Category: Uncategorized

With the NCAA championships starting tomorrow and the fact that I already made my predictions last week, there isn’t much left to write about for this season. As a result, for my last passion blog of the year, I want to give my team power rankings of the 2023 recruited class or next year’s rising freshman. In a sport that has a relatively small roster size, only 12-20 gymnasts per team, recruiting is an essential element to maintaining a successful program. In navigating a fine balance between bringing in gymnasts for development and their long term potential in addition to their immediate contributions, coaches must approach the recruiting process like advanced chess players. They have to identify their team weaknesses, strengths, and then make choices based on their best assumptions and vision for the team that may not come to fruition until many years later.

Additionally, coaches are constrained by budget limitations that are much tighter than in more revenue-rich collegiate sports like football, basketball, and hockey. Most teams have, at most, the equivalent of around 6 full athletic scholarships to be split throughout the roster in addition to opportunities for earning financial aid, grants, and academic scholarships. This is extremely different than a sport like football where large teams like Penn State have nearly 100 players on full scholarship in addition to team NIL deals that enrich the financial incentive to be on the team here. Consequently, coaches must carefully consider what gymnasts are worth investing scholarship money into and contemplate competition from other schools that may be able to offer more money. All in all, the the process of recruiting is extremely complicated and I do not envy the position of the coaches responsible for it in the slightest. When it’s all said and done, most athletes commit for reasons that are entirely out of their control such as their view of the team culture, their academic hopes, family connections, proximity to home, and subjective opinion of the university. With that being said, here are the top 5 teams that I believe got the best recruiting class of rising freshman for the 2023-2024 NCAA season:

 

#1: Nebraska

I think that most people in the college gymnastics community would agree with me as having Nebraska as the clear pick for best recruiting class of the year. When I was scrolling through Instagram in October and the best high school seniors were announcing their verbal commitments, I could not believe how many of them were to Nebraska. Their class is deep with stars such as multiple-time junior national champion Alex Nitache, junior world team member Max Odden, and current national team member Cole Partridge. Two of their other commits, Chase Mondi and Anthony Koppie, are extremely talented and will certainly be highly contributing collegiate gymnasts, even if they don’t have the accolades of the former ones mentioned. As competitive as the Big Ten is, look out for Nebraska as a front-runner next year to take on the top teams if they can actualize this talent come season.

#2: Illinois

As a team that did fairly well this year despite not having the strongest freshman class, Illinois will be looking to really make a run next year with the class they brought in. Their class features a lot of gymnasts that I grew up competing with in Florida like Alex Tapanes, Dylan Shepperd, and Garret Schooley. They also brought in two incredible pommel-horse specialists, Brandon Dang and Preston Ngai, to a program that is iconic for pommel horse guys. Illinois has easily one of the best pommel horse lineups in the nation and will need to replace the current Big Ten champion and Senior National Team Member, Ian Skirkey.

#3: Stanford

With the current talent that Stanford has, they wouldn’t have to recruit anyone and would still dominate the NCAA next year. That being said, the cardinals still have a very talented class that will look to make big contributions once some of their top guys graduate over the next few years. Their class is led by junior world team members David Shamah and Zach Green, both of whom are world class in the junior field on parallel bars and high bar. Fortunately, Stanford’s insane depth will probably allow these freshman a good chance to compete at the earlier meets next year to get them acclimated to the college environment and ready for bigger competitions down the road.

#4: Penn State

One great thing about our recruiting scene for next year is that we only lose one senior while bringing in four really talented guys that have potential for an immediate impact on our team. Our top recruit, Akseli, is from Finland and has incredible experience in international competition. One of his stronger events is floor which will fit really well into our lineup as this has been one of our consistently weakest events this year. In addition to Akseli, our other three recruits are really solid all-arounders that will give us some much needed depth that we lacked this year.

#5: Michigan

With Michigan going all out in recruiting last year with two of the best freshman in the country, Fred Richard and Landen Blixt, their class this year is certainly not as flashy but still very strong. With the number of all-arounders that they already have on the team, they went for the strategy of picking a lot of event specialists that are a the top of their class on a single apparatus. Consequently, while Michigan may have not gotten any huge names, their class blends very well into their current team structure and could enhance their team score tremendously.

 

My first experience competing in the B1G championships last week was absolutely amazing. I can without question say that I have never been to a competition that was more exciting and contained more energy! While the final result may not have been exactly what we wanted, we just got edged out by Michigan for a 2nd place finish, our performance was undoubtedly the best it has been this whole year. With only one fall and our team’s highest score  in multiple years, we could not have expected much more. Almost every other team at this year’s championship had a near perfect meet as well, making it by far one of the most highest scoring championships in recent years. For example, Ohio State’s 5th place finish this year with a score of 405 would have comfortably given them a 2nd place finish in last year’s championship. That being said, here were the top 5 team scores for last Friday’s meet from Columbus:

#1 – Michigan (Score: 412.400)

#2 – Penn State (Score: 410.700)

#3 – Nebraska (Score: 410.500)

#4 – Illinois (Score: 409.400)

