Senna: Revisited

**Author's Note: This week marks the 20th Anniversary of the death of Ayrton Senna at the San Marino Grand Prix. Given the importance of this event in the history of Formula 1, I felt it appropriate to revisit this blog post from 2012. I am linking to some videos of the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix race weekend. Please note that these videos are actual footage from the race and qualifying. They do portray the fatal impacts of two racing drivers.**

Recently, I went on Netflix and watched Senna, a film documenting the life and career, and ultimately, the death of, Three-Time World Driver's Champion Ayrton Senna. Before I go further, let me say that I've only watched Formula One since July of 2008. I've only known three different World Champions in my time. Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, and Sebastian Vettel are the only drivers to win the title since then.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Ayrton Senna could be described as the standard bearer of racing drivers. He and Frenchman Alain Prost, the Professor, dueled each other from start to finish. It began in 1984, when Senna piloted a lesser-quality Toleman car through the ranks at rain-drenched Monaco, only to see Prost beg for the race to be stopped...and race directors under Jean-Marie Balestre agree.

Later in his career, Senna and Prost would team up, although their professional animosity would not subside. Over the course of his career, Senna would drive for Toleman-Hart, Lotus-Renault, McLaren-Honda, and finally Williams-Renault. He would win 41 races, place on 80 podiums, gain 65 pole positions, and earn the World Driver's Championship three times. To me, the highlight of his career might just be the 1991 Brazilian Grand Prix.

In March of 1991, the Brazilian Grand Prix was the second race of the season. Senna had already won the first race of the season, but Brazil saw his car turn against him. The gearbox began to fail, gear by gear, until, with only 10 laps to go, Senna was wrestling a car stuck in sixth gear. He won, but afterwards had to be bodily lifted from the car. He asked reporters and crew members alike not to touch him, as he was in such pain that it was unbearable to even be touched. That action, to me, showed me all I needed to know about Ayrton Senna.

Inevitably, though, the movie reached the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. As it did, I felt a lump harden in my stomach. I knew what happened at Imola that year. It was, undoubtedly, the darkest weekend in the storied history of Formula 1.

Rubens Barrichello would crash hard on Friday, ending his weekend. He was feeling good about his car, so he tried a particularly tricky section of track at a much higher rate of speed than his previous laps. The car ran up on the steep kerbing and took flight, slamming hard into the tyre barrier and very nearly ending not only his race weekend, but his life as well. Barrichello would go on to recover and raced in Formula 1 for nearly 20 more years. (Video Here)

On Saturday, Austrian driver Roland Ratzenberger was killed in the final round of qualifying. Ratzenberger was the definition of a rookie, with only a single grand prix start to his name prior to Imola. Ratzenberger's Simtek car hit the inside wall very hard. The injuries sustained by Ratzenberger eventually led to him being pronounced dead at the hospital. Ayrton Senna, watching the live feed from his pit box, was visibly shaken. (video Here)

On Sunday, the grand prix began under a somber note. JJ Lehto, himself just returning from injury, found himself in a car that would not move at the start. Pedro Lamy was unable to avoid him and speared hard into Lehto's Benetton. Debris exploded into the air, with some of it clearing the catch-fences and injuring several fans. The race ran under a Safety Car for a short time, but finally returned to green, only to see Senna's Williams spear off course at the Tamburello Corner. It was immediately evident that something was wrong. Once Senna's car came to rest, he moved his head only a little bit, and then went still. (Video Here)

As fire marshalls and then health officials came to his aid, the race was red flagged. A radio communication erroneously sent to Erik Comas's Larrousse car saw the driver leave the pits. He later admitted that the sight at Tamburello was one of the most disturbing things he'd ever seen.

Prof. Sid Watkins performed an emergency tracheotomy at the scene, but later said that, once Senna had been extricated from the car and placed on the ground, he sighed once. According to Watkins, who claims not to be religious, it was the moment his spirit departed.

Here in the United States, NASCAR was in full swing at the time of the San Marino Grand Prix. While the oval racers were at the largest track on the NASCAR calendar, Talladega, news broke of Senna's tragic death. Dale Earnhardt would win the race, and during his post race interview, he would make further mention of Senna, even though the vast majority of NASCAR fans have no interest in Formula 1. (Video Here)

There was some controversy after the grand prix. Williams would eventually face several legal charges, including manslaughter. Due to the statute of limitations under Italian law expiring, the accused at Williams faced no legal repercussions.

Senna was honored with a state funeral attended by much of the Formula One community, and even Alain Prost was a pall bearer and eventually became a board member at the Instituto Ayrton Senna, a charity Senna developed for Brazilian children. FIA President Max Moseley would forego Ayrton Senna's funeral and instead attend the funeral of Roland Ratzenberger, claiming that the eyes of the world would be on Senna's funeral, and that he did not want Ratzenberger forgotten.

But the movie...the movie sticks with you. For days, it sticks with you. And I didn't experience the events in real time. The analog in my life is the death of Dale Earnhardt.

In 2001, the NASCAR season kicked off with the Daytona 500. On the final lap, Earnhardt was running third and defending the rest of the pack to allow teammate Michael Waltrip to win the race. As they entered turn four, Earnhardt tangled with Sterling Marlin and went nose-first into the wall. A few hours after the race, NASCAR announced that Earnhardt had died as a result of the accident.

As a 19-year-old racing fan, it was a shock. I was no fan of Earnhardt. In fact, I couldn't stand him. But you still don't want anyone to get hurt, much less killed. I sat there on the edge of my bed that night, trying to figure out what NASCAR would be like without the "Intimidator." He was a 7-time NASCAR champion. He gained the "Intimidator" nickname because that's what he was...Intimidating.

After Senna's death, Formula One changed. There was initial overreaction, but it smoothed out to the point that there was still exciting racing. And better yet, Formula One has suffered no driver fatalities since. An impressive run of 20 years now. NASCAR, similarly, has not suffered a driver fatality at its highest levels since Earnhardt's accident.

Both series made massive safety changes to the cars. NASCAR took steps to make its tracks safer, installing SAFER barriers and requiring drivers to use Head-and-Neck Support (HANS) devices. Formula One increased driver safety in the cars and re-profiled several high speed corners to rein in the speed and power of the cars. The circuit at Imola was basically redesigned. While safety was the main reason, the track lost a lot of its personality in the redesign.

