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 (321456)	1/18/2007 5:23:08 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578023

And subsidizing the stadiums to the advantage of the owners isn't wrong [practically and morally]? Do you enjoy ignoring what I write and then pretending I've written something else? I've statement my opposition to the subsidies again and again, both in this conversation and in others on SI. Of course, I understand what you are saying but it doesn't follow to the next logical step which is that the subsidy is making it possible to offer larger salaries to players. In effect, taxpayers are subsidizing the larger salaries. 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. So A-Rod, Manny Ramirez, Jeter and Barry Bonds control the baseball industry? Even by your definition they are not oligarchs. No, the owners of the clubs who, by Webster's definition, are examples of oligarchs. The owners might be, but they aren't by the normal definition. You point is that you don't think the MLB owners should control "the baseball industry"? I am saying their control of the baseball industry is in effect a monopoly. How would you structure things so they don't? Establish competing leagues.....after all, free markets like competition. Don't you agree? Do you really think that we could or should support several major leagues in each sport? Why not? To the extent that it could happen it would probably result in higher salaries for the top players, which you've been consistently arguing against, but I don't think that any such system is likely. Why? Increased demand would grow the supply. Owners would have to compete to get people to attend....that would most likely result in cheaper tickets. Or do you think that eliminating public subsidies for privately owned sports stadiums would keep the owners from controlling their teams and the league? It wouldn't. It would be a good idea (practically and morally) but it wouldn't achieve your apparent objective. Subsidizing stadiums is a bad policy when the benefits directly accrue to a narrow band of owners and spectators. Its unsound economic policy for municipalities to be building these sports palaces that rarely pay for themselves. Its certainly unsound for the government to subsidize them. Which is why I've consistently opposed it for as long as I've had any opinions about the issue. What makes you think its ok with me? I didn't say it was ok with you.......I repeat what I said above.......its your lack of follow through that bothers me.