I agree and disagree with the article on China and basketball. I think Marc Cuban(owner of the Dallas Mavs) is an expert in the field and is interested in a more american way than conventional answers/excuses involving free society/totalitarian distinctions or even questions of race/culture.

Marc Cuban is interested in getting the prospects, tapping into the potential of china, in order to manufacture and market basketball goods in China, and otherwise working to advance the dominance of the Dallas Mavs. So for the purposes of "politics" a lame answer involving a distinction between a "free society" and a "totalitarian" one may suffice. But entrepreneurs, or those more interested in the concrete question, like Marc Cuban are going to push back on these "categories" in search of the talent.

Basketball in the United States is now part of or a reflection of the Copyright-Industrial complex. (No president has ever warned of this nefarious threat in a farewell address, and yet it is also a huge component of the economy, one that quietly launched Reagan, Schwarzenegger and Jack Kemp among others into political office.)

Notice that Mitt Romney is probably going to pull ahead in Michigan because he can leverage the copyright industrial complex, carpet bombing the internet and telivision screens with favorable ads.

How does the copyright economy of the United States interact with the manufacturing economy of China?

I think the folks of detroit, (they play a lot of basketball) who may or may not be impressed with the copyright of Clint Eastwood in his hypothetically pro-manufacturing message are more or less wondering just how sustainable this american distinction is.

The superbowl itself, is a prime manifestation of the Copyright Industrial Complex, but toss an election year into the mix, and you get to see a lot of "manufacturing", that a good deal of folks consider to be marginally productive, or not even "manufacturing" at all.

So are the predominately african american youth of detroit, highly versed and leveraged to hopes and dreams of NBA stardom basketball culture, a part of a more free society, because they can bum rush a mall where Jordan's are sold, while in China Jordan's and Nike's are manufactured?

I think we should be able to agree that the people of China will eventually transition into a more consumerist culture, and they will eventually start to buy the basketball goods they produce, and with an economy that can support professional leisure they will eventually ramp up and produce more Jeremy Lins or Yao Mings, without a doubt players like Marc Cuban will be in the mix, while certain political scientists will simply recycle "free society" vs. "totalitarian" or "Capitalist" vs. "Communist" distinctions.

Michigan is glad Romney has come to stimulate aggregate demand in the copyright industrial complex. Without a doubt many have jobs in industries that deal with image and advertising, and the more he spends the more obligated we feel to deliver results. If Mitt Romney is not adequately renumerated for his telivision buys, he may not reward the same "channels" going foward.

On the other hand there are a group of folks in manufacturing, rather annoyed by this "white collar" copyright industrial complex productivity. Jordan's shouldn't cost $180, and the poor african american kids in detroit are not somehow more free because a greater number of them go on to play in the NBA versus their Chinese conterparts. So between Romney and Santorum this group is more likely to support Santorum. If you don't believe "bain capital" was productive, you have an outlet of sorts. Sure Romney already made his money, the jobs were sent overseas, life went on, and the issue was already decided, but that doesn't mean folks can't object to this view of productivity. No one doubts that Romney is smart and good, but as a member of the richest 1% in many ways he is seen as owning the system.

Issue 5 went down in flames in Ohio, in part because it was seen as an attack on a portion of the economy that was not out of ballance. You have weakened unions, removed actual manufacturing capacity from the american economy and replaced it with "image" or a modicum of originality fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Some of us fear a literal interpretation of "eating words".

I think Romney will still win because the copyright industrial complex is stronger. But Santorum is leading with his manufacturing message, because a lot of folks think everything Romney represents is gimmick productivity.

Thanks for passing along the Schaub essay. I had not read it before. Delightful.