All of this changed racing forever. But Senna, the movie if not the man, has stuck with me. Senna was a devout believer in God. His religion came to gnaw at other drivers. Alain Prost basically accused Senna of thinking he was invincible just because he believed in God. Senna admitted that he wasn't invincible. In the movie, Senna's sister claimed that the morning of the San Marino Grand Prix, less than 24 hours after the death of Roland Ratzenberger, Ayrton awoke and took his Bible, and read a passage that he would "receive the greatest gift of all, which was God himself."

Prof. Sid Watkins tried to get Ayrton to quit after the Ratzenberger accident by saying "You know, Ayrton, you've been three-times World Champion, you're the fastest man in the world." and "Why don't you quit? And I'll quit. And we'll just go fishing." Senna responded "Sid, I can't quit."

On Ayrton Senna's tombstone is the quote "Nada pode me separar do amor de Deus."

Nothing can separate me from the Love of God.

The movie sticks with you. The man will stick with you even more.

"I can't quit." - Ayrton Senna

A Modest Proposal: Eliminate Welfare, Raise Taxes, and Empower People

***Blogger's Note: This blog post features a guest columnist. My friend, Ryan Gilleland, provides a point of view on Guaranteed Basic Income and how it can affect the socioeconomic future of our nation. There will be an additional blog post in which Ryan and I discuss some of the topics he brings up in this article.***

By Ryan Gilleland

We, as a nation, are on an unsustainable path. The number of people who qualify for, and receive, welfare is on a constant annual rise. The amount of taxpayer money that the nation spends each year to fund these programs spirals higher and higher, yet we are not getting any closer to winning the “War on Poverty”. Non-Profits and Not for Profit charities are unable to shoulder more of the burden, and more and more previously well-to-do families are finding themselves falling into the poverty trap each and every year. Our elected leaders in Washington D.C. have been unable, or are unwilling, to put forth any reasonable policies that adequately address these rising concerns. Rather, they would prefer to spend the majority of their time wining and dining campaign donors and preparing for the next upcoming election to ensure that they remain in office and continue pulling in a sweet paycheck at the voter’s expense. The politicians in Washington do not work for us anymore, and neither do the corporations or special interest groups that fund them, but what if I told you that there was a way to change that? What if I said that there was a way to greatly reduce poverty nationwide and return power to the people while also simultaneously reducing wasteful, ineffective government spending and lowering our budget and debt?

First, a little about myself. I am not an expert in socioeconomic theory and I do not have a PhD. I am 32 years old, born and raised in the state of Georgia, and a graduate from Kennesaw State University’s School of Social Sciences with a B.A. in Geography. I am your average middle class American male who is fortunate enough to have a decent paying job and a group of friends that I can engage in conversations with where we openly discuss topics that range from politics, to religion, to culture and music and everything in between. My friends and I come from various walks of life and all have various academic, political, and religious backgrounds. This leads us to have some very insightful, and often spirited, debates on a very wide range of topics. One of the more popular topics that we debate fairly regularly is the topic of welfare, poverty, and the role of government therein. This has led to the development of many potential solutions to the socioeconomic challenges facing our country today, but I want to share with you one idea specifically that really got our group excited and that is the idea of a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI). This idea has really caught the attention of all of my friends on both sides of the isle as it really appeases the desires of both: reducing government spending/waste and providing financial aid and mobility to the poor and underprivileged. In this article, I will attempt to explain the concept of a GBI through a short Q&A series.

What is a Guaranteed Basic Income?

A Guaranteed Basic Income is a payment that is made by a governing political body to every adult citizen, at regular interval periods, which allows the citizen to meet their basic needs and live frugally on. The amount of money this equates to would be re-evaluated annually, but would always be enough to provide for the individual’s basic human needs (food, water, shelter, and basic healthcare) with a small amount leftover to provide for some amount of variance.

How is the amount of the GBI calculated?

In 1969, there was an Income Maintenance Programs report that was conducted by the United States President’s Commission called “Poverty amid Plenty, The American Paradox”, and in it they detailed a Basic Income Proposal stating that they “propose providing a basic income of around $4,700 per adult and $2,900 per child. So, for a family of four, it would be around $15,200 annually.” If we were to take that model and compare the value of a single dollar in 1969 to the value of a dollar in 2014, that $15,200 in 1969 would be the equivalent of $98,400 in 2014, with a single adult guaranteed $30,430/year and each dependent of an adult adding an additional $18,770. So, a single mother raising one child would receive $49,200 annually, paid out in bi-weekly installments, which could be direct deposited into the recipient’s bank account.

How does someone qualify for a GBI?

Once a person who is a citizen by either birth or naturalization reaches the age of adulthood (18 in the US), has completed high school (or an equivalency exam) and has undergone a course, either in high school or through a government-provided course, on basic personal finance, that person would be eligible to apply for and receive a GBI from the US Government. Any adults with dependents who are under the age of 21 would also receive an additional amount of GBI equal to the amount necessary in order to provide for the basic human needs of those dependents.

What are the benefits of a GBI?

Once you get past the basics of explaining to someone what, exactly, a GBI is, they inevitably ask two questions: Why is it better than what we are doing now? And, how do you pay for it? We’ll look at the second question next, but first, let’s look at just a small handful of the potential benefits a GBI would provide to society.

First, under our current welfare system, whenever someone who is receiving government assistance gets a job, they either lose or greatly reduce most of their welfare benefits. This means that a person can go from not working at all to working a full week without seeing any real increase in income earning. This creates, in some, a disincentive to work, which leads to increasing levels of dependency on welfare assistance. Under a GBI system, whenever someone got a job they would continue to earn their GBI, but would also earn additional income through their salary. This would remove the disincentive to work that exists in the current welfare system.

A GBI system would also create a reduction in government bureaucratic oversight. Our current welfare system requires an extremely large number of workers to ensure that legitimate claims are being handled and false claims are being identified. All of these workers are being paid using tax dollars. Add to that the fact that the current welfare system and its various rules, laws, departments, and agencies are about as easy to understand as a lecture on quantum physics and it’s pretty easy to understand why it is just not sustainable. As the number of people who need assistance grows, so does the number of people necessary to keep it working. A GBI system would greatly reduce and simplify the system by replacing nearly all of these benefits, which would greatly reduce the necessary administrative costs. You no longer need to worry about identifying fraudulent claims because every adult citizen would be eligible to participate.

