and owners, understood that cutting costs, making sacrifices, and providing a better goods and services were the only way to survive the hard times.

Baseball actually faced financial difficulties, "A man can't go to a baseball game when he hasn't any money." said Commissioner Kennesaw M. Landis in 1933. Fortunately, while much of the rest of the economy was being regimented under the NRA's Blue Eagle (ala Mussolini's fascist program in Italy) to regulate wages (keep them artificially high) and production, baseball teams could be thankful that they remained free to cut costs and run their business without the interference of NRA bureaucrats.

With regard to salaries the great John J. McGraw said, "Salaries must come down...owners are losing too much money." Come down they did. Sid Keener of the St. Louis Times Dispatch reported that average salaries were down to about $7500 (about a 25% drop), still only a little lower than the peak salary for a great of an earlier time, Christy Mathewson, who made only $10,000. Salary cuts also caused something that may surprise today's sports fan. There was actual concern as to whether playing baseball was a better deal than some other line of work. But Cardinal GM Branch Rickey said that even at a salary like $6500, a player should be able to save $5000 a year. So after only a handful of seasons a player could have a nice nest egg set aside; Rickey said that the Cards had more men than they could use willing to play baseball. Superstar Dizzy Dean's wife told how she refused a wedding ring until after they had a house paid for "free and clear". In contrast, apparently following the Chris Cooley school of profligate spending, 60% of NBA players are broke in five years making salaries that dwarf those of 1930s baseball players.

Also to save money, rosters were cut from 25 players to 23; the eventual champions of 1934, the "Gashouse Gang" St. Louis Cardinals only carried 21 players for most of the season. Also to save salary cash, the 1930s saw many player-managers, who had little help running the club: Frankie Frisch of the Cardinals, Bill Terry of the 1933 champion New York Giants, Charley Grimm of the Cubs, Jimmy Wilson of the Phillies and Pie Traynor of the Pirates among others. Contrast to FDR and his "Brain Trust". Babe Ruth actually made more money in 1934 doing radio broadcasts sponsored by Quaker Oats than from his baseball salary. The Boston Red Sox for 1934 became the first team to offer profit-sharing with players to inspire them to win and thus draw more paid attendance. Most players understood the need to cut salaries. "Pepper" Martin of the Cardinals said, "Shucks, no one's interested in what they're paying me...fans want to know what kind-a year I'm going to give 'em...Pep'll be hustling, giving his best and trying all the time." I wonder if Chris Cooley and the spoiled brats of modern sports could say the same after taking a pay cut.

Owners also debated the merits of radio broadcasting. Some, like the Cubs and Pirates, allowed the broadcast of their games by radio while others did not, thinking radio broadcasts lost more business than they brought in. Owners hoped that the resumption of alcohol sales with the repeal of prohibition in 1933 would also boost business. Night baseball was considered (and vetoed) between 1933 and 1934 to allow more people to make it to the ballpark without interference with work hours. Another change, perhaps to enliven fan excitement, was the National League's adoption of the American League's livelier baseball.

The 1934 season was still a tight situation for baseball despite the cost cutting. In the Pittsburgh Press, Chester L. Smith made a series of suggestions to stem the tide of red ink: replace the male concession vendors with pretty girls, replace the megaphone announcer in many parks (like Sportman's Park in St. Louis) with a public address system, put all games on the radio, and sell beer at the ball park.

The major leagues survived the Great Depression without any direct help from the New Deal by attempting to run their businesses more frugally and offer a more entertaining product. Fortunately, owners were not hampered in their efforts by the kind blithe ignorance that had infected the government at that time and that now infects practically our whole populace.

Hot Stove League 1933-34 Part 1

Tuesday night's All-Star game featured zero home runs and a brisk pace by modern standards, ending in two and a half hours. The winning tally in a 4-3 contest was manufactured by a hustling triple and an opposite field sacrifice fly. Here is the round tripper-free scoring summary:

Top 1st: American

- M. Teixeira reached on fielder's choice, D. Jeter scored, J. Mauer to second on first baseman A. Pujols' fielding error

- J. Hamilton grounded into fielder's choice, J. Mauer scored, M. Teixeira to third, J. Bay out at second

Bot 2nd: National

- Y. Molina singled to center, D. Wright scored, S. Victorino to third, S. Victorino scored, Y. Molina to second on center fielder J. Hamilton's throwing error

- P. Fielder ground rule double to left, Y. Molina scored

Top 5th: American

- J. Mauer doubled to left, D. Jeter scored

Top 8th: American

- A. Jones hit sacrifice fly to deep right, C. Granderson scored

With the top active home run clouters mostly absent from the all-star showcase, perhaps a new era of baseball is emerging, harkening back, if not to the Dead Ball era, at least to the relatively less lively ball of the National League 1920-1933.

