The NFL is Socialism in Action

[open mind]

i will admit that this is not my argument (bill maher posited this a couple weeks back).....and that it's not a new argument (cause it was made a couple weeks back)......but i'm curious to see who might deny this argument.

i also realize that making this thread (at least a few days ago) would have made more sense.

[thepianominstre]

Yeah, except for the part where everyone gets millions of dollars because of voluntary transactions on ticket prices set at high prices that thousands of people are perfectly willing to pay - doesn't get much more capitalistic than that. The sport is constantly competing for the limited resources of other forms of entertainment and other sports. You can talk about how they split up the money, but the reason they have any money at all is because of capitalism...

[open mind]

Yeah, except for the part where everyone gets millions of dollars because of voluntary transactions on ticket prices set at high prices that thousands of people are perfectly willing to pay - doesn't get much more capitalistic than that. The sport is constantly competing for the limited resources of other forms of entertainment and other sports. You can talk about how they split up the money, but the reason they have any money at all is because of capitalism...

all good points......but.....if it wasn't for the fair and equal way in which the league split up it's profits we'd see drastic inequality in the quality of teams. drastic inequality of teams would drive down interest in most teams (like baseball has seen) and hurt the overall health of the league right?

[Republicanman]

You're missing the basic tenant of Socialism (or any form of government, for that matter). As stated above, all participation is voluntary. Socialism involves coercion from the onset. You can't even make an argument that profits are split evenly. The highest paid player (including endorsements) is Peyton Manning, with over $30 million this year alone. There are rookies making a tenth of that this year. Where's the equality?

I don't know exactly where you see a "fair and equal" way of splitting up profits. Owners still take in much more than any other part of the franchises.

[open mind]

You're missing the basic tenant of Socialism (or any form of government, for that matter). As stated above, all participation is voluntary. Socialism involves coercion from the onset. You can't even make an argument that profits are split evenly. The highest paid player (including endorsements) is Peyton Manning, with over $30 million this year alone. There are rookies making a tenth of that this year. Where's the equality?

I don't know exactly where you see a "fair and equal" way of splitting up profits. Owners still take in much more than any other part of the franchises.

socialism involves coercion from the onset?

it's split pretty much evenly among the owners which keeps the league competitive and healthy....and allows all teams to stand on mostly equal footing....mismanagement aside.

that said i'm starting to be glad that i didn't take full ownership of this argument from the onset already haha.

[deFobbed14yrs]

It is a mixed economy, like how any good country should be run.

[Republicanman]

Yes, I'm sure Greece/Iceland/Ireland all agree with that assessment. Can't wait for the next bubble!

And yes, socialism involves coercion from the onset. Unlike the NFL, you cannot opt out.

That's what it's not socialism, mixed, or capitalism. It's a private industry, plain and simple.

[open mind]

Yes, I'm sure Greece/Iceland/Ireland all agree with that assessment. Can't wait for the next bubble!

And yes, socialism involves coercion from the onset. Unlike the NFL, you cannot opt out.

That's what it's not socialism, mixed, or capitalism. It's a private industry, plain and simple.

huh?

socialism does not automatically involve coercion. you can't opt out of socialism?

it's probably socialism in the eyes of most tea-party adherents though am-i-right?

[<*)))><]

I bet he really drunk

[open mind]

I bet he really drunk

i bet you're a fucking moron.....and even if i was drunk at least i could sober up from it.

[<*)))><]

i bet you're a fucking moron.....and even if i was drunk at least i could sober up from it.
:cat: look a cat

[tfot11]

i think we should stop debating sports and worry about things that really matter instead of stupid shit that has no real bearing on the state of the world...but that's just my opinion.


...and then we should vote for Vince Young

[open mind]

i think we should stop debating sports and worry about things that really matter instead of stupid shit that has no real bearing on the state of the world...but that's just my opinion.


...and then we should vote for Vince Young

haha, great post.