In addition to reducing government administrative costs, a GBI system would also reduce the need for government regulation on the labor market. Policies such as the highly debated minimum wage will become obsolete with the introduction of a GBI because people will already be given enough money to provide for their basic needs without having to work. This would allow businesses of all shapes and sizes to lower their labor costs by reducing wages for low skill, part-time work without preventing an employee from earning a livable wage. That doesn’t mean that all employers would start paying nothing though, on the contrary, a GBI system would actually return a large amount of bargaining power to the worker by granting the worker a basic level of economic freedom that doesn’t exist today.

In today’s society, many workers take whatever jobs they can find and/or qualify for because they have to do something in order to make enough money to live on. This ultimately results in widespread unhappiness among the working poor and middle class, who are working jobs that they hate in order to provide, and also places most of the bargaining power in the hands of the employers. In this system, the employer has all of the power because, without the employer, the worker has no income and must rely on complicated government assistance programs in order to meet their basic needs and suffer the societal stigma associated with them. In a GBI system, the worker would be guaranteed to have their basic needs met. In this system, the worker is no longer in a position where they must accept a job in which they are unhappy, underpaid, or unfairly treated in order to meet their basic needs. This will allow workers the ability to leave a job they are unhappy at in order to pursue something that interests them more, whether it is a job at a different company, returning to school to further their education, learning a new trade, or starting their own business, without having to also worry about earning enough to put food on the table or a roof overhead during that transition, and every workforce study shows that employees who are happy are much more productive and valuable to a company than employees who are unhappy.

Overall, the GBI system would lead to lower, more stable costs over time as it would not be subject to the significant fluctuations that the current welfare system has related to the economy, since the GBI would paid to all adults regardless of whether they are employed or not. This also means that lingering unemployment, whether it is related to economic hardship or to technological unemployment, will be easier to deal with as well, again, because every adult will be paid a GBI regardless of employment status. Other benefits include an increase in the number of small businesses, an increase in the amount of charitable work, financial independence for all adults, and increases the average citizen’s faith that their own government has their best interests in mind. It’s really a win-win for everyone.

How do you pay for it?

This is the second question that almost anyone will ask when they first hear about this potential new system. After all, if we can’t afford our current welfare system, then how can we possibly afford to give every adult a basic income without them having to work?

Well, for starters, just by simply reducing and eliminating the majority of current government welfare programs, you would generate almost enough in savings to pay for the entire system. President Obama’s 2015 budget has $2.56 trillion allocated for mandatory spending, which is used to fund social welfare programs such as food assistance, Medicare, and unemployment. Part of that is to provide the benefits and part of it is to pay the salaries of the administrators. This amount would nearly cover the entire cost of providing a GBI to each adult in the U.S. as of 2011. By 2028, the GBI system will cost $1 Trillion less per year than the projected costs of the current system.

The rest could be made up by closing tax loopholes, especially loopholes regarding Capital Gains taxes, simplifying the tax code so that everyone is paying a flat percentage of any additional non-GBI earned, and by levying taxes on high-end consumption and financial transactions. Other taxes could also be used to provide for this system, such as the Carbon Tax, which also has added environmental benefits. Basically, there are numerous ways that we can fund a program like this because the program itself is much more stable and economically responsible than the current welfare system as it exists today.

Wait, isn’t this Communism?

Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production. A GBI system is not revolutionary (it doesn’t require a revolution in order to happen), it is not predicated on the eradication of classes, it does not require the eradication of the state, and it doesn’t require common ownership of the means of production. Additionally, this system does not involve taking from the rich and giving to the poor because everyone is eligible to receive this benefit, not just the poor. In short, a GBI system defies every possible definition of the word Communism.

Why give money to the rich? Why not just give to the poor?

The main reason why we do not exclude the well-to-do from being able to participate in the program is that it completely removes the problem of the unemployment/poverty trap (mentioned above) where removing benefits from people as they start earning more means they do not increase their disposable incomes. Including everyone also greatly reduces the administrative costs and simplifies the scheme overall. Another benefit is that, with everyone participating equally, cutting the benefit would affect the rich and the poor equally, meaning that you will encounter less of the rich vs. poor scenarios where the poor feel like the rich are okay with cutting the poor’s benefits because it doesn’t impact them equally. Finally, anyone who falls into the rich category would still be paying more in taxes than they receive in their basic income, so the net outcome would be the rich are still paying while the poor benefit.

Why should I support this idea?

Depending on what ideology you subscribe to, the answer to this question could vary.

If you are a conservative, then I would point to the failures of our current welfare society. Sure, the current system is not the one you would have liked to have, but it’s been here for long enough that people have come to rely on it. Removing the current welfare system outright would be extremely disruptive to the whole of society, but while it may not be able to be removed, that does not mean that it cannot be reformed into something more effective and efficient. The current welfare system is an immense and expensive bureaucratic nightmare. It is prohibitively complicated, it creates incentives for people to avoid work and remain poor, and it arbitrarily allows various people to fall through the cracks. A GBI system should appeal to conservatives because it requires much less bureaucratic oversight, it treats all people equally, it retains all of the rewards of hard work, and it trusts the poor to make their own decisions regarding their money.

If you are a liberal, I would point out that a GBI system would alleviate many of the inequities and inefficiencies that are inherent in market capitalism. You would see a rise in the wages of unskilled and semi-skilled workers due to the fact that those who are good at that work and enjoy it would no longer have to compete against workers who are seeking such jobs out of financial necessity. The wages of high-skill workers would begin to decline as more workers are able to take time to gain the skills necessary in order to compete for these jobs. Job hunters will be able to take the time necessary to find a job that is a good fit for them, and entrepreneurship will benefit as those wishing to start their own businesses will now be able to without having to worry about generating a living wage while simultaneously trying to survive during difficult initial years of starting a new enterprise.

If you are a feminist, I would point to the fact that a GBI would free many women of financial dependence on any man. Women could afford to get out of abusive relationships in which their abusive husbands are also their financial supporters. Also, women would not be forced into dead-end jobs to make ends meet and would be empowered to pursue their own goals as they see fit, no matter what that entails.

