Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (320338)	1/12/2007 4:00:53 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576881

A democracy that controls all aspects of its citizens' lives is not a democracy. ??? That isn't true. Well at least it isn't if it doesn't control their voting (or prevent them from voting, or ignore the results of the vote). If the political issues get voted by a direct vote, you have a direct democracy. If they get decided by elected officials (who can be voted out at regular intervals) you have a democratic republic. If the direct votes or the consistent decisions of the elected officials, go for total control you still have a democracy. Not a democracy I'd like to live in, but a democracy. LOL. A democracy is not just about voting; its about being free. If the gov't controls everything you do [except voting], that's not a democracy. In fact, that would describe Iraq under Saddam. I thought we removed because he was a tyrant, not a democrat. The idea of publicly funded stadiums is only tangentially related to A-Rods pay. He would get paid a ton with no public finance of stadiums, as would many other athletes. They are more than "tangentially related". If sports teams had to build stadiums and directly pay the full 'mortgage', they would have less money to spend on salaries. Which is why they are tangentially related. If it wasn't for that fact they would be unrelated. Tangentially means: of little relevance. The fact owners have beaucoup money has quite a bit to do with their low housing overhead. I think that low overhead cost is very relevant to the size of ballplayers' salaries. If the Yankees, knew that from now to the end of time, they would never get a single dollar from NYC or the state of New York, or any other public entity, for the construction of a stadium, they would still have a massive payroll. Its a matter of supply and demand. The Yankees (and other teams) have a lot of money which provides the demand. The supply of top talent (or of people perceived to be top talent, obviously not all the massive contracts work out) is limited. Supply and demand are important but if the owners don't have the cash, they can't pay the higher salaries. Do you think D. Jeter would decide to go be a computer programmer because the Yankees can only afford to pay him $2 million rather than $4 million per year? I don't think so.