[tfot11]

haha, great post.;-)

[Republicanman]

huh?

socialism does not automatically involve coercion. you can't opt out of socialism?

it's probably socialism in the eyes of most tea-party adherents though am-i-right?

Of course you can't opt out of Socialism. It's no different than being mandated to pay taxes, or being legally required to get an occupational license. Failure to do so results in either fines or imprisonment.

If a business is nationalized, and the State requires you to buy a product from said business, what do you think happens if you refuse to buy that product? Do you think they simply allow you to go on as is? That is coercion at it's most basic level. If, in a Socialist society, you ask for a higher wage than what the State has assigned to you, do you think any efficient allocation will take place?

Now, when you reply (which you will), please do not simply repeat my statement. If you believe a person under State control has free will to do what he or she wants, in terms of economic liberty, just explain how and why.

As for the Tea Party, I have no idea what they believe. I only picked this sn to piss off Jason Tate.

[Zeran]

the bbc called it "socialist capitalism". the teams/owners are just cartels though, really.

[jawstheme]

Of course you can't opt out of Socialism. It's no different than being mandated to pay taxes, or being legally required to get an occupational license. Failure to do so results in either fines or imprisonment.

If a business is nationalized, and the State requires you to buy a product from said business, what do you think happens if you refuse to buy that product? Do you think they simply allow you to go on as is? That is coercion at it's most basic level. If, in a Socialist society, you ask for a higher wage than what the State has assigned to you, do you think any efficient allocation will take place?

Now, when you reply (which you will), please do not simply repeat my statement. If you believe a person under State control has free will to do what he or she wants, in terms of economic liberty, just explain how and why.

As for the Tea Party, I have no idea what they believe. I only picked this sn to piss off Jason Tate.

Under socialism we would be free to pursue whatever career without worry about the finances of education. Once your career is established, in theory, the work week would be cut nearly in half and vacation time would be hugely increased. People wouldn't be stuck in wage slavery, living paycheck to paycheck. They can pursue whatever career makes them happy, as long as they have the aptitude to be qualified for that career (there would be much more time to get educated due to shorter work weeks and more time off). It seems like there would be more free will and free time to do what you want under a system like this than the current system in place.

[Simulcast]

Under socialism we would be free to pursue whatever career without worry about the finances of education. Once your career is established, in theory, the work week would be cut nearly in half and vacation time would be hugely increased. People wouldn't be stuck in wage slavery, living paycheck to paycheck. They can pursue whatever career makes them happy, as long as they have the aptitude to be qualified for that career (there would be much more time to get educated due to shorter work weeks and more time off). It seems like there would be more free will and free time to do what you want under a system like this than the current system in place.

What is the basis for these assertions? This sounds like no socialist system I've ever heard of.

What if everyone wants to be engineers? The work is exciting and the pay is good, but how do you deal with the fact that some people need to be accountants, or firemen, or sanitation workers?

[jawstheme]

What is the basis for these assertions? This sounds like no socialist system I've ever heard of.

What if everyone wants to be engineers? The work is exciting and the pay is good, but how do you deal with the fact that some people need to be accountants, or firemen, or sanitation workers?

Why would everyone want to be engineers? There are plenty of people that want to be accountants and firemen now. Sanitation workers would either be people who want to be sanitation workers for whatever reason, or people who couldn't find or get anything else for whatever reason. The basis of these assertions are theories that have not been tried.

[Simulcast]

Why would everyone want to be engineers? There are plenty of people that want to be accountants and firemen now. Sanitation workers would either be people who want to be sanitation workers for whatever reason, or people who couldn't find or get anything else for whatever reason. The basis of these assertions are theories that have not been tried.

Please, enlighten me. I want to know how socialism translates into economic freedom. I also want to know how a socialist economy determines how many engineers and accountants and firefighters are needed.

To answer your question, because the pay is good and the work is exciting.