#5 – Ohio State (Score: 405.500)

By incredible coincidence, these are almost exactly the final standings that I predicted in my passion blog last week except for Michigan and Penn State switched at #1 and #2. However, Michigan fully earned their win last week with an incredible team performance that was led by their freshman Fred Richard. Fred won the individual all-around and high bar gold medal at the championships in addition to being named the B1G Freshman of the year. His all-around score of 85.950 not only makes him a frontrunner to win at the NCAA championships next week, but easily makes him competitive on the world stage to win a medal at the World Championships in 2023 or in an Olympic final in Paris 2024. Michigan excelled at this meet on High Bar, Floor, and Vault where they had either the highest or second highest team score. Nebraska, Illinois, and Ohio State all had very solid performances as well, with little to no major errors, but their difficulty scores were simply not high enough to compete with Michigan.

With the B1G championships over, there is now only one competition left in the season: the NCAA championships. The NCAA championships will be hosted at Penn State and begin exactly 8 days from today in Rec Hall. The format will be a two-day competition with twelve pre-qualified teams competing within two different sessions on Friday, and then the top three teams from each session advancing to the team finals on Saturday. Just as I did for last week’s blog, I will make my prediction as to who I believe will advance from each session to the final day and what the final standings will be. Here are my predictions for the first session of competition on Friday which will feature Stanford, Nebraska, Illinois, Navy, Army, and Air Force:

1. Stanford (advancing) – Stanford winning this session is any easy pick given their team average is well over 10 points higher than any other team and they are the clear favorite to win the championship. Even though they may be resting some guys on the first day, I still expect them to comfortably win this session.

2. Nebraska (advancing) – With a very solid B1G championship that showed they are right with the best, its hard not to see Nebraska advancing.

3. Illinois (advancing) – While they may not have the most difficulty, Illinois has been incredibly consistent all year and are a clear favorite over the other teams in the session without something going horribly wrong.

4. Navy (not advancing) – While Navy has been very close to making the final in past years, I just don’t see it happening this year. They have struggled a bit this season from losing their senior class and I think the gap between them and Illinois is too big.

5. Air Force (not advancing) – Air Force has actually had a relatively good year this year but they are just too inconsistent to beat other top teams.

6. Army (not advancing) – Army has also had a relatively strong year but is too far behind in terms of difficulty to really have a chance.

With the first session out of the way in the afternoon, the evening session will feature Oklahoma, Michigan, Penn State, Cal Berkeley, Springfield, and Ohio State. Here are my predictions:

1. Oklahoma (advancing) – With a weak conference championship, expect Oklahoma to be hungry for redemption at NCAA. I see them coming out of the gate with a strong performance on night one.

2. Michigan (advancing) – Michigan looks very good heading into these championships but I think they will rest some guys one night one to put up a strong performance on finals night.

3. Penn State (advancing) – While I think we have the potential to beat both Oklahoma and Michigan, we will also rest some people on day one so we can have our better performance on final’s night.

4. Ohio State (not advancing) – Though they could advance with some mistakes from other teams, Ohio has had a pretty rough year and they certainly aren’t a favorite in this very competitive session.

5. California Berkley (not advancing) – Cal has also looked solid this year, but they unfortunately lack the talent to compete with the top teams.

6. Springfield (not advancing) – As a division III school it is amazing that Springfield qualified to the championships in itself! However, it is hard to see them moving onto finals night.

Given that my predictions are correct, the final day of competition on Saturday would be between Stanford, Oklahoma, Michigan, Penn State, Illinois, and Nebraska. It will certainly be an amazing night of competition that accentuates the hard work and preparation that each team has put into the season for peak for that night. Here are my predicted final standings for the team final:

#1 Stanford 

#2 Michigan 

#3 Penn State

#4 Oklahoma

#5 Nebraska

#6 Illinois

If you are able to make it out to Rec Hall next Saturday, I promise that you won’t be disappointed. It will also should be televised somewhere although I am not exactly sure of the coverage yet.

After months of intense preparation and regular season competitions, the climax is right around the corner: conference and national championships. Since last week was a “bye” week for most NCAA teams in order to rest up for the stretch ahead, I want to take this blog to give my prediction for the top 5 finishers at the B1G championship this week in Columbus. While undoubtedly my opinion may be biased, I will try to support each ranking with data from the season and my general intuition about each team’s strength coming into the meet. With that being said, here are my predicted rankings:

 

#1 Penn State

 

With Penn State confidently at my #1 position, it is no wonder I needed to include a disclaimer to my own bias. That being said, I truly believe that we are the most prepared team heading into this championship and it is our meet to lose. After a little bit of a rough start to the season, our commanding wins against Ohio State and Michigan to finish the regular have given us the momentum and confidence necessary to put up a strong performance. Statistically, our regular season score average ranks us below most other B1G teams but I think that more than anything reflects our lack of competitions with generous scoring. Both the University of Nebraska and Oklahoma are known for hosting meets that produce season high scores, and every other B1G team besides us had the opportunity to compete at either of those schools this year. Nonetheless, our capacity to reach this top position will rely on strong performances on parallel bars and rings; arguably our two strongest events where we had numerous regular season All Americans. Consistency will also be critical to our success. As a team with one of the highest difficult scores, or “ceiling score”, being able to avoid major mistakes and execute well on every routine will put us in a great spot to grab the B1G title.