No matter what camp you fall into, there are aspects to this idea that everyone can get on board with, and while it does not completely eliminate the government’s involvement in our social and financial lives, it does its very best to reduce it as much as humanly possible in our world today. I highly encourage everyone to do their own independent research on the topic of a Guaranteed Basic Income. There are numerous studies involving this system that have shown very positive results in the areas that they have been implemented, all of which can be found online, as well as numerous lectures, blogs, videos and media coverage related to the topic as well. The only way we are going to be able to make a positive change in the way our society is run is if we take the initiative to educate ourselves on the matter and then demand action from our elected officials.

A Modest Proposal: Q&A Session

Basics of Guaranteed Basic Income

BD:         You say a single mother raising one child would receive $49200 annually. Seeing as the child is incapable of earning money in a market-based system ( as child labors laws have been rightfully enacted and most children lack the necessary skills to perform job-related tasks), then relating the money to the child is merely a means of twisting the monetary breakdown. The simple fact is the mother would essentially be receiving an effective salary of $23.65/hour. To call this a “Basic Income” is a tad misleading. I’ve been in the technical writing field for roughly ten years and I don’t even make that much. Even then, I was able to buy a house, buy a car, I keep my house stocked with food, I have luxuries like cable, internet, NetFlix, a computer, a video game system, and more, and I still have some left over. And that’s with 10 years experience in the field.

RG:         This is a straw man argument.  "A child is incapable of earning money" is not a completely true statement.  A 15-year-old can get a job and work and earn some amount of income and is still considered a "child".  Additionally, this amount of money is based on an inflationary model being applied to research that was conducted in 1969 and is being used as a baseline example.  The "real" amount would need to be calculated.  And yes, while this amount of money would allow you, a single male living in the northeast GA suburbs outside of the metro area, to live pretty comfortably, someone living inside the city or in another area of the country may not live as comfortably.

BD:         True, and it brings up the discussion about when is a child no longer a child. In some cases  15-to-18-yr-olds are tried as adults in violent crimes. In some insurance situations, people as old as their early-20s can be counted as children for the sake of parental insurance. Based off my reading of your article, I was assuming a child to be under the age of 12 or 13, as it was written that the single mother was “raising” one child. We could probably discuss/debate at what point the “raising” of a child actually stops, but pretty much every region/culture/society will have differing opinions on that. The next issue would be “living comfortably.” As I said, the cost of living is so different region to region that determining a level of comfortable living becomes difficult. Also, I can guarantee you that one of the conservative/libertarian arguments to this plan would question why it is the role of government to provide a comfortable living for anyone? (Just saying).

RG:         It shouldn't be viewed as the government is providing a comfortable living to anyone, because that is not really what is happening. What the government is providing is a basic level of economic freedom and mobility. Providing just enough to meet the most basic of human needs grants every citizen, rich or poor, the freedom to pursue their dreams/goals without having to really worry about where the next meal is coming from.  It also, for the poor who are currently on welfare, frees the poor to make their own decisions regarding how they spend their money.  This is also why I require a basic personal finance course, so that everyone is exposed to the concept of personal finance management. If everyone is receiving ~$1200 every 2 weeks from the government, they are able to provide their basic necessities and maybe have a little extra (some will have more, some less depending on where they live, but again, people now how the freedom to move from higher cost of living areas to lower cost of living if they want, even if jobs aren't immediately available.).  Again, this entire system is 100% about returning power to the worker and the citizen, and wresting it from the corporations and politicians.  When people have a level of basic economic freedom, they are not able to be controlled so easily. Businesses with poor working conditions, poor pay, etc will see their workers up and leave in search of better opportunities because those workers are no longer slaves to the low wages because they feel they have no real alternative.

BD:         While I like the idea of requiring a personal finance course, I wonder how effective it would actually be. The basics of economic responsibility are taught throughout school if one is so inclined to learn them. A focused course would provide greater clarity. But certain people are already apprehensive about greater individual responsibility. Some people, no matter how many “life lessons” they experience, simply refuse to learn. I used to work with a guy whose wages were being garnished by the state, and he was married with two kids, yet he still found money to buy cigarettes, beer, and lottery tickets. Like I said, some people just refuse to acknowledge the need for personal responsibility.

NATIONAL GBI

BD:         Establishing a national GBI is difficult, because the basic cost of living in North Georgia is different from the cost of living in metro Boston is different from the cost of living in Billings, Montana. There would still be a necessarily high level of governmental oversight to maintain the requisite distinctions among the regions to properly fund and pay out such a system.

RG:         Yes and no.  It would require some up front research in order to determine the average costs of living in various parts of the country, but, in the end, every person would receive the exact same amount of GBI. That amount would be a national average cost of living. So, no matter where you live, you get the same GBI as everyone else.  This accomplishes a few things: First, it cuts down on complexity and the necessity of extensive oversight. It also grants every citizen some amount of basic financial freedom and mobility. If a person is not happy with the cost of living in a state or area, they have the freedom to pick up and move somewhere else. If someone is not happy with the policies that are being implemented in their state or area, they can move and not have to worry about immediately needing a job.  This should result in politicians and businesses needing to change their practices in order to attract citizens/workers to their towns and businesses.

BD:         So everyone would receive the same GBI? If that’s so, then (to maintain our previous comparison) a person living in north GA would have greater financial freedom than a person living in Boston, if both receive the same amount of GBI. Just something to consider, since issues like this often bring up side-discussions of equality and fairness.

RG:         Exactly, and that's the point. It forces cities, businesses, states, districts, etc. to actually have to compete for people.  If cities want more workers, they will have to enact policies that attract those people, such as lowering the cost of living there, providing better education opportunities, providing better working opportunities, etc.  Now that every adult citizen has some level of basic economic freedom/mobility, they will be able to move to states/cities that take better care of them.  They aren't stuck somewhere because they have no savings and can't earn enough to save in their current job.  Again, this provides freedom to the worker, freedom to the citizen, to really make of themselves what they want, where they want.

BD:         Yeah, but the reason cost of living is higher in Boston than in north GA is simple: environment. It costs more to heat a house for longer periods of time during the year in Boston. Because of the more extreme temperatures of the area, infrastructure upkeep also costs more than north GA. Unfortunately, that’s not something that cities/states can control. Also, anywhere you have more people you will likewise have greater demand for necessities like food. Boston is much more densely populated than north GA, so demand is bound to be higher. Also, a sizeable portion of the population in the Boston area would be unable to grow their own food. That’s not really a problem in north GA. Given that more people are demanding certain products, the prices for those products will undoubtedly rise. Again, not something city/state can control without intruding into the business practices of individual merchants or corporations. Just things to consider.