[rawesome]

Please, enlighten me. I want to know how socialism translates into economic freedom. I also want to know how a socialist economy determines how many engineers and accountants and firefighters are needed.

To answer your question, because the pay is good and the work is exciting.
I can't speak for him, but from where I sit it seems like you guys are mixing up the difference between a state-heavy Cuban/Soviet style Socialism with democratic Socialism, which most of the leftist people on this board usually talk about when they say "Socialism."

[Simulcast]

I can't speak for him, but from where I sit it seems like you guys are mixing up the difference between a state-heavy Cuban/Soviet style Socialism with democratic Socialism, which most of the leftist people on this board usually talk about when they say "Socialism."

Regardless, the need still has to be determined. I want to know how this is done efficiently.

[apoemtothedead]

all good points......but.....if it wasn't for the fair and equal way in which the league split up it's profits we'd see drastic inequality in the quality of teams. drastic inequality of teams would drive down interest in most teams (like baseball has seen) and hurt the overall health of the league right?
If it weren't for the fact that major league attendance has been on the rise in the past decade, you could have a legitimate point. Interest in teams has way less to do with performance on the field (see: Chicago Cubs) and more to do with the socio-economic factors of the area. As an extreme example, The Oakland A's won the World Series in 1972, 1973 and 1974. They also had the lowest attendance in the league in 1974. Not much to do with inequality of teams driving down the interest there.

[jawstheme]

Please, enlighten me. I want to know how socialism translates into economic freedom. I also want to know how a socialist economy determines how many engineers and accountants and firefighters are needed.

To answer your question, because the pay is good and the work is exciting.

The pay wouldn't be that much better than anything else. People like you might find the work exciting and that's why you'd want to do it.
I'm confused about what you think socialism is. Do you think that the government would decide who performs what job? I guess that could be a form of socialism, not any that I would want to be a part of.

I feel like I argue with you daily around here. We must have completely opposite political viewpoints.

[Simulcast]

The pay wouldn't be that much better than anything else. People like you might find the work exciting and that's why you'd want to do it.
I'm confused about what you think socialism is. Do you think that the government would decide who performs what job? I guess that could be a form of socialism, not any that I would want to be a part of.

I feel like I argue with you daily around here. We must have completely opposite political viewpoints.

We do. I'm an advocate of free-market capitalism. Probably the only one in this forum.

There are varying degrees of socialism. Any system that advances the collectivist cause, abolishes property rights, and stifles economic freedom can be deemed socialist. Whether it's a state-run system or a democratic socialism, all represent tyranny over the individual.

[jawstheme]

Regardless, the need still has to be determined. I want to know how this is done efficiently.

I'd imagine positions would be based on what needed to be done. I'm confused about your question here. Productive forces would go toward the advancement of humanity instead of profit. Of course there will always be a need for a police force, firefighters, teachers, etc. I really am not sure what your question is getting at.

[crackedthesky]

Yeah, taking taxpayer money is totally voluntary on all sides.

[jawstheme]

We do. I'm an advocate of free-market capitalism. Probably the only one in this forum.

There are varying degrees of socialism. Any system that advances the collectivist cause, abolishes property rights, and stifles economic freedom can be deemed socialist. Whether it's a state-run system or a democratic socialism, all represent tyranny over the individual.

You don't think free market capitalsm creates tyranny over the lower class? The only tyranny going on in a democratic worker controlled socialist state would be tyranny over greedy people.

[Simulcast]

You don't think free market capitalsm creates tyranny over the lower class? The only tyranny going on in a democratic worker controlled socialist state would be tyranny over greedy people.

It does when coercive elements are allowed to exist. For example, government regulations that favor particular companies or entities in certain industries. See the railroad industry in the late 19th century or the steel industry in the 60's and 70's.