#2 Michigan

As the regular season B1G champions and outright winner of the previous two B1G championships, it is no surprise that Michigan is the favorite to win this one. While they have lost significant depth, leadership, and poise from a strong graduating senior class, they have used this season as an opportunity to rebuild and give experience to one of the most talented freshman classes in the country. Two of their freshman, Fred Richard and Landon Blixt, are senior national team members that, despite having some rough competitions this year, seem to be becoming more and more acclimated to the atmosphere of college gymnastics and ready to peak come championship season. Michigan is another team with a relatively high potential difficult, or “ceiling” score, which gives them a great advantage over other teams if they are able to remain consistent and execute. Another unique advantage for Michigan is that they are very strong on the horizontal bar, an event that is traditionally very risky and on the lower-end of scoring relative to other events. Thus, this may be an event where they could pick up 2-3 points on other teams. In a championship final, this could easily be the difference that is able to put them atop the podium.

#3: Nebraska

In contrast to Penn State and Michigan, Nebraska is a team that does not have a particularly high “ceiling” score. In fact, their team strategy strongly emphasizes execution and doing routines that minimize the potential for major mistakes and falls. While Nebraska certainly has had some very strong performances this year, they have also had an equal number of very bad meets, such as getting beat by Illinois in a regular season matchup by over 10 points. Their inconsistency is reflected in an over 20-point swing between their lowest and highest scores on the season, a difference that is attributable to far more than just judging. Thus, I put Nebraska on the middle of this list because I think it is certainly possible to take the B1G title if they have a great day and others do not. They have very talented gymnasts that are incredibly clean and dynamic in their gymnastics, leading to high scores when they perform well. However, I think that their lack of consistency and low difficulty makes their chance of success dependent on too many variables that have to align in their favor.

#4: Illinois

While most rankings would probably have Illinois higher, as they were in fact only a few points away from taking the regular season title from Michigan, I just do not think they are the same caliber team as Penn State or Michigan. Like Nebraska, their difficulty score is not very high and is especially low on rings and high bar. While Illinois has had some very impressive team scores this year, these were at meets where they had nearly perfect performances and I am just skeptical of the chances of such an outstanding performance happening again. They are also struggling with some major injuries and will rely significantly on underclassmen who do not have the experience of competing in the pressure that comes with a conference championship final. That being said, I have a lot of respect for Illinois, especially in being able to have this type of season with their head coach leaving at the beginning of the year, and would not be surprised if they are able to put up a much higher finish than I expect.

#5: Ohio State

Despite being the home team at this B1G championship, I sadly do not see the Buckeyes with a very good chance of high-placing finish. With the worst conference record in the B1G, they have struggled to consistently display high performances and have had numerous instances of “falling apart” at the end of meets. While they are somewhat in “rebuilding mode” with a very high reliance on their freshman class, I think that Ohio State is in a much better position for success in future seasons than the one present. That being said, the energy of being at home in the Covelli Center will certainly add fuel to the fire and could lead anything to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

Civic Issue Brief Pitch Introduction

With the nature of the modern economy evolving towards high-skilled and technical work, the attendance of a higher education institution following secondary school has become the new societal paradigm. With such a shift away from apprenticeships, family businesses, and other on-the-job training as being the primary prerequisites to entering the labor force, the demand for college, and consequently its price has skyrocketed. Without  reciprocating policy at the federal or state level to secure additional public funds to neutralize this effect and maintain the general affordability of college, the average student is now tasked with an immensely important financial decision at a young age. In fact, a recent survey from Inside Higher Ed and College pulse found that 1550 of the 2000 undergraduate students surveyed would take on some form of student debt following graduation (Ezarik). Yet, it is demonstrable that this same generation of college students is overwhelmingly underprepared to deal with the responsibilities incurred when taking on this debt and relatively uneducated on the topic of financial literacy in general. For instance, the same survey found that 20% don’t have an idea of how much debt they’ll have at all and 50% still couldn’t give an estimate of their approximate monthly payment (Ezarik). When analyzing other aspects of financial security, the results were similarly poor. Around a quarter of students noted experiencing some form of housing or food insecurity more than half suggested some degree of worry about having to discontinue college if a large unexpected expense occurred.