LIBERALS & WAGES

BD:         Your paragraph about liberal views on the GBI is kind of unsettling. Do liberals really want the wages of high-skilled workers to decline so that the wages of unskilled or semi-skilled workers can rise? That’s not right. The reason high-skill workers have higher wages is because they’ve invested time and effort into honing their skills. Why should an unskilled worker’s wages go up? Doesn’t the fact that they are unskilled mean they shouldn’t be paid the same as a skilled counterpart? If you were to join the satellite communications industry with no prior knowledge, do you really believe you should be paid similarly to me, seeing as I’ve been in the field for over 5 years?

RG:         No, that is not the intent. It's not that liberals want high skill pay to decrease. Liberals want more people to be able to get into these fields. The reason high skill wages are so high is because there is not a saturation of workers to fill those positions.  As people who are stuck in a low skill, low pay job gain the ability to leave that job and pursue higher education, the amount of high skill labor should increase because people are actually able to go to school and get the training they need. With a higher % of the population becoming able to fill these positions, the demand will go down and the average salaries should decrease a little. This is a net positive for society though because our labor force is not keeping up with technology and if we don't do something soon, unemployment rates are going to continue to rise regardless of what ideological policies you put in place simply because technology is going to replace more and more low skill/no skill jobs and those people are not going to have the training to take on higher skill jobs.

BD:         I can see the value in this, but I think it also requires a refocus of our economy. We became a nation of mostly financial services a while back, and we stopped being the productive nation we once were. If we can recover some of that productivity then I believe that will be an asset just as valuable as your stated intent.

GOVERNMENTS & TAXATION

BD:         You state that government involvement is lessened by this plan, yet at the same time your stated means of paying for it require greater government involvement in financial/economic matters. Giving government greater rein on levying taxes opens an ugly door…just like the rhetorical nonsense we saw with the ACA, where we were told it was not a tax, but the Supreme Court ratified it under Congress’s ability to levy and collect taxes. The possibility for corruption in the taxation process is scary. The tax code as a whole requires simplification and streamlining. The Carbon Tax, and similar taxes, give me cause to be wary. There was a fear during the establishment of the ACA that people would be taxed for the groceries they buy, if they did not purchase healthy-enough options. Any kind of taxation that is so closely tied to personal habits is just worrisome to me.

RG:         I don't see this as expanding government.  This would close tax loophole and simplify the tax code so that everyone is paying a flat standard tax on all non-GBI (including job income, capital gains, etc). There are some models of this system that even propose a complete elimination of income tax and instead taxing High Frequency Microtransactions that are conducted by wall street trading bots at a fraction of a penny per transaction. Sure, government can levy other taxes to help fund programs, but that's nothing that they can't do now. The carbon tax was just an example of a way to provide additional funding.

BD:         I’ve long been in favor of eliminating income tax and developing some system of consumption taxation ( basically some form of Fair Tax). The trick to arguments like this, as with a statement I made above, is that both sides of the spectrum have championed key words/phrases/terms, but they’ve wrapped them inside these really nebulous definitions. “Fairness” is one such term, as many talking heads stress a system that is more fair, but they never define what “fair” means. “Tax loopholes” as you said, is another. It forces us to delve into the realm of “which loopholes in particular do we go after.” That’s why I favor a system of complete simplification and streamlining of the tax code.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

BD:         If we’re really concerned with environmental issues, there are other steps we can take that don’t require government taking even more money from the people. Mandate that every building in a city have a garden of some kind on the roof. This produces oxygen and recycles carbon dioxide. It can also be used to provide food stuffs to various charitable institutions. Mandate that parking lots/decks have solar panels on site. Work harder on limiting deforestation in the name of “progress.” Much of this can be done without greedy politicians reaching into their constituency’s pockets.

RG:         This is not really at all concerned with environmental issues and is in no way a point that I was trying to make in the article. This article is purely on providing a basic level understanding about what a GBI is, how it can be implemented, what benefits it provides, and how it would be paid for. That's it. Nothing more. I guess I shouldn't have mentioned the carbon tax thing at all because it seems to have completely detracted you from the true goal of the paper.

BD:         I wrote this as just an addendum and not really relating to the paper. My fault for not really clarifying that. I meant this more as a general statement on environmental issues, and not as a statement on your article.

Scheduling the Southeastern Conference

The SEC recently announced that they are forgoing the 9-Game conference schedule in favor of forcing the constituent institutions to schedule at least one team from one of the other power conferences (Big Ten, Big XII, PAC-12, ACC).

While I approve of this move in theory, the truth is it only affects four schools for this upcoming year (Miss. State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M). Georgia plays Georgia Tech every year. Florida plays Florida State every year. South Carolina plays Clemson every year. The biggest possibilities to come from this self-imposed requirement could be the revitalization of the Texas-Texas A&M rivalry…a feud that the Longhorns allowed to die because they didn’t want to associate with A&M any longer. Perhaps, though, this new rules leads to more interesting match-ups.

The SEC is already highly involved in kickoff classic games like in Atlanta and Dallas. There was talk recently of Tennessee and Virginia Tech playing in game in the infield of Bristol Motor Speedway. If the leagues play this correctly, we could see games that we’ve either never seen or haven’t seen in a long time. Alabama vs Oregon? Georgia vs Michigan? USC vs USC (South Carolina vs Southern Cal)? Florida vs Notre Dame? Stanford vs LSU? Oklahoma vs Auburn? The possibilities are myriad (not endless, unfortunately).

The SEC is doing all of this because of the nation’s knock against the conference for scheduling too many “cupcakes.” We’ve discussed these cupcake games at length in the past, noting that quite often the smaller school is using the payoff to fund a large portion of its athletic budget. A prime example involves a “cupcake” school that played Oklahoma State and Florida State, losing both games by a combined score of 139-0. The Savannah State Tigers, though they took quite a beating, earned nearly 20% of their total athletic budget off just those two games. That’s why the “cupcakes” like to play the big boys. It’s a nice payday for the school, it usually involves national exposure of some kind, and it also gives them a chance at quite an upset (Appalachian State beating Michigan; Georgia Southern beating Florida).

So what if the SEC, in an attempt to boost their supposed failures in the “strength of schedule” department, reached out to another power conference, like the Big Ten, to set up an SEC-Big Ten Challenge on one Saturday this fall. Here’s how I imagine it going down.

