Aurora neighbors buy golf course to preserve their view

Denver Post article "Aurora neighbors buy golf course to preserve their view" (December 1st, 2009) offers a curious possibility concerning discrimination that was not reported upon. It is merely a hypothetical possibility to be noted, (given a severely flawed media), rather than a reporting mistake per se.

As of today, residents of homes surrounding Heather Ridge Country Club can stop worrying that their scenic golf course will be turned into condominiums and high-rise apartments.

Three years after forming a special district to preserve the view, residents will take ownership of the golf course on East Iliff Avenue near Interstate 225. The group purchased the 90-acre golf course for $3.1 million and plans to spend another $1.5 million on improvements.

The article further notes the cost:

The 1,127 homeowners who now line the course will pay about $35 a month in taxes for bonds that are structured to be paid off in 30 years, although district members expect them to be paid off much sooner.

What better way to discriminate, if you live in an area that was, according to the 2000 Census, around 88% white, surrounded by an area that was 57% white? When the median household income for your census tract in 1999 was $40,907, this purchase of a golf course represents a 1% tax on income per year for those who don't value a golf course at anything.

If nonwhites don't particularly care for golf, then this is, hypothetically, a thoughtful way to discriminate and segregate.

Fostering trade with South Korea

Denver Post editorial "Fostering trade with South Korea" (November 23rd, 2009), while citing the "so-called Law of Comparative Advantage", appears to completely misunderstand the principle. In fact, when two nations trade, both benefit in real terms. The relative benefits of trade have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether or not a nation should engage in trade: a country should engage in trade when it benefits from doing so. The article does not correct the misunderstanding that relative gains to trade are irrelevant in the decision to engage in trade.

Obama insists that the trade agreement would not benefit Korea more than the U.S., and he seems to have the better case. [Emphasis added]. Still, the anti-trade bias within his party and in Congress will make it difficult for Obama to make good on his promise.

The trade appears to be something positive, or nothing. Even if the people he is trying to convince only care about relative wealth, it would take a herculean feat to think that we would be benefitting South Koreans 140 times what the United States would be gaining, approximately the amount that would be required to oppose the bill on relative wealth grounds.

As a side issue, the article offers no backing for its conclusion that:

Estimates are that the South Korea free-trade pact would boost the $80 billion in annual trade between our countries by as much as $20 billion a year within five years.

What's more, the expectation is that American farmers and automakers would benefit most, because their products face the toughest Korean trade barriers.

The amount of trade depends on each nation's comparative advantage. It is certainly not clear that American companies like General Motors, Ford, or Chrysler have a comparative advantage over Hyundai and Kia.