While some may be quick to identify the root of these problems with socioeconomic inequality, insufficient public spending, or even blame the omnipresent cultural pressure to attend college regardless of individual factors, I think that a more simple outlook suffices to address the problem. Simply, young people are not adequately trained in the wide-range of financial skills necessary to be secure, free, and successful in the modern economy. Without even considering more complex topics such as long-term investment options, retirement plans, insurance, and taxes, most students are not even familiar with basic ideas like building a budget and creating an emergency fund. This is evident in survey data collected by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) which revealed a widespread lack of competency in answering basic financial literacy questions, and the average respondent only scoring a 33% (Bidwell). Clearly, this is an immense problem that demands a simple solution: increase institutional mandated courses on economics and financial literacy for students. While the more abstract and complex ideas like the systemic flaws in the American economic system are debated at large at media establishments and political thinktanks, it seems that the concrete and practical solutions are overlooked. Thus, I believe that it is incumbent upon the Penn State administration to ensure that greater institutional support is put towards advancing financial competency within the student body. While there are resources available such as the Sokolov-Miller Family Financial and Life Skills Center, the utility of such resources may only be recognized by the already financially-minded students. Such a feedback loop keeps the amazing benefits of financial literacy sectioned to a small segment of the student population. Through the introduction of mandated education seminars, such as a financial literacy component to the required “first year seminar” course, Penn State may easily improve the capacity for its student body to reach its long term financial goals. They may also ensure that those who receiving their well-earned degree from the university have the opportunity to advance their skills and make a positive impact on their communities without being unnecessarily burdened by debt or financial insecurity.

 

Works Cited

Survey: College Students Need Help with Financial Literacy, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/02/25/survey-college-students-need-help-financial-literacy.

“Add to Favorites.” NASFAA, https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/14855/Survey_Incoming_College_Students_Struggle_With_Basic_Financial_Literacy.

 

As hard as it is to believe, last weekend rapped up the BIG 10 regular season and its only a week until the BIG 10 Championships begin in Columbus! While my teammates and coaches have frequently echoed the cliché “it’ll be over before you know it”, I could have never imagined the season go by this fast. As a junior elite gymnast, I can recall the season stretching on for seemingly forever with only a few major invitational competitions throughout the year that required highly specified training cycles. The environment is completely different in college with competitions every weekend that leave for new skill and routine development and very little time to recover in between competitions. For any athlete making the transition into Division I athletics, I would certainly consider this the greatest challenge and adjustment. Being required to perform at an incredibly high level every weekend, or even more frequently in other sports, while balancing travel, academics, and getting the necessary rest and recovery is incredible taxing. Nonetheless, I am grateful for every second of it and cannot wait to end the season on a high note with great team finishes at the BIG 10 and NCAA championships!

As last week was the last week in the regular BIG 10 season, the winner of the “regular season BIG 10 championship” was finalized. While it was unfortunately not Penn State, our T-2nd place finish in the standings certainly reflects a great effort throughout the season, especially considering the challenges and obstacles we have faced. For our last BIG 10 meet, we went on the road to Columbus to face both the Buckeyes and the Oklahoma Sooners in a tri-meet. Despite having to rest a few of our top guys and rely more on guys who haven’t had much experience this year, we were able to edge out Ohio State by a score of 404.5 – 397.6. The victory was even more exciting considering the fact that we were down by over 2 points at the halfway point of the meet due to a rough rotation on the pommel horse. Our comeback was mounted by a stellar parallel bar rotation that yielded a season high score of 70.100. During that rotation, Ohio State was on the high bar, naturally a very risky event, and had to count a collection of falls that brought their rotation score only to a 62.9. This over seven point swing gave us a comfortable lead over Ohio State that we maintained throughout the final rotation on high bar. The Oklahoma Sooners also had an outstanding performance this meet with high scores on floor, vault, and parallel bars pushing them to a team score 410.0. While Oklahoma’s performance did not count against us in the standings, as it was still technically an intraconference meet, it was nonetheless nice to see how we match up against one of the top teams in the country heading into championship season. With only a five point margin of separation at this meet, I am inclined to believe that having all of our guys rested and in peak condition by the NCAA championships could easily put us in striking distance of a podium finish.

On the other side of the BIG 10, the Michigan Wolverines took on the Illini in Ann Arbor to decide the BIG 10 regular season champion. Just like our meet, the Wolverines were actually down by a considerable margin at the halfway point and fought back hard to grab the regular season crown with a 411-405 win. Their impressive final event high bar rotation combined with multiple falters by Illini gymnasts secured them the victory, one again demonstrating the importance of consistency and confidence under pressure in gymnastics. The meet was also won without the help of the Wolverines’ two best all arounders, Landen Blixt and Frederick Richard, both of whom were competing in international competitions as apart of their assignments on the Senior National Team. Going into the BIG 10 Championships next week, while Michigan is certainly the favorite, I believe that it is truly any teams competition to win. Ultimately, I believe it will come down to what team, regardless of what injuries or lineup adjustments they have to make, is able to demonstrate the most consistency and refinement. As my coaches have preached to us frequently at practice, the difficulty (potential) scores of most BIG 10 teams is fairly even, it is the execution score that must be emphasized to win championships. Thus, our next few weeks of practice are highly focused on perfecting the details and making small adjustments while putting as little strain on bodies as possible to tapper us for the intense stretch ahead.