Baseball history has the neat dividing line between the pre-1920 Dead Ball era and the Live Ball era which has prevailed ever since. Few are aware, however, that the ball of the National League from 1920 to 1933 was by no means a dead ball, but was merely a "livelier" ball.

The Great Depression perhaps influenced the National League in 1934 to adopt a new onion "stabilized" to the vivacious sphere used in the American League. The reasoning was reminiscent of that used to market sports to non-fans in modern sports. Scoring, scoring, scoring and more scoring was thought to bring in ladies and children. De-emphasized would be the subtleties that true fans loved: the stolen base, the hit and run, the double stretched into a triple. Why bother trying to squeeze out extra bases risking an out when the mighty swoop of a home run will score a runner from first as well as from third?

John E. Wray of the St. Louis Post Dispatch used the terminology of the time to deride the new ball's effect on the game:

"The new deal baseball would act like the New Deal dollar is supposed to---it would stimulate business...It is the prevailing belief that the public worships at the shrine of the Big Wallop...As regards the Knot Hole Gang [kids in St. Louis who watched the game through knot holes in the wall around Sportsman's Park] and the free ladies' day patronage, this is true. With many of these the climax of the game is...a knock over the wall. Whether the lively ball or the batter's prowess accomplishes this doesn't concern them. But the old "die hard" boys who like to see a run EARNED will never be reconciled to seeing a tally gained by intelligence and planning offset by a rubber-cored wallop over the roofs."

Damon Runyon wrote this in the New York American after two games in the 1934 season: "At the rate of 13 or so a day, there may be 2,000 homers hit by the end of the season, making the game more and more a matter of slug and run home."

"The introduction of the lively ball to the National League has meant a decided new deal for batters. A check of 45 regular players shows they made at total net gain of 1,227 points in their batting averages over their 1933 rate at a corresponding date. That's not recovery, it's pure inflation." wrote Caswell Adams in the New York Herald Tribune on June 20, 1934. By July 24, Sid Keener declared in the St. Louis Star Times, "Mr. Lively Baseball is all the pitchers complain about. The National League has increased its batting average from .266 in 1933 to .282 in 1934."

Like the New Deal, the new lively ball did not revive the fortunes of baseball or the general economy. "There's red ink on many baseball ledgers where red ink never went before. More money's in circulation than in the past two years. Why aren't baseball clubs getting their share of it?" opined Chester L. Smith of the Pittsburgh Press.

Whether it was due to juiced players, a juiced ball or deflated pitching, the late era from the mid-nineties to mid-aughts has been just what Damon Runyon described as a matter of "slug and run home". As a lover of the older game of speed and strategy, I was turned off by this era of home run "inflation". This was also an era of Fed credit-induced bubbles, first in tech stocks then in real estate. As increased frugality in our personal economies becomes more prevalent in this era of popped bubbles, hopefully the new crop of All-Stars will signal a new modesty in power hitting. We all scrap for a living and sacrifice some luxuries; hopefully ball players will scrap for extra bases and make more sacrifice flies for winning runs as in last night's game.

Terraplane Rock

Here's a song I made up a while ago that I've wanted to record in some form. This is done very primitively.

The song is loosely based on Robert Johnson's "Terraplane Blues". In Johnson's song, nothing goes right so it's blues. In mine everything is going fine so it's rock. It's a basic I-IV-V type song that has been done a thousand times. My favorite song that uses this basic structure is "Rev It Up & Go" by the Stray Cats. Since the guitar is too loud, here are the lyrics:

The ride is so good can't you hear the engine moan;
Yeah, the ride is so good can't you hear the engine moan;
I been ridin' that Terraplane since I been home.

Flip my switch and your horn it starts to blow;
Yeah, flip my switch and your horn it starts to blow;
We're making a connection somewhere down below.

Pop your hood and baby I'll check the oil;
Yeah, pop your hood and baby I'll check the oil;
Then we'll ride that Terraplane until it boils.

Cause it's rock, rock, Terraplane rock;
Rock, rock, Terraplane rock;
Yeah, rock, rock, Terraplane rock;
Cause it's rock rock rock, Terraplane rock;
I been been rockin' that Terraplane since I been home.

For those who care, the amp is my little Crate GX-15R with the Gain on 10, Reverb on 7, and volume about 2. My homemade guitar is pine with a particle board top and a Danelectro Lipstick pickup wired direct to the jack.

I hope you enjoy it.

If You Can't Hum It, It Ain't Music?

To be sure, I'm a big fan of Gary North's work. Occasionally, however, Gary moves outside of his field of expertise and the results aren't always pretty. His guitar play list was, as I said in my previous post, fine. It was not, though, even close to a representation of what has been accomplished with the guitar by its greatest players. I made a video play list in response which included Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Junior Brown, and Brian Setzer.