The rules are simple: The teams from the SEC play the entire Big Ten. The games would be split, with seven played in Big Ten stadiums and seven played in SEC stadiums. Schedule makers would be tasked with getting as close as possible to having #1 match up with #1. If we used last year’s final standings, these are the match ups we would see:

In Big Ten Stadiums:

Missouri at Ohio State

South Carolina at Iowa

Georgia at Penn State

Texas A&M at Michigan

Ole Miss at Northwestern

Tennessee at Purdue

Kentucky at Rutgers

In SEC Stadiums:

Michigan State at Auburn

Wisconsin at Alabama

Nebraska at LSU

Minnesota at Vanderbilt

Indiana at Mississippi State

Illinois at Florida

Maryland at Arkansas

That would at least be compelling TV. Just look at some of those match-ups. Imagine Auburn’s slash and burn offense against the stingiest defense in the game in Michigan State. Two historic programs battle it out as Georgia visits Happy Valley against Penn State. Illinois comes to Florida, Texas A&M goes to Michigan. The commercialization alone would be intense for both conferences.

NFL Win-Loss Predictions 2014

The NFL Draft takes place in a little less than two weeks. The league unveiled the 2014 regular season schedule earlier this week. The last couple years I’ve toyed with the schedule and trying to predict records. I’m usually way off. This year, I’m sharing those predictions with you, the readers at home.

What follows is a series of win-loss total predictions for each team, broken down by Conference and Division. Note, please, that these predictions are Pre-Draft, meaning that some things could potentially change. Note, also, that I’m lazy and probably won’t go back and change these predictions even after the Draft.

I could take the easy way and just predict the favorites to win massively, but if you’ve ever read my college predictions, you know that’s not my style. I’ll go out on a limb if there’s a limb to go out upon.

American Conference (in predicted order of finish)

AFC East

Tom Brady and his arch-nemesis, Peyton Manning

New England Patriots
Predicted Record: 12-4 (#3 Seed in the AFC)
I’m predicting the Patriots to open with a road loss to Miami, but to then go 12-3 the rest of the way. The Pats will strike a solid balance, going 6-2 on the road and 6-2 at home.
Losses: @Miami, @Kansas City, New York Jets, Buffalo

Miami Dolphins
Predicted Record: 8-8
The Dolphins biggest bright spot will be that Week One victory over New England. After that, the team plays sub-.500 football the rest of the way.
Losses: @ Buffalo, Kansas City, @Oakland, Green Bay, @ Denver, Baltimore, @ New England, Minnesota

Buffalo Bills
Predicted Record: 7-9
I’m thinking this will be a tale of two seasons for the Bills, as they go 2-6 in the first 8 games, then 5-3 over the last 8. Their key victory will be in Week 17, as they knock off a New England team that is resting many of their starters.
Losses: @Chicago, @Houston, @Detroit, New England, Minnesota, @New York Jets, @ Miami, @Denver, Green Bay

New York Jets
Predicted Record: 6-10
The Jets, under my prediction, will be 5-5 headed into their Bye Week, and then the wheels come off as they go 1-5 over their final six games.
Losses: @Green Bay, Chicago, @San Diego, Denver, @Kansas City, @Buffalo, Miami, @Minnesota, New England, @Miami

AFC North

Baltimore Ravens
Predicted Record: 11-5 (#4 Seed in the AFC)
The Ravens once again rule the AFC North. They’ll split the nastiest rivalry in football with the Steelers, but then suffer one of the more shocking losses of the year in Week 16 against Houston. Still, the Ravens will be nearly perfect at home.
Losses: @Indianapolis, @Cincinnati, @Pittsburgh, @ New Orleans, @Houston

Pittsburgh Steelers
Predicted Record: 8-8 (#6 Seed in the AFC – Wild Card)
That’s right, 8-8 is good enough for the last Wild Card slot in the AFC. Pittsburgh will be looking to return to prominence, and a good draft will help them on that path.
Losses: @Baltimore, @Carolina, @Cleveland, Indianapolis, @New York Jets, New Orleans, @Atlanta, Kansas City

Cincinnati Bengals:
Predicted Record: 7-9
The Bengals falter and miss the playoffs, which will hang even more pressure on Andy Dalton and the offense. Cincinnati will carry a 7-5 record into Week 14, at which point they’ll reel off 4 consecutive losses to end the season.
Losses: @Baltimore, @New England, Carolina, @Indianapolis, @New Orleans, Pittsburgh, @Cleveland, Denver, @Pittsburgh

Cleveland BrownsPredicted Record: 4-12
Poor Cleveland. You are truly a factory of sadness.
Losses: @Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Baltimore, @Tennessee, @Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, @Cincinnati, @Atlanta, @Buffalo, Indianapolis, @Carolina, @Baltimore

AFC South

Indianapolis Colts
Predicted Record: 13-3 (#1 Seed in the AFC)
If things come together the way I think they can in Indianapolis, the Colts are in for a big year. QB Andrew Luck is the driving force of an offense that should be more than adequate. Week One in Denver will tell a big portion of the story.
Losses: Philadelphia, New England, Washington

Houston Texans
Predicted Record: 5-11
This season qualifies as a bounce-back year for Houston after a humiliating 2013 campaign. A new head coach, likely a new Quarterback…things are looking up in Houston. The heart of the season won’t be that great, but leaving on a two-game win streak helps.
Losses: Washington, @New York Giants, @Dallas, Indianapolis, @Pittsburgh, @Tennessee, Philadelphia, @ Cleveland, Cincinnati, @Jacksonville, @Indianapolis

Tennessee Titans
Predicted Record: 5-11
Another rough year in Tennessee, as the Titans keep trying to gain traction in the division.
Losses: @Kansas City, Dallas, @Cincinnati, @Indianapolis, @Baltimore, Pittsburgh, @Houston, New York Giants, New York Jets, @Jacksonville, Indianapolis

Jacksonville Jaguars
Predicted Record: 3-13
We’re not exactly dealing with an improving situation in Jacksonville…now, should the Jags decide to take a QB, we may see some differences made. Until then, this team is a long way from playoff ready.
Losses: @Philadelphia, @Washington, Indianapolis, @San Diego, Pittsburgh, @Tennessee, Miami, @Cincinnati, Dallas, @Indianapolis, New York Giants, @Baltimore, @Houston