Introduction to Global Trade

The nature of the “global economy” has certainly evolved dramatically over time. While nations have traded goods and services to some extent for most of human history, there has been no period in history where nations exhibit such economic interdependence as the present. Industrialization, technological innovation, and globalization have made trade easier and more abundant than ever. To consider the profound effect that economic globalization has  on our everyday lives, one needs only to look carefully at a few of the consumer goods around them. For instance, the tags on your t-shirt and sweatpants could indicate that the products were manufactured in India, Taiwan, or China (these are just a few common examples) even though the company that sells them is probably American-based. On the other hand, there are also numerous examples of products that are actually produced and sold by foreign companies, and thus must be imported to the United States. While there are examples of many American car manufacturers like Ford, Tesla, Chrysler, and Chevrolet, a considerable portion of the market is dominated by foreign vehicles. For example, BMW and Mercedes-Benz are extremely popular car brands that are headquartered in Germany, while Toyota and Hyundai are headquartered in Japan and South Korea, respectively.  Additionally, the immersion of international products into the domestic consumer economy extends beyond clothing and automobiles, and is prevalent in electronics, appliances, food, and pharmaceuticals among many others sectors.

Why Trade?

While it is demonstrable that trade has become an integral part of our domestic economy and thus civic life, an important question remains: why trade in the first place? Discussions of the theoretical advantages of trade began to surface contemporary with the emergence of classical economics and received major contributions from the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Smith first deduced how the ideas of specialization and division of labor could be utilized for prosperity in the domestic economy. He used an analogy with pins to convey how productivity became exponentially greater when individuals performed narrowly-specified tasks within a firm/business rather than attempting to produce by themselves. Smith asserted that “ten workers could produce 48,000 pins a day if each of the eighteen specialized tasks was assigned to particular workers; but absent the division of labor, a worker would be lucky to produce one pin per day” (Concise Encyclopedia of Economics). Ricardo then took this principle and amplified it too a broader picture that considered how nations could achieve greater prosperity through comparative advantage. The principle of comparative advantage supposes that certain countries, due to the nature of their factors of production, may have varying opportunity costs (the relative value of production compared to producing another good) compared to other nations. Thus, to achieve maximal efficiency, the nations with a low relative opportunity cost for a certain good should specialize in producing that good and trade with other nations for goods where there opportunity cost is higher. While this may sound like economic jargon, a simplified real-world example demonstrates the purity and efficacy of this principle. The United States, likely due to our abundant supply of engineers, and advanced industrial infrastructure, has an advantage in aviation part manufacturing and thus exports these goods to other countries. On the other hand, we are limited by our geography and climate to grow certain foods abundantly like avocados, sugar, and tropical fruits, and thus we must import these from other countries. By allocating more resources to aviation manufacturing, that would otherwise be diverted to inefficient raw material production if we had to produce everything ourselves, we are now a much richer nation in terms of total goods and services.

Framing the Controversy Surrounding Trade : Integration vs Isolationism

While the theoretical advantages of trade are self-evident, it becomes a much more complex issue in practice. Trade discussion provoke intense political attitudes either towards globalization and economic integration or nationalism and isolationism. While isolationism historically has typically meant an aversion for intervention in foreign affairs, it may also be applied to the arena of trade policy. For instance, recent President Trump was a considerable isolationist in economic policy and attacked United States involvement in multilateral trade agreements where he believed other countries weren’t paying their fair share. Other politicians, such as Joe Biden, have expressed more extensive support for global economic integration, as evident with his 2011 statement that “A rising China will fuel economic growth and prosperity and it will bring to the fore a new partner with whom we can meet global challenges together” (White House Archives). The controversy of whether the United States should be more or less involved in the global economy has manifested itself into two main policy outcomes of which I would like to explore deeper: involvement in NAFTA and the WTO.

Policy #1: NAFTA

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted in 1994 and sought to end trade barriers between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The bilateral agreement with Mexico was especially important since Mexico has become a major trade partner with the U.S and the 2nd greatest market for American exports, purchasing nearly $300 billion of American goods and services in 2018 (International Trade Administration). However, some people have strong opinions against NAFTA, mainly due to the significant loss of manufacturing jobs that followed its initiation. This is evident with employment data that shows a 29% drop in manufacturing employment, from 16.8 million to 12.1 million jobs, between 1993 and 2016 (Floyd). As introduced earlier, this is due to the fact that eliminating trade barriers made American manufacturing firms less competitive with Mexican firms that had a comparative advantage in this sector. Thus, while NAFTA certainly had positive overall effects on GDP for Canada, Mexico, and the United States, there were certainly groups that were winners as well as losers.

Policy #2: WTO

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was created shortly after NAFTA in 1995 and is by far the largest supranational trade organization in the world. It contains 164 member states and may be second only to the United Nations for its sovereignty and discretionary authority over individual nation-states. Broadly, the WTO seeks to eliminate protectionism and trade barriers among its member states and foster an environment conducive to economic liberalization and prosperity. However, some criticize the WTO for failing to consistently enforce its principles on all its member nations and routinely allow nations such as China to “cheat” in the realm of international economics without reproach. For example, Stephen Ezell of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation notes that, “China’s state-led economic model, driven heavily by innovation-mercantilist practices, stands at odds with the foundational WTO principles of pursuing market-oriented policies while providing non-discrimination, national treatment, and reciprocity” (Ezell). Such unpunished dishonesty in the realm of international trade is what led Donald Trump to issue his own tariffs on Chinese exports, only to bring hurt to American consumers, farmers, and manufacturers in the process. While many disagree with his methodology, there is much consensus with Trump’s position that China has avoided playing by the rules for too long and their disregard for intellectual property, state dominated economy, and abuse of multilateral agreements should give rise to retaliation.