Mr. North replied to my post via email:

"Technical virtuosity is no substitute for a lack of musical taste.

If you can't hum it, it ain't music."

While I agree that technical virtuosity is no substitute for musical taste, let me translate Gary North's first line: the guys on your list blow away the guys on my list so rather than acknowledge that I'll fall back on something nebulous like "taste".

All of the players from my list are virtuosos with great taste (Brian Setzer won a Grammy for his version "Sleepwalk", a song played by many prominent guitarists who didn't garner that award). So we just disagree on this point--fine. I also had to take issue with the second statement, "If you can't hum it, it ain't music".

Here are some absurd conclusions that flow from this "Humability Standard":

1. Chords (three or more consonant notes played together) are not music since a person can only hum one note at time. A trio humming together could make music with chords; North's "you" would be a plural in this case.

2. Since the capacity of the lungs, which humming depends on, is limited, if some series of notes goes on rapidly and long enough that the hummer(s) must take a breath and therefore miss a note, the sounds are no longer music.

3. If sounds are being played rapidly enough that the pitch being hummed cannot be changed rapidly enough to keep up, the sounds are not music (sorry "Flight of the Bumble Bee").

4. Any notes not within the human vocal range are not music since they can't be hummed.

So the "Humability Standard" in defining music introduces an arbitrariness, i.e., every person can call the same sounds "music" or not according to their own vocal range, lung capacity, and ability to rapidly change the pitch of the notes to be hummed. So what is music to Mariah Carey may not be music to the rest of us.

"If you can't hum it, it ain't music" has a folksy charm, but it's the same sort of nonsense a father of a generation ago might have used to dismiss the rock and roll racket coming from his son's room that the son apparently mistook for music.

My players are far better than Gary's and his reply was as absurd as legendary classical guitarist Andres Segovia's statement that the electric guitar wasn't even a musical instrument. Segovia actually broke off a possible professional relationship with Chet Atkins when he learned that Atkins played electric guitar. I'm also pretty sure that the players in his list would agree that they do not measure up to the players on my list.

Guitar Heroes

The electric guitar is simply the most expressive musical instrument in the world.  I’ve written in the past on my opinion of the world’s greatest guitar player, Brian Setzer.  Gary North recently published a video compilation of his favorite players.  Gary had some interesting picks but they were nowhere near the best playing in the world. So let me get started with some of my favorites.  There is always room for debate in these matters but I believe that my compilation will get the reader much closer to witnessing the greatest playing of the electric guitar.

Let’s start with what I call the Pyrotechnic School.  Its founder is Eddie Van Halen.  If you think of a man in front of a wall of speakers commanding their awesome sonic power with a guitar as a hero, then any dictionary entry for “guitar hero” should have EVH’s picture next to it.  His school is characterized by lighting speed all over the fretboard, screaming harmonics, whammy bar gymnastics, volume knob manipulations, double hammer tapping techniques, and anything generally that squeezes new sounds out of the electric guitar in a musical way.  Here is EVH is his prime doing a guitar solo back when that was one of the highlights of any rock show:

 

One might complain that this was just self-indulgent parlor tricks.  Perhaps, but it is what the crowd wanted to hear and any VH fan would recognize the improvisations on the “Little Guitars Intro”, the intro to “Mean Street”, “Spanish Fly” and of course the iconic “Eruption” itself.  Eddie Van Halen also has the greatest catalogue of songs of any hard rock player.

Next is Steve Vai.  He first came to prominence as Eddie Van Halen’s “replacement”, playing with former Van Halen singer David Lee Roth.  Steve Vai is far from a Van Halen clone; in some ways he has taken EVH’s style to another level.  Steve Vai is a genius in his own right.  Here he plays "For the Love of God":

To watch genius at work, check out Steve Vai explaining his song, "Freak Show Excess":

The last of the Pyrotechnic School I will highlight is Joe Satriani.  His original album "Surfing With the Alien" was an incredible introduction to another man who has been a true original.  Here is "Surfing With the Alien":

If that doesn't satisfy, there's always Satriani's incredible "Satch Boogie":

 

Now I shift gears to the amazing psycho-country of Junior Brown.  He was a real inspiration to me in combining guitar solos with cool songs.  Here is one of his coolest, "I Hung It Up":

Finally I give you the man, Brian Setzer.  No matter what the genre, rock, country, jazz, classical or any combination thereof, Brian Setzer can stand out; he's a master of virtually all that has preceded him and a great creator himself.  His style is also very friendly and catchy.  Here he plays "Guitar Rag" and then "Sleepwalk":

There are many others that could have been included, Danny Gatton and George Benson to name a couple, but this should give anyone a super introduction to the best of the greatest musical instrument known to man: the electric guitar.