AFC West

Denver Broncos
Predicted Record: 13-3 (#2 Seed in the AFC)
Denver matches Indianapolis in record, but that week one showdown makes the difference in seeding.
Losses: Indianapolis, @New England, @San Diego

Kansas City Chiefs
Predicted Record: 8-8 (#5 Seed in the AFC – Wild Card)
Not the easiest of seasons for the Chiefs, and they basically back into a playoff spot, going 3-5 over their last eight.
Losses: @Denver, @San Diego, St. Louis, @Buffalo, Seattle, @Oakland, Denver, @Arizona

San Diego Chargers
Predicted Record: 7-9
Ten years since being drafted by the Giants and traded to the Chargers, Phillip Rivers has yet to get the Bolts over the top. This season is no different. I’ve got the Bolts going 1-7 on the road and 6-2 at home. In all fairness, their home schedule is a lot easier than their road schedule.
Losses: Seattle, @Buffalo, @Oakland, @Denver, @Miami, @Baltimore, New England, @San Francisco, @Kansas City

Oakland Raiders
Predicted Record: 3-13 (#1 Pick in the Draft)
While we don’t yet know who will be the top pick in next year’s draft, I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see Oakland making the call at #1. This franchise just cannot seem to put it together.
Losses: @New York Jets, Houston, @New England, Arizona, @Cleveland, @Seattle, Denver, @San Diego, @St. Louis, San Francisco, @Kansas City, Buffalo, @Denver

National Conference (in predicted order of finish)

NFC East

Philadelphia Eagles
Predicted Record: 9-7 (#4 Seed in the NFC)
Once again the NFC East looks to be an unholy scrum of teams vying for the top spot. Philadelphia will stagger away with the prize this year, all while barely going over .500.
Losses: Washington, @San Francisco, @Arizona, @Green Bay, Tennessee, Seattle, @New York Giants

New York Giants
Predicted Record: 8-8
The Giants reach the .500 mark, but go no further. Being 8-8 in the NFC is not good enough for a playoff spot. Eli will need some help if the Giants want to win the division.
Losses: Arizona, Atlanta, @Philadelphia, Indianapolis, @Seattle, San Francisco, Washington, @St. Louis

Washington Redskins
Predicted Record: 8-8
This looks like the year in which no one cares what Washington’s record is, as it appears the tide has turned on the team’s nickname. Redskins, while the moniker of the team for many, many years, has fallen under intense scrutiny.
Losses: New York Giants, @Arizona, Tennessee, @Minnesota, @San Francisco, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Dallas, their team nickname

Dallas Cowboys
Predicted Record: 6-10
Yet another failing year for “America’s Team.” Tony Romo and company just are not getting the job done. Frankly, though, the biggest problem with this team is the fact that the owner has final say in all football personnel decisions, a burden he doesn’t need to carry. In fact, that’s why God created General Managers.
Losses: San Francisco, New Orleans, @Seattle, New York Giants, Washington, Arizona, @New York Giants, Philadelphia, @Philadelphia, Indianapolis

NFC North

Green Bay PackersPredicted Record: 12-4 (#2 Seed in the NFC)
Aaron Rodgers will have the Packers ready for a deep run into the playoffs. Don’t fret over the 1-2 start, Pack fans. Your team goes 11-2 after the first three.
Losses: @Seattle, @Detroit, @Minnesota, New England

Minnesota Vikings
Predicted Record: 7-9
The old black and blue division is sure to beat each other up pretty badly during the season, leading to some not so pretty records. It’s enough for Minnesota to leap back up to second place in the division. The Vikes open the season 0-6 before going 7-3 the rest of the way. A new QB will take a few weeks to really adjust.
Losses: @St. Louis, New England, @New Orleans, Atlanta, @Green Bay, Detroit, @Chicago, Carolina, @Detroit

Chicago BearsPredicted Record: 7-9
Daaaaaaaaa’ Bears, da’ Bears, da’ Bears, da’ Bears. Hey, somebody’s gotta eat all those brats, right?
Losses: @San Francisco, Green Bay, Miami, @New England, @Green Bay, Tampa Bay, Dallas, Detroit, @Minnesota

Detroit LionsPredicted Record: 5-11
The Lions take another step backward, but depending on what they do in this upcoming draft, they could be primed for a big step forward next season.
Losses: New York Giants, @Carolina, @New York Jets, New Orleans, @Atlanta, Miami, @Arizona, @ New England, Chicago, Tampa Bay, @Green Bay

NFC South

New Orleans SaintsPredicted Record: 12-4 (#3 Seed in the NFC)
The Saints have learned how to be a good franchise and how to build a good team. Issues of cheating and bounties aside, these guys know how to play football.
Losses: Green Bay, @Carolina, @Chicago, Atlanta

Atlanta Falcons
Predicted Record: 9-7 (#6 Seed in the NFC – Wild Card)
The Falcons have several holes for a team that came 10 yards shy of the Super Bowl just two seasons ago. This Draft could help, or it could land one of the more dominating defensive players to come into the league in a long while. Until then, the Dirty Birds sneak into the playoffs at just over .500.
Losses: New Orleans, @Cincinnati, Chicago, @Baltimore, @Tampa Bay, @Carolina, @Green Bay

Carolina PanthersPredicted Record: 8-8
The Panthers step back a bit, having lost some of their offensive firepower. Their defense is good enough to keep them in games, but they’ll need to score more if they want to reach the playoffs. A 3-0 start will give Panthers fans false hope.
Losses: @Baltimore, Chicago, @Green Bay, Seattle, @Philadelphia, @New Orleans, Tampa Bay, @Atlanta

Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Predicted Record: 6-10
Like Carolina, Tampa lost some offense that they’ll look to replace in the draft. They need a franchise QB, as well. Drafting a QB doesn’t usually mean instant success. This team faces a murderers row in weeks one through six. If they can come out of that stretch at 3-3 then great…I think 1-5 sounds more reasonable.
Losses: Carolina, @Atlanta, @Pittsburgh, @New Orleans, Baltimore, Minnesota, @Washington, Cincinnati, Green Bay, New Orleans

NFC West

Seattle Seahawks
Predicted Record: 13-3 (#1 Seed in the NFC)
Seattle begins their Super Bowl title defense by going 2-2 to start the year. I think Denver sneaks out a win in Seattle in week three, then the ‘Hawks lose a tricky east coast trip to Washington in week five. They’ll go 11-1 after that, though.
Losses: Denver, @Washington, @San Francisco