 

Works Cited

 

“Division of Labor and Specialization.” Econlib, 7 Aug. 2021, https://www.econlib.org/library/topics/highschool/divisionoflaborspecialization.html.

 

 

 

This last week of college gymnastics included numerous key head-to-head challenges that undoubtedly expressed which teams are either gaining or losing momentum heading into the final stretch before postseason. For my team, this week was crucial in not only securing a top spot in the power rankings, but regaining our confidence and focus after a few rough weeks. Furthermore, the importance was exacerbated by the fact that we were facing the Michigan Wolverines at home, the defending BIG 10 champions and tentatively ranked 3rd best team in the country. While Michigan has historically demonstrated dominance in the BIG 10 and began the year with a 2-0 interconference record, my team knew that it was our meet to lose.

For our first time in the season, we finally had a meet where all are best guys would be able to compete together. It seemed as though that in every previous week, at least one of our best gymnasts was plagued with an illness or injury that either inhibited their performance or took them out entirely. Moreover, we understood that we needed to make a tactical adjustment in our routine difficulty as a team; the failures of the previous weeks conveyed to both ourselves and our coaching staff that the routines we were competing were simply too difficult. Quantitative analysis from our associate head coach revealed that even slight adjustments to some routine constructions could greatly minimize our risk for huge mistakes while still keeping our difficulty (maximum potential score) above that of most other collegiate teams. Thus, we were ready to take on Michigan as the most prepared and refined team we had been all season, eager for something to prove after a mid-season slump. While we certainly did not have the best meet, we still obtained a decisive victory over Michigan by a six-point margin (407.6 – 401.45). Much credit for our victory performance is due to our phenom sophomore Josh Karnes, who easily won the individual all-around competition for the day in addition to claiming multiple event titles. Even as Michigan’s performance in this dual meet was certainly not indicative of their typical team caliber, it further demonstrates the unpredictable nature of gymnastics as a sport. On any given day, even a competition between two teams that are not so evenly matched can go either way depending on who performs and who doesn’t.

On the other side of the BIG Ten, the Ohio State Buckeyes also pulled out an upset at home against the Illini after a disappointing loss on the road to Michigan the previous week . Despite being down over 8 points at the halfway mark of the competition, the Buckeyes were able to put up nearly flawless high bar and parallel bars rotations. Ironically enough, the Buckeye gymnast that secured the win as the last high bar competitor, Kazuki Hayashi, is a friend of mine who actually went to my high school and trained at my club gym. His sky high releases and impeccable form certainly had the crowd on their feet at the Covelli Center in Columbus.

The last notable competition of the week was a tri-meet matchup between Stanford, Oklahoma, and William and Mary in Norman. In possibly the biggest surprise this season, the 3x national champion Stanford Cardinals were defeated by the Sooners in a high scoring matchup that finished with the Sooners on top by over 5 points. As characteristic for Oklahoma, their performance consisted of strong, steady performances across the board with little to no falters. Thus, despite the fact that Stanford has significantly more talent and harder routines on paper, their underwhelming performance showed that they are in fact beatable. Stanford will look to rebound from this loss and come back to full strength for the post-season where they will hopefully have additional help from World Championship team members Brody Malone and Colt Walker, both of which have yet to compete this season to rest and recover from nagging injuries.

Introduction : The Utility of Fiscal Policy

As I touched upon in the last blog, the United States government utilizes three main branches of policy to promote a stable and flourishing economy: monetary policy, fiscal policy, and international trade agreements. Most economists agree that in the long run, or the broader trend that runs independent of short term cycles, economic growth is only fostered through an increase in productivity or in the factors of production (more labor, more resources, or more capital). However, in the short term, the economy frequently undergoes periods of expansion and contraction consistent with the general model for the business cycle.

Image Source: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/business-cycle/

For instance, a period of short-term economic growth could increase the demand for goods and services as household income increases. Eventually, suppliers react to this demand shift by raising prices to maximize profits, which then slows demand and  firms begin to lose profits as relative income levels for households decreases. Eventually, downward pressures on prices should revitalize demand and bring the economy into a period of temporary expansion, leading the cycle to repeat itself all over again. While this explanation is overly simplified and  fails to account for the complexities and intricacies of economic cycles in the real domestic economy, it provides a basic understanding of the utility of fiscal policy. While the cyclical nature of the economy is an unavoidable manifestation of constantly changing factors that adjust supply and demand, there are ways to decrease to the relative magnitude of these cycles in order to avoid the negative externalities on society that result from large-scale displacements from equilibrium. For instance, an expansionary period in the cycle may lead to unchecked inflation which reduces the purchasing power of citizens and disproportionately effects those which have money saved rather than in assets, leading the value of their wealth to diminish. On the other hand, a recessionary period can mean job layoffs and a much higher rate of national unemployment as firms reduce their operations in response to the shifting demand. Hence, fiscal policy aims to use the Constitutional authority vested in Congress to adjust government spending so that it keeps the economy from undergoing large peaks and troughs in the cycle, and thus avoiding high inflation or unemployment.