Here's the author's minor contribution to cool guitar playing:

History of Paper Money Fraud

Another bow tie wearer, Lawrence Parks, explains the fraudulent process by which we've ripped off by paper money.

Testimony of Dr. Lawrence Parks on the MT Sound Money Bill (HB 639) from Constitutional Money on Vimeo.

Save the World? Learn Economics

The recent death of actress Natasha Richardson has given the socialized medicine of Canada another black eye. After the original 911 call, it took four hours to get Richardson to a hospital in Montreal because Quebec has no medical helicopter system. "Our system isn't set up for traumas and doesn't match what's available in other Canadian cities, let alone in the States," said Tarek Razek, director of trauma services for the McGill University Health Centre, which represents six of Montreal's hospitals." In a brilliant analysis of what's wrong with socialized medicine, Bill Anderson points out that countries with socialized medicine systems are always relatively under-supplied with capital goods, like medical helicopters. Anderson's county of residence has 80,000 people and more MRI machines than Montreal which has several million residents. It is numbers like these that lead to the quip that it is easier in Canada to get an MRI for one's dog than for one's aunt.

Today, wealthy Canadians can simply bypass Canada's inferior health care system (provided they are not in the same situation Natasha Richardson was in) and get medical care in the relatively capitalist U. S. system. Were the United States to adopt a system like Canada's, health care would eventually be much worse than it is today. Wealthy Americans would bypass this new American system by going out of the country to a hospital that will allow doctors, likely refugees from the U.S., to cater to them. Thus the limousine liberals who advocate socialized medicine for the masses know that they themselves will not have to wait in line for health care.

The bigger question, however, is how does someone like Bill Anderson analyze a question of political economy like the provision of health care? Answer: He simply applies knowledge of economic truths to real situations. The fact that we have a system of economic knowledge to draw upon to guide us is largely the consequence of the stubborn adherence to professing the truth of the greatest economist of the 20th Century, Ludwig von Mises. With courage and at great personal and professional cost, he battled the destructive intellectual trends of the last century: historicism, socialism, fascism, interventionism, and any other doctrine which promised prosperity yet was bound to bring misery.

Although Ludwig von Mises believed, like Max Weber, that economic science is value free and should not be influenced by the personal opinions of the scientist, he strongly advocated laissez-faire capitalism. There was no inconsistency. Just as a biologist needs objectivity in studying harmful bacteria, he may be motivated to study the bacteria in order to save humans from the misery the bacteria cause. Thus von Mises had developed economics as "scientific theory without any thought of its political significance". Yet he passionately advocated laissez-faire economics because his critique of interventionism led to the conclusion that interventionist government policies subvert the free choices of individuals and always accomplish the opposite of what the policy makers profess to be the goals of the policy. Laissez-faire is the proper policy is so far as mankind prefers "life to death, health to sickness, nourishment to starvation, [and] abundance to poverty." For Ludwig von Mises, advocacy of laissez-faire was advocacy of civilization itself.

Ludwig von Mises wrote in his magnum opus Human Action "Economics deals with society's fundamental problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen." Can a simple person learn enough economics to actually make sense of the world and evaluate government policy? Certainly. Economics is not, as one might think from browsing through the requirements for a degree in economics from a typical college, the realm of specialists with knowledge that is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. Physicist Ernest Rutherford is reported to have said, "If a principle of physics could not be explained to a barmaid, ...the problem was with the principle, not the barmaid." So too with an economic principle.

Where to begin learning economics and becoming a citizen qualified to make sound pronouncements on the seemingly endless string of policy blunders by government? I recommend four books for beginners, although there are others. These can be read for free:

The Concise Guide to Economics by Jim Cox

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray Rothbard

Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow by Ludwig von Mises

Happy reading!

Milkcow Blues in Chandler, AZ

The lack of a capital theory is one of the many problems with mainstream economics. Capital, to most economists, is just a homogeneous blob that they assign a letter, like K, and then use in some Rube Goldbergesque equation, a process that they mistake for actually doing economics (at least Rube's contraptions worked). Real economists, however, have a conception of capital that recognizes its heterogeneity. There are stages of production, each results in goods; some are goods used to make other goods and some are the finished goods for consumer use. This capital structure is created and guided, if left alone, through a system of prices and ultimately reflects the demand of consumers. The upshot of this is that the ship of economy is guided by what Ludwig von Mises called "Captain Consumer". Any forceful interference by the government in the form of law or spending new money, will enable its favored consumers but only by thwarting the demand of other consumers and distorting the capital structure (spending tax revenue also distorts the capital structure in the same way). This kind of distortion can only last as long as the government money continues to flow.