The tyranny that would exist in a democratic socialist state would be over the individual to pursue his aspirations and realize the products of work. it makes the individual subordinate to the will of the collective. Greed has nothing to do with it. A stupid greedy business man will soon find his successes gone, so long as nothing exists to bail out his irresponsible behavior.

There is nothing wrong with earning money honestly, not matter how much of it you amass. It's your property and your right to do so. I believe there is something wrong with the idea that you are entitled to the successes of another.

[JohnR]

For anyone interested, here is what Bill Maher actually said and his reasoning for it:

New Rule: With the Super Bowl only a week away, Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That's right, for all the F-15 flyovers and flag waving, football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams... just like President Obama wants to do with his secret army of ACORN volunteers. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of 100,000. Yet this sleepy little town on the banks of the Fuck-if-I-know River has just as much of a chance of making it to the Super Bowl as the New York Jets - who next year need to just shut the hell up and play.

Now, me personally, I haven't watched a Super Bowl since 2004, when Janet Jackson's nipple popped out during half time, and that split-second glimpse of an unrestrained black titty burned my eyes and offended me as a Christian. But I get it - who doesn't love the spectacle of juiced-up millionaires giving each other brain damage on a giant flat-screen TV with a picture so realistic it feels like Ben Roethlisberger is in your living room, grabbing your sister?

It's no surprise that some 100 million Americans will watch the Super Bowl next week - that's 40 million more than go to church on Christmas - suck on that, Jesus! It's also 85 million more than watched the last game of the World Series, and in that is an economic lesson for America. Because football is built on an economic model of fairness and opportunity, and baseball is built on a model where the rich almost always win and the poor usually have no chance. The World Series is like Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. You have to be a rich bitch just to play. The Super Bowl is like Tila Tequila. Anyone can get in.

Or to put it another way, football is more like the Democratic philosophy. Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism or competition, but they'd like it if some kids didn't have to go to a crummy school in a rotten neighborhood while others get to go to a great school and their Dad gets them into Harvard. Because when that happens "achieving the American dream" is easy for some, and just a fantasy for others.

That's why the NFL runs itself in a way that would fit nicely on Glenn Beck's chalkboard - they literally share the wealth, through salary caps and revenue sharing - TV is their biggest source of revenue, and they put all of it in a big commie pot and split it 32 ways. Because they don't want anyone to fall too far behind. That's why the team that wins the Super Bowl picks last in the next draft. Or what the Republicans would call "punishing success."

Baseball, on the other hand, is exactly like the Republicans, and I don't just mean it's incredibly boring. I mean their economic theory is every man for himself. The small market Pittsburgh Steelers go to the Super Bowl more than anybody - but the Pittsburgh Pirates? Levi Johnston has sperm that will not grow up and live long enough to see the Pirates in a World Series. Their payroll is about $40 million, and the Yankees is $206 million. They have about as much chance at getting in the playoffs as a poor black teenager from Newark has of becoming the CEO of Halliburton. That's why people stop going to Pirate games in May, because if you're not in the game, you become indifferent to the fate of the game, and maybe even get bitter - that's what's happening to the middle class in America. It's also how Marie Antoinette lost her head.

So, you kind of have to laugh - the same angry white males who hate Obama because he's "redistributing wealth" just love football, a sport that succeeds economically because it does exactly that. To them, the NFL is as American as hot dogs, Chevrolet, apple pie, and a second, giant helping of apple pie. But then again, they think they're macho because their sport is football, when honestly - is there anything gayer than wearing another man's shirt?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-football-sociali_b_815673.html?ref=tw

[crackedthesky]

For anyone interested, here is what Bill Maher actually said and his reasoning for it:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-football-sociali_b_815673.html?ref=tw

Thanks. Can't believe nobody has actually posted it yet. We're all talking about taxes and ticket sales, and that's not even what Maher was talking about.

[jawstheme]

It does when coercive elements are allowed to exist. For example, government regulations that favor particular companies or entities in certain industries. See the railroad industry in the late 19th century or the steel industry in the 60's and 70's.

