Democracy is more than just the act of voting its real elections that actually mean something and can change the government.
When you have elections but there is only one candidate, or when there is only one candidate that is allowed to win you don't have democracy. Iraq may have run elections under Saddam, but that doesn't make it a democracy.
But when you have free and fair elections, and those free and fair elections produce a government that controls almost everything, that doesn't mean you don't have a democracy. True such a government probably would cancel or subvert future elections, but assuming they don't and that they face the possibility of being thrown out of office through elections, then you would have a totalitarian democracy.
Imagine a perfectly free and fair election, but where the electorate is a bunch of stalinists or radical jihadists. Such an electorate could in theory have a democracy, but the democracy wouldn't be very likely to result in a free nation.
I won't argue this point with you anymore. You are 'nuancing' your definition in your effort to be right. Its just plain silly.
If competing franchises were encouraged, it would cause players' salaries to drop as well.
Independent minor league teams exist. New major leagues could happen in theory, there isnt' a law against them, and from time to time (esp. in football) attempts have been made to start competing leagues.
It is very difficult for an independent league to succeed because they usually do not have profitable venues from which to play. In spite of the fact most gov't built stadiums sit empty 50% of the year, there are clauses that do not allow other teams to use those stadiums. And no city is going to risk building another stadium for a team coming from a new league. So, in effect, the current dominant leagues have a monopoly.
And while we are on the subject, supply/demand is one of the absolute negative features of capitalism.
Supply/demand is a depiction of reality. Even in a "social democrat / mixed economy" it has an effect. Even in fully socialist states it has an effect even if it is a heavily distorted one. It isn't an invention by Adam Smith, or some other economist or philosopher, it just how human nature deals with the fact that supply for goods and services is finite.
The supply/demand factor is a negative because supply can be manipulated. In fact, it is done far more frequently then we care to admit.........scalper rates for tickets of all kinds; riots and gauging over too few playstations; hoarding of commodities etc. In truth, its a sloppy way of doing business that usually most penalizes the consumer.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason why Beckham should get a quarter of a billion dollars for signing with LA Galaxy
His actual contract is more like $50mil. The rest is sponsorship deals. There is a very good reason for the $50mil, the hope to increase the visibility of the sport in the US and make his owner, and indirectly other owners, a lot more than $50mil. As for the sponsorship deals they also have a decent possibility of having a positive real return (and if they don't they would be like building a new factory just before demand for your product dries up, in other words it would be a stupid investment, not an injustice).
How much you want to bet Beckham doesn't do squat for soccer in this country? And maybe the owners might not be so loose with their money if they were paying a decent rent on a stadium.
nor Tom Cruise $20 million for a film nor some upper mgmt smuck in Goldman Sachs a $30 million annual bonus.......not when the president of the US makes less than $200K.
You think the president is doing a lousy job. Why do you want to give him a raise? <g>
More seriously the president
1 - Gets his money from taxpayers directly.
2 - Gets a lot more than $200k. He gets $400k salary, plus the use of the White House, Air force one, servants/staff, health care, security, and all sorts of perks, as well as a generous retirement package (pension, security, benefits, and other payments and services to Clinton are over a million a year)
en.wikipedia.org
Yes, I was wrong on the salary amount but even with the benies, the president's salary pales in comparison to those paid to sports figures and movie stars. I still question the priorities of a culture that places greater value on its entertainers than its president.
Tom Cruise can probably still make a lot of money for a film studio, as can a top man at a trading firm. That's why they get a lot of money.
If you could bring $100mil worth of business to a film studio or a billion to a wall street firm, would you not accept a multi-million salary? The ability to bring that much money to a company is an asset to the company which they should expect to pay a lot for. Sure sometimes the company guesses wrong and pays for poor performance (or gives a star a lot of money and then gets a flop) but bad investments are hardly limited to investments in top personnel.
If Tom Cruise is so valuable, why did he get fired from Paramount last year? Again, I question the values of a culture that pays a man or woman that much money for acting in films.
|