The creation of new money, i.e., inflation, by the government thus creates one of the great ethical problems of our time. When the government creates new money, through the central bank (either by creating reserves for the banking system or financing government deficits), the capital structure of the economy becomes distorted. Certain ventures boom, like residential real estate. However other ventures, that would have been supported by consumer demand, are starved as resources flood into the favored venture and industries that support it. Inevitably the money spigot is turned down and these once-booming enterprises go bust--effecting not only those directly involved, but also many innocents in a radiating pattern of economic doom.

Chandler, Arizona provided a microcosm of this process in action. Chandler historically was a rather sleepy farming town, with dairy farms supported mostly by local grain fields. Its main claim to fame was Arizona's first vacation resort, the San Marcos Hotel. The gradual process of farms giving way to residential and commercial real estate development accelerated in the 1990s and was at a full gallop in the new millennium until the real estate bubble burst in 2008. Having been a Chandler resident since 1996, I had a front row seat. If, as Jim Rogers predicts, the farmer in the future will be driving a Lamborghini by producing food for an ever-hungrier planet, the Chandler dairy farmer got Lamborghini-rich in the near past by selling his farm to ever-hungrier real estate developers. Thus driving Chandler roads gradually became a less aromatic experience.

The ethical problem with new money and credit creation (which would be simple counterfeiting if done by a non-government entity) comes from the shotgun blast of pain that is suffered by parties not involved directly in the credit-creating event, specifically of late, the mortgage contract. In Chandler, many productive farms that could help feed the local population are gone, replaced by residential areas suffering from high foreclosure rates. The symbol of the real estate bust in Chandler is, perhaps, the bankruptcy of Fulton Homes. Its upscale development in Chandler called Fulton Ranch now lies well short of finished. If the future of the world food supply is as dismal as some think, we may miss the farms lost here in Chandler. Chandler is but a small example of the Federal Reserve's credit-induced distortion of the capital structure, the excesses of which need to be liquidated so that capital can be put into the hands of productive capitalists, serving Captain Consumer.

The Fed's credit-induced boom and bust calls into question the need for a government-sanctioned counterfeiter of last resort to encourage recklessness in the lending practices of financial institutions, bringing pain to the entire economy. The position here at Bow Tie is clear: END THE FED.



Post Script: Hear my witty song inspired by a now-defunct diary farm in Chandler: "Milkcow Blues".

Jim Rogers

One of my bow tie heroes, Jim Rogers, on our current state of affairs.

Empire Skit

Skit 1: Money

Skit 2: Taxation and Inflation

Skit 3: Empire

Dramatis Personae 

King Roosevelt II—tyrant

Sir Hamilton--advisor to King Roosevelt II

Duke of Delano—leader of King Roosevelt’s army

King Grover—honest king from neighboring kingdom

Sir Ludwig—advisor to King Grover

Duke of Cincinnatus—leader of King Grover’s militia

Thaler—honest minter now living in Grover’s kingdom

Messenger

Narrator

Scene 1

The castle of King Grover

Narrator—Here we find King Grover considering a problem with the neighboring kingdom of King Roosevelt I 

King Grover—This urgent message from King Roosevelt could mean trouble; it seems he’s unhappy about our merchants redeeming the paper money from his kingdom for gold.  It says that his King’s Bank is running dangerously low on gold and silver and is threatened with bankruptcy. 

Enter Sir Ludwig

Sir Ludwig, have you given any thought to the recent message from King Roosevelt.  The neighboring king is displeased with our merchants.

Sir Ludwig—First it should be said that if King Roosevelt were not fighting aggressive wars and living in extravagant luxury, he would not need to have his bank printing so much paper money.  Our merchants are simply redeeming what is owed them.  This should never give an honest merchant or king any trouble.  You, King Grover, set an example of just rule; you tax only enough to pay for the royal police and royal courts with only a modest castle, no permanent army, and a strong navy to protect our merchant ships from pirates.

King Grover—I do try to always do what is right and rule justly, but what are we to do if King Roosevelt threatens war?

Sir Ludwig—I do not believe it will come that at first.  I expect that the king will simply declare that the paper money of The King’s Bank will no longer be redeemable in gold or silver.  I have heard some reports that he has already done this to the subjects in his own kingdom.  Our main concern is what will happen to trade between our countries.

King Grover—What do you mean?

Sir Ludwig—When our merchants are no longer able to redeem paper money from The King’s Bank for gold or silver, they will probably not accept it anymore as payment for goods. 

King Grover—Then they shall need to use a different money, no?

Sir Ludwig—Exactly, our merchants and those from Roosevelt’s kingdom will need to do business with honest, redeemable money; the kind provided by honest minters. 