The tyranny that would exist in a democratic socialist state would be over the individual to pursue his aspirations and realize the products of work. it makes the individual subordinate to the will of the collective. Greed has nothing to do with it. A stupid greedy business man will soon find his successes gone, so long as nothing exists to bail out his irresponsible behavior.

There is nothing wrong with earning money honestly, not matter how much of it you amass. It's your property and your right to do so. I believe there is something wrong with the idea that you are entitled to the successes of another.

I think your idea of the free market isn't realistic. Greed is rewarded in the free market. The lower you can pay the working the class the bigger the profit. Maybe a stupid greedy business man would fail, but a smart greedy business man will succeed.
This isn't really going anywhere, and I'm tired of posting in a thread that says the NFL is socialist, so I'll continue this discussion elsewhere if you don't mind.

[Simulcast]

Don't mind at all.

[kidinthebushes]

The players have to ask themselves, simply, in the long run, am I better off playing football or not?

They all bitch about not getting enough medical care, especially after they retire. But that's why they get paid outrageous contracts during their playing career. Rather than buy a Lambo, put some aside for future medical bills.

Sure, the owners are greedy, but the players are just the same.

[Love As Arson]

Sometimes I think Bill Maher is an idiot.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Sometimes Bill Maher is an idiot getting cheap laughs from his even dumber audience.

[saysmydoctor]

Yes, I'm sure Greece/Iceland/Ireland all agree with that assessment. Can't wait for the next bubble!
Using Iceland is self-defeating. Their problem was deregulation--exactly what you seem to be implying is a good call.

But really, if I wanted to hear Sean Hannity's opinion, I'd watch his show. What's your original thought on the matter?
What is the basis for these assertions? This sounds like no socialist system I've ever heard of.

What if everyone wants to be engineers? The work is exciting and the pay is good, but how do you deal with the fact that some people need to be accountants, or firemen, or sanitation workers?
Of course it doesn't, you've regularly used Russia and China and Cuba and Venezuela as examples of socialist economies when none of them are.

What if everyone wanted to be a Hallmark card writer? What if everyone wanted to be a fashion designer? We can create what-if scenarios all day, but it's a waste time because for every positive hypothetical I could employ, you could conversely employ a negative one. It's a waste of time and a poor counterpoint.
Sometimes I think Bill Maher is an idiot.
That's why I rarely bother with his show. I think the only New Rule he has presented that I completely agreed with was "Not everything has to make a profit."

[open mind]

If it weren't for the fact that major league attendance has been on the rise in the past decade, you could have a legitimate point. Interest in teams has way less to do with performance on the field (see: Chicago Cubs) and more to do with the socio-economic factors of the area. As an extreme example, The Oakland A's won the World Series in 1972, 1973 and 1974. They also had the lowest attendance in the league in 1974. Not much to do with inequality of teams driving down the interest there.

valid points.......if you fail to look at the a's (my favorite team) standings have been in the last 15 years (barring the moneyball approach which has failed them in recent years.....due to richer teams adopting the approach)

[open mind]

Of course you can't opt out of Socialism. It's no different than being mandated to pay taxes, or being legally required to get an occupational license. Failure to do so results in either fines or imprisonment.

If a business is nationalized, and the State requires you to buy a product from said business, what do you think happens if you refuse to buy that product? Do you think they simply allow you to go on as is? That is coercion at it's most basic level. If, in a Socialist society, you ask for a higher wage than what the State has assigned to you, do you think any efficient allocation will take place?

Now, when you reply (which you will), please do not simply repeat my statement. If you believe a person under State control has free will to do what he or she wants, in terms of economic liberty, just explain how and why.

As for the Tea Party, I have no idea what they believe. I only picked this sn to piss off Jason Tate.

it all depends on what you call socialism......a monk who decides to no longer be a part of society and instead becomes a part of a self sustaining society that distributes