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 (320993)	1/17/2007 2:22:16 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576893

You are saying its perfectly all right for rich owners to pay their players huge salaries and charge ticket prices only the well off can afford while taxpayers foot the bill for a portion of their overhead. That breaks down in to several different actions. I've already said I'm against the last part, the subsidies for stadiums. I'm against such subsidies. But the fact that my opposition has been futile doesn't mean that I think the existence of the subsidies should result in government control over the salaries. The subsidies are wrong (practically and morally), government control of the salaries would be equally wrong. The government doing one wrong thing doesn't justify it doing another. And subsidizing the stadiums to the advantage of the owners isn't wrong [practically and morally]? Why is it you always side with the big guy at the expense of the little guy? So since I don't support the subsidies the question than becomes am I "saying its perfectly all right for rich owners to pay their players huge salaries and charge ticket prices only the well off can afford"? The answer is yes. Well I guess it depends on what you mean by perfectly all right. I don't like high ticket prices, but I think that high prices are not an injustice. If I don't like the price I can choose not to pay it. Its amazing how intact your bias is. Its also pretty silly that you call the players oligarchs. Oligarchs have political control and use it to their advantage. A-Rod, Jeter, Beckham, etc. aren't grabbing the wealth through their existing political power. They are providing their services for market value. The owners would be closer to oligarchs but they really aren't either. At worst they are a rent-seekers, special interests seeking government hand-outs. They don't really exercise control. The term oligarchy does not have to relate to gov't. In this particular instance, I am using the term to describe the control over an industry by a group of people [oligarchs].....the baseball industry to be specific. The more I communicate with you the more I see that you are more concerned with protecting the wealth of the very rich rather than following sound economics. Wage and price controls, and high taxes, and the other things I've opposed are very unsound economic policies. Its unsound economic policy for municipalities to be building these sports palaces that rarely pay for themselves. Again why is that unsound economic policy okay with you but the other not?