Close 

Scene 2

King Roosevelt’s castle 

Narrator—Here we find King Roosevelt, considering a problem. 

King Roosevelt—I thought our paper money plan could go on forever, but foreigners are ruining my schemes by redeeming our paper money for gold and silver; we should have known it would come to this.

Enter Sir Hamilton

Hamilton, have you given any thought to our growing problem. 

Sir Hamilton—We have already taken the first necessary measures; we have made the paper money of the The King’s Bank no longer redeemable for gold and silver for our subjects.  Further we have required that our paper money be accepted for all debts, both taxes and to private merchants.  We have also made it illegal for subjects to own gold and silver.

King Roosevelt—But what about goods that must be bought from other kingdoms?

Sir Hamilton—I will schedule talks, with your permission, between our ambassadors to work out a plan where the royal banks will agree to stop redeeming the others’ paper money for gold and silver.  This should allow us to continue to print paper money as needed and to buy goods from one another.  An exchange ratio between the paper money our kingdom and the paper money of other kingdoms will have to be worked out.  It will add some trouble to our trade with other kingdoms, but should remedy our problems.  In the long run we may have to consider using a single paper money among countries who will agree to do so.  This will create less confusion.

King Roosevelt—But who will be in charge of a such a paper money?

Sir Hamilton—No doubt the country with the largest army, that being us.

King Roosevelt—What about the kingdom of Grover?  He has no royal bank and can’t seem to control his minters’ redemptions of our paper money for our gold and silver.

Sir Hamilton—Such renegade kingdoms as Grover’s will need to be brought into line.  Our message on the subject should have reached King Grover by now.  If we can’t trade with merchants from Grover’s kingdom to buy what we want because they refuse to use our paper money, we will simply take it by force. 

Enter messenger

Messenger—Trouble at almost every branch of The King’s Bank!  The people in mobs are demanding gold and silver for paper money.  Reports of this keep coming in!

King Roosevelt—I thought you said this problem was taken care of, Hamilton!

Sir Hamilton—Once our army has killed a few of these “bank runners” who dare defy the law, order will be restored.

King Roosevelt—Messenger, send for the Duke of Delano.

Messenger—Right away your highness.

 

Scene 3

Grover’s castle

Narrator—Here we find King Grover considering his reply to King Roosevelt. 

King Grover—I believe a diplomatic solution to our problem with King Roosevelt is best.  War never makes the people better off and must be avoided.

Enter Sir Ludwig

Sir Ludwig—I’ve been thinking about our problem with King Roosevelt; peace must be maintained for the people to thrive. 

King Grover—Exactly, compose a letter to King Roosevelt and I’ll review it with you before we send it.

Sir Ludwig—Right away.

Exit Sir Ludwig 

Scene 4

Thaler’s new mint in the kingdom of Grover

Narrator—Here we find Thaler considering his new situation. 

Thaler—Things are much better here in Grover’s kingdom.  I can mint coins and take deposits of coins for safekeeping without competition from dishonest bankers like Dilutio.  King Grover requires all minters and bankers who take deposits of gold and silver to always have 100 percent of the gold and silver on hand.  I am worried, however.  King Roosevelt has made the paper money of The King’s Bank no longer redeemable for coin.  It’s no large problem as long as some money can be found that our merchants will accept to trade with merchants in Roosevelt’s kingdom.  But King Roosevelt will no doubt be threatened by any money that competes with his own.  He may try to stop the use of all honest money in his kingdom.  If he does this, most trade between our merchants and theirs will stop.

Scene 5

Grover’s castle 

Narrator—Here we find King Grover and Sir Ludwig going over a letter meant for King Roosevelt. 

King Grover—Excellent, we can only hope that King Roosevelt will see the error of his ways.  He needs the trade between our nations to continue as much as we do.  We are ready to defend ourselves, nonetheless; our citizens have always been great soldiers willing to defend their country.

Sir Ludwig--- I certainly hope it doesn’t come to war. 

Enter the Duke of Cincinnatus 

Duke of Cincinnatus--- The local militia commanders have been put on alert  

King Grover --- Very good, we cannot afford to take any chances.

Scene 6

Roosevelt’s castle 

Narrator--- Here we find King Roosevelt and Sir Hamilton going over the message from King Grover.

Sir Hamilton--- Confound that Grover!  He leaves us no choice but war.

King Roosevelt--- I am afraid you are right again.  The unpleasantness with “bank runners” has, as you predicted, been put down for now.  Perhaps a new war with Grover will rekindle the patriotism of our people. 

Sir Hamilton--- At least it will give us another pretext for rounding up unpatriotic citizens who complain about the banks.