How is Fiscal Policy Different From Monetary Policy?

Although Fiscal Policy intends to achieve the same general goal as Monetary Policy, namely intervention into the economy to both prevent and respond to deviations from equilibrium, it is carried out through entirely different means. Fiscal Policy involves the efforts of duly elected officials in Congress that represent the interests of their constituents. While many have a background in economics, they are not necessarily trained experts in economic policy and have a more vested interest in crafting policy that aligns with loyalties to political party, constituent beliefs, and personal beliefs.

 

Image Source: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.349.6247.486-a

Monetary Policy, on the other hand, is carried out by Federal Reserve technocrats who almost uniformly carry doctorate-level degrees in economics and are experts in public policy. Members of the Federal Reserve are theoretically not under the influence of any electoral or political pressures and hence maintain a uniform focus on maximizing efficiency  when making decisions. Monetary Policy also differs substantially in swiftness, as central banks can adjust short term interest rates overnight while enacting Fiscal Policy requires the elongated Congressional process of drafting a bill that is then debating by committees and eventually brought before the entire Congress for a vote. In addition to different means of being carried out, Fiscal and Monetary Policy are substantively different. While Monetary Policy involves expanding or contracting the reserves available for banks to lend, Fiscal policy involves expanding or contracting government spending. For instance, the CARES Act that was passed in the aftermath of the Covid Pandemic was a definitive example of the government using Fiscal Policy to reduce the scope of recession. The $2.2 trillion stimulus package supplied money to households as well as businesses, demonstrating attempts to bring both the supply and demand-side of the economy toward equilibrium.

Has Fiscal Policy Been Effective?

Just as with monetary policy, fiscal policy seems to be a flawless mechanism in theory to minimize the destabilizing effects of short term dips and leaps in the economy. When the economy is slow and unemployment is high, increasing government spending can improve infrastructure, boost consumer spending, and even increase business productivity. Then when the economy is in a “bubble” and prices outpace real economic performance, decreasing government spending and increasing tax revenues will slow the flow of money through the economy, decreasing inflation. However, it is rarely ever this simple in the real economy. Here are a few distinct historical and contemporary examples where the merits and efficacy of fiscal policy have heavily been debated by economists and politicians:

Example 1 – New Deal Programs

Just as the Depression was the most significant economic and financial crisis in American History, the policies implemented in its aftermath by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt were similarly revolutionary in how they framed the new relationship between the government and the economy, and set the stage for future fiscal policy. As Price Fishback notes in the Journal of Economic Literature, “During the 1930s, the federal government for the first time took responsibility for solving general problems with unemployment and poverty, established the modern farm grant and loan programs, subsidized the housing market, banks, railroads, and other industries with low-interest and/or guaranteed loans, and took ownership stakes in banks” (Fishback). These programs were aimed at creating jobs to lower the unemployment rate and break the deflationary spiral while improving stability in the financial system to prevent future systemic bank failures. And while the United States did eventually come out of the Depression, some scholars and economists question the efficacy of the New Deal Programs in achieving this effect versus the manufacturing boom precipitated by WW2. For instance, George Selgin of the CATO Institute argues that while sustained deflation is a very undesirable phenomenon that especially hurts those with outstanding debts, it may be a necessary occurrence for consumer spending to eventually revamp and put upward pressure on production. He notes that, “so long as spending itself stayed depressed, policies that prevented prices from falling only tended to make matters worse” (Selgin). Others have also pointed out the political motivations integral to Roosevelt’s New Deal Policies as “more funds per capita were distributed in areas that were more likely to swing toward voting for Roosevelt and where high voter turnout suggested strong political interest” (Fishback).

Image Source: https://blogs.baylor.edu/greatdepression/documents-page-1/

 

Example 2 – Economic Stimulus Act of 2008

The 2008 global economic and financial crisis, often coined as “The Great Recession” for being the greatest economic downturn since the 1929 Great Depression, resulted in extensive fiscal policy efforts from the United States government. As the asset bubble in the housing market collapsed, years of financial engineering by investment banks and poor risk assessment from credit agencies turned what could have been a controlled crisis into a catastrophe. With the hopes of inventing a higher-yield investment, banks began to securitize mortgages into bonds and other financial derivatives that were packaged and sold to investors or other banks. A disproportionate number of these securities contained mortgages sold to the riskiest category of homeowners, also known as “subprime”. These types of securities were particularly advantageous since they often produced higher interest rates with respect to other mortgages. As few financial analysts actual performed real risk assessments on the mortgage assets they were holding, many did not realize how much money they stood to lose if the housing market went the least bit sour. Thus, when the housing market did go sour, many banks lost a lot of money or outright failed, like Lehman Brothers, and brought down the entire U.S economy with them. The fiscal response of the United States government to this crisis remains highly controversial to this day and certainly halted further fiscal stimulus in its aftermath with “repeated criticism of the bank bailouts and growing concerns about the national debt” (U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics). While most supported the government policies that “provided large temporary tax cuts to most consumers” in order to boost consumer demand and spending, the direct payments from the government to investment banks was highly contentious (Tax Policy Center). Although some may argue that it was necessary to support the stability of the financial system and ensure liquidity, others see it as rewarding the same bank’s whose greed and carelessness for purchasing risky investments brought the entire economy into the crisis in the first place. Many see the government’s response in 2008 as proof that stimulus is designed to simply enrich large corporate interests and financial institutions rather than American workers who repeatedly are tasked with dealing with their mistakes.