San Francisco 49ers
Predicted Record: 11-5 (#5 Seed in the NFC – Wild Card)
The Niners will want revenge on Seattle, but will have to settle for a season split and a wild card berth into the playoffs.
Losses: Kansas City, @Denver, @New Orleans, @Seattle, Arizona

Arizona CardinalsPredicted Record: 9-7
Arizona is one of those teams that can sneak up on anyone. With the proper QB, the Cardinals can stretch the field and open up the run game. If their defense can hold them up in certain games, they could be a playoff team.
Losses: San Diego, San Francisco, @Denver, St. Louis, @Seattle, @Atlanta, Seattle

St. Louis RamsPredicted Record: 6-10
The Rams have to determine soon if Sam Bradford just needs more weapons around him, or if he’s just not their QB going forward. Bradford may be about to get the best WR in the draft, barring the Rams trading down from #2. Still, not enough to scratch the outer edges of the playoffs.
Losses: @Tampa Bay, Dallas, @Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, @San Francisco, Denver, @San Diego, Arizona, @Seattle

Playoff Picture

AFC

#1 Seed – Indianapolis Colts

#2 Seed – Denver Broncos

#3 Seed – New England Patriots

#4 Seed – Baltimore Ravens

#5 Seed (WC) – Kansas City Chiefs

#6 Seed (WC) – Pittsburgh Steelers

NFC

#1 Seed – Seattle Seahawks

#2 Seed – Green Bay Packers

#3 Seed – New Orleans Saints

#4 Seed – Philadelphia Eagles

#5 Seed (WC) – San Francisco 49ers

#6 Seed (WC) – Atlanta Falcons

Exploring Baseball's (Possible Future) Expansion and Realignment

Author’s Note: This article contains absolutely nothing but pure speculation about an issue that may or may not be on the radar of Major League Baseball. This article represents nothing more than the author having a bit of fun theorizing about the future of the game.

Major League Baseball (MLB) is comprised of two leagues, each comprised of fifteen teams spread among three divisions. In recent baseball history, the Houston Astros jumped ship from the National League to the American League, evening out both leagues at fifteen teams, and necessitating continual interleague play in the process.

I was swept up by the novelty of interleague play when it first began in the dark days of the 1990s. But after a while the shine wore off and we were left with a series of games in the middle of the year that were just as meaningful/meaningless as the next game. Such is the case of a 162 game regular season. Now, though, we have an interleague series being played at all times.

I’ve ranted before about the coming inevitability of the National League accepting the Designated Hitter as part of the game. The DH is used by the minor leagues. The DH is used in the All Star Game. The DH is used by the entire American League. But the National League still has pitchers batting. I’m all for a position player having to bat, but the future of the game doesn’t seem to lie along that path. For the record, the NL has seen several sluggers jump to the American League on long-term contracts (Albert Pujols, Brian McCann, etc.), knowing that they only need to play their position for a couple more years, then they can full time DH, just like David Ortiz does in Boston. If they want to keep up in this game-wide arms race, the National League has to ratify the DH for their league.

Beyond the mechanics of the game, I’ve heard rumblings in the past of the baseball potentially expanding. The most common version of these rumblings includes the addition of two teams, one per league, for a total of 32 teams, and each league splitting into NFL-style 4-team divisions. This would simplify the playoffs and eliminate the silly one-game playoff series between the current Wild Card teams.

The expansion teams are possibly the most interesting part of this equation. Where do they go? What cities should get an expansion team? Montreal had a team and lost them, but the city still has the population and infrastructure to support a team. For that reason, I placed an expansion team in Montreal in my little experiment. In my model of a 32-team Major League Baseball, the Montreal Expos make the list.

The other team is more difficult. Austin, Texas is a likely destination, as it is the largest metropolitan area in the nation without a professional sports franchise. However, Texas already has two teams within a couple hours of Austin. San Juan, Puerto Rico is an option, as well. MLB has played some games in San Juan, basically as a means of testing the market waters. Charlotte, North Carolina is an option, as it is one of the fastest growing metro areas in the nation…but it’s also in Braves country. Las Vegas makes the list, but any team in Vegas would require a domed or retractable roof stadium, as it gets awfully hot in Vegas in the summer.

No, I skipped all those cities. Instead, I chose a city that is a fairly large metropolitan area with a professional (NBA) franchise already in place. Putting a team in this particular city would bridge the gap between baseball’s most far-flung franchise and the remainder of the league. The 32nd MLB franchise, in my model, is the Portland Wolves (although the name is open for debate). Placing a team in Portland, Oregon makes travel easier on any team going to Seattle, and it opens up a brand new market for major league baseball.

In 1992, this happened.
Look how 1990s the colors are!

Then, in 1997, it happened again.
Look how 1990s the colors still are!

Now that the expansion teams have been recognized, it’s time for an expansion draft. Then we get to realign the leagues.

For the sake of symmetry I chose four division names based on geography. Each league will have a North, East, Central, and West Division. To keep the geographic breaks as clean as possible, two teams have to switch not only divisions, but leagues. For this experiment, the Baltimore Orioles move into the National League and the Philadelphia Phillies move into the American League. Both leagues have a DH, so it’s not like either roster would require major overhauls to make the move.

American League

The AL North would be made up of the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Toronto Blue Jays, and Cleveland Indians.

Making up the AL East in this new model are the Tampa Bay Rays, Philadelphia Phillies, Detroit Tigers, and Chicago White Sox.

The AL Central is now the Houston Astros, Texas Rangers, Minnesota Twins, and Kansas City Royals.

Comprising the AL West in the new model are the Seattle Mariners, Oakland A’s, Los Angeles Angels, and the new Portland Wolves.

National League

The NL North would be comprised of the New York Mets, Washington Nationals, Pittsburgh Pirates, and the returning Montreal Expos.

The NL East would still have the Atlanta Braves and Miami Marlins, though they are now joined by the Cincinnati Reds and the Baltimore Orioles.

The NL Central would be made up of the Chicago Cubs, St. Louis Cardinals, Milwaukee Brewers, and the Colorado Rockies (believe it or not, the Rockies are closer to these teams than they are to their current NL West mates).

The new-look NL West would be comprised of the San Francisco Giants, the Los Angeles Dodgers, the San Diego Padres, and the Arizona Diamondbacks.