Enter the Duke of Delano

Sir Hamilton--- Duke, as I, ahem, we feared, King Grover is being uncooperative.  Prepare to invade his kingdom.  In the meantime, shut down all trade across our common border and arrest any “pirate” who dares smuggle goods in from Grover’s kingdom by ship.

Duke of Delano---Right away.  But I must warn that the army and navy are both weakened by our past adventures.  Plundering others countries hasn’t brought in enough to pay for the cost ruling them.  We are having trouble finding new fighting men. 

King Roosevelt---Nonsense!  All of our conquests have paid for themselves and so will this one.  We’ll draft the soldiers and create the money we need.  See to it Sir Hamilton.

Sir Hamilton--- Right away. 

Narrator--- So King Roosevelt invaded Grover’s kingdom.  However Roosevelt’s kingdom, weakened by constant war and inflation, could not conquer the citizen soldiers of Grover’s kingdom.  After the war, the honest minter Thaler returned home was elected king.  The people of both Grover’s kingdom and Thaler’s kingdom had learned important lessons about trade, honest money, war, and empire.  If goods don’t cross borders, armies are likely to.  Honest money facilitates trade and keeps government small while inflated money weakens the economy and feeds a corrupt government.  Wars and empire do not enrich a conqueror; they, along with inflation, drain the life out of country and lead finally to disaster. 

 

 

Taxation and Inflation Skit

Skit 1: Money

Skit 2: Taxation and Inflation 

Dramatis Personae

King Roosevelt II—he needs money to finance his wars

Sir Hamilton—advisor to the king

Duke of Delano—leader of the king’s army

Thaler—an honest minter of gold and silver coins

Dilutio— a dishonest minter of gold and silver coins ready to help the king

Narrator

 

Scene 1

The king’s castle 

Narrator—Here we find King Roosevelt II considering a problem

King Roosevelt—What problems I have: my armies are running out of supplies and the people have almost nothing left to take as taxes to supply them.  If only I could find a new way to tax.  Everything I take from the people isn’t useful in supplying an army.

Enter Sir Hamilton

Have you given any thought to our problem supplying the armies?

Sir Hamilton—In fact, your highness, I have.  Remember I informed you that the people now are using coins made from gold and silver, minted by respected private citizens, as a medium of exchange.  These coins are so universally valued that you can use them to buy anything, even army supplies.

King Roosevelt—Go on, Hamilton.

Sir Hamilton—Well, although I’m sure you already thought of this, why don’t we just collect these gold and silver coins as taxes?  Then we can buy all the army supplies we want, anywhere we want.

King Roosevelt—Splendid!

Narrator—So things went well for the king, he collected gold and silver coins as taxes and bought all the war supplies he needed. 

Scene 2

At Dilutio’s mint

 

Narrator—Here we find Thaler asking Dilutio for the gold and silver coins in exchange for paper certificates. 

Dilutio—Your gold and silver coins are now loaded and ready for you and your armed guards to transport to your mint.

Thaler—Thank you, Dilutio.

Dilutio—I trust you, Thaler, not to tell anyone, but I hope no one else comes asking to redeem gold or silver certificates for the actual coins, I may run out of coins.

Thaler—How can that be, every certificate is backed by coins, is it not?

Dilutio—At one time, yes, but I’ve come up with a great way to make extra profits.  Instead of just charging a fee to store people’s coins in a safe place and giving them a paper certificate which they can use as if it were money, I now print more paper certificates than I have gold and silver coins and then loan them out at interest.

Thaler—Good heavens!

Dilutio—It’s a great scheme; I just have to make sure that everyone doesn’t come at the same time to redeem their paper certificates for gold or silver coins.  If they did, I’d be ruined, of course.

Thaler—Well, Dilutio, you can have your scheme.  I prefer to make an honest living.  I have only my reputation for the pureness of my coins and the redeemability of my paper certificates in coin on request to keep me in business.  I can’t risk my reputation on fraudulent schemes like your own.

Dilutio—But you’ll keep this just between us, right?

Thaler—I will for now, even while I advise you to abandon your scheme as soon as possible.

Exit Thaler 

Scene 3

The king’s castle 

Narrator—Here we find the king discussing military affairs with his top commander

Duke of Delano—Your highness, our last campaign was a success but we need more supplies and money to pay the troops if we are to continue on to victory.

King Roosevelt—I don’t see what more I can do, the people will revolt if I raise taxes again.

Enter Sir Hamilton

Hamilton have you any ideas on how we can raise more money for our next military campaign?

Sir Hamilton—Well, we could sell off some your hunting grounds, they would fetch a handsome sum.

King Roosevelt—Out of the question!  You have some nerve even suggesting it.