Image Source: https://www.goingconcern.com/tags/lehman-brothers/

 

Example 3 – COVID Stimulus and CARES Act 

While the fiscal response of the Federal Government in 2008 was unparalleled in its celerity and magnitude, it pales in comparison to the efforts taken to revive the domestic economy following the lockdowns initiated in response to the COVID pandemic. The $2.2 trillion stimulus bill passed by Congress in March 2020 “included direct benefits to furloughed workers, families with children, small businesses, independent contractors and gig workers, large corporations, and the health care system” (Investopedia). While many credit this massive fiscal stimulus as helping keep unemployment down as much as possible while public health restrictions kept people from working, many note its inefficiency in delivering help from those in need. A study conducted by the Brookings Institute to investigate the timeliness of benefits reaching marginalized groups found that “roughly half of those households who stood to benefit from these two major federal relief initiatives were left waiting for them even as unemployment was spiking” (Brookings). Moreover, many cite the excessive fiscal spending as a contributing factor to the inflationary struggles that have plagued our economy by creating a disconnect between supply and demand. While the stimulus was successful in increasing the money supply and disposable income for American consumers to spend on goods and services, it did not address the underlying problems on the supply side that still needed to be fixed as firms struggled to revamp productivity. Thus, the excess of demand in light of limited supply is seen by many economists as the principal reason that inflation has reached above double digits in terms of year over year price increases.

Image Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/inside-donald-trumps-stimulus-checks/story?id=77534116

Works Cited

Fishback, Price. “How Successful Was the New Deal? the Microeconomic Impact of New Deal Spending and Lending Policies in the 1930s.” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 55, no. 4, 2017, pp. 1435–1485., https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20161054.

 

 

 

 

 

After a few weeks of exhibition competitions and low-stake matchups, the NCAA men’s gymnastics season is finally in full swing with countless critical matchups each week to determine each team’s standing within the NCAA. While the first few weeks serve as somewhat of an adjustment period for coaches and teams to give their newcomers experience as they get into their rhythm and finalize line-ups, we have now reached a point where most teams are going into each week with the intent of maximizing their performance and team score.

The 4th week of competition, as characteristic of the sport in general, was full of surprises and unpredictability. Within the Big Ten, the Michigan Wolverines displayed an incredible performance against their rival Ohio State Buckeyes, winning by over a 5 point margin. The strong performance was undergirded by exceptional showings on both the parallel bars and high bar, especially by star freshman Fred Richard. Fred posted the high score on both events with a 14.85 and 14.60, respectively. After a disappointing first few weeks placed the Wolverines near the lower end of the B1G rankings, their performance this week served as a warning to those that had counted them out of winning B1G and NCAA titles this year. Furthermore, it reinforced the fact that the B1G conference is unbelievably even in terms of potential score at given matchup. Thus, it is extremely difficult to declare any true frontrunner, and it seems that any given matchup or conference championship is up for grabs to the team that puts forth the best performance. In other Big Ten Matchups, the Nebraska Cornhuskers just barely edged out the Penn State Nittany Lions by a slim margin of just over a point. Despite strong performances on the floor exercise, rings, and vault, Penn State struggled with uncharacteristic falls on pommel horse, parallel bars, and high bar. Such errors gave way for the steady, consistent performance of the Cornhuskers to take the win as competition finished. In Champaign, the fighting Illini posted a respectable score in their home-opener against Greenville, a novel division 3 program that has surprised many for their competitiveness against division 1 teams in their inaugural season. Despite some struggles with injuries, the Illini will be led heavily by members of their senior class and graduate students such as Connor McCool, Ian Skirkey, and Mike Fletcher.

Outside the Big Ten, the Stanford Cardinals once again posted the highest score in the NCAA in a head-to-head matchup against Cal Berkley. Even without world team members Brody Malone and Colt Walker, the Cardinals demonstrated the depth of their lineups and ability to get the job done regardless of circumstances. With a team that around half of its roster on the U.S Senior National Team, Stanford has not only the greatest potential and skill difficulty in the NCAA, but arguably the greatest poise, experience, and leadership. Behind Stanford, Oklahoma demonstrated a fairly strong showing in their opener against Air Force, posting a score near that of the Michigan Wolverines. Known for their clean gymnastics, the Sooners once again displayed an approach with heavy emphasis on the execution portion of their team score, a strategy that has secured multiple national titles for the team in the past.