Sir Hamilton—Sorry, your highness.  There is one other scheme I have heard of, but it’s quite dishonest.

King Roosevelt—When have we ever had time for honesty here, except among ourselves?

Sir Hamilton—Fine, in that case, we could melt down all of the gold and silver coins, then add some base metal, like nickel, and then restamp them as coins with the royal seal.  Then we could buy many more extra war supplies without raising taxes and no one would know.

King Roosevelt—Brilliant!  Proceed with this plan right away. 

Narrator—So things went well for the king, he melted down all the gold and silver coins collected as taxes and reminted them with lower gold and silver content, ending up with twice the amount of money originally collected in taxes.  He bought all the war supplies he needed and no one caught on, at first. 

Scene 4

Thaler’s Mint 

Narrator—Here we find Thaler examining some of the new royal coins 

Thaler—So these are the new royal coins, minted, we are told, to protect us from dishonest minters who mint impure coins.  These coins don’t look or feel right to me.  I think I will melt them down and see how pure they are.

That evening, after melting down the royal coins

Ah ha!  So the king claims to be protecting us from dishonest minters who would defraud us while all the time it is he who defrauds us!  His royal coins have only half the gold they claim to have.  The king has been paying for war by defrauding the people.  No wonder goods cost more lately.  All of this new coinage is driving up prices. 

Scene 5

The king’s castle 

Narrator—Here we find the king thinking about what to do about unrest over high prices 

King Roosevelt—The coinage plan had worked so well until recently.  While the people seem to have no idea who or what is to blame for higher prices, they still expect me to do something about it; but with the war to fight, I simply cannot abandon the royal coinage program.

Enter Sir Hamilton

Hamilton, have you given any more thought to our problem with high prices? 

Sir Hamilton--Yes, I have actually.  I believe you will find my plan most clever and effective.  Perhaps you have heard of the minter and money lender, Dilutio.

King Roosevelt—Not until now, no.

Sir Hamilton—Well it seems that Dilutio, so my spies tell me, both mints gold and silver coins and loans out certificates that can be exchanged for gold and silver coins at interest.  Therefore there are more paper certificates circulating as money throughout the kingdom than there are gold and silver coins to redeem them.

King Roosevelt—So what does this have to do with the problem of high prices.

Sir Hamilton—Quite simple, we blame the high prices on Dilutio’s expansion of the paper money supply.  This draws attention away from our own practice of diluting the value of gold and silver coins.  Further, we can make ourselves into heroes of the people by taking control of Dilutio’s mint in order to make its operation honest again.

King Roosevelt—How can we convince Dilutio to agree to this?

Sir Hamilton—Again quite simple, for while we will give Dilutio’s mint the appearance of honesty by putting the royal seal on its coins and paper certificates, we can then print all of the paper certificates we want to pay for war supplies.  The whole affair will be so confusing that the people won‘t know what the problem is until it’s too late to do anything about it.  All of the paper certificates from Dilutio’s mint will be given as loans to the kingdom.  Dilutio will also be able to continue to loan his customer’s deposits and earn interest.  It’s a win-win situation; Dilutio himself actually suggested it to me.  If anyone complains, we will inform them that the good credit of the kingdom cannot be sacrificed; the loans must be repaid.

King Roosevelt—Pure genius!  Proceed at once. 

Narrator—And so Dilutio’s mint was taken over and the king got his money to pay for his war.  Soon the king found that Dilutio’s mint, now renamed The King’s Bank, could loan him money for just about anything he wanted.  Sure, prices in the kingdom would go up, but if the king didn’t spend too much of this new paper money, the small price increases could easily be blamed on bad weather, greedy storekeepers, or anything except their true cause—the king’s own spending of new paper money.  At least one problem remained—what if many people came to the bank to exchange their paper money for gold and silver coins?  Clearly there wouldn’t be enough coins and the dishonesty of the The King’s Bank would be exposed.  So Sir Hamilton convinced the king to outlaw all honest competition to The King’s Bank 

Scene 6

Thaler’s mint

Narrator—Here we find Thaler looking over the king’s latest proclamation 

Thaler—Well, this is the end.  I now must close my mint.  The king’s proclamation says that in the name of preventing dishonest men from making coins, all private mints like mine must be closed.  I guess the The King’s Bank dislikes having any competition when it comes to making dishonest coins.  Now all we’ll have is the king’s diluted gold and silver coins and his inflated supply of paper money.  The rising prices caused by this dishonest money are really just cleverly disguised theft by the king.  The king can pay for wars, reward his friends, and live in luxury, all at the people’s expense.  The people will be made poorer and poorer and never understand why.

Narrator—So concludes, for now, our sad tale of dishonesty in powerful places.  Justice may yet be served however.

Close

Skit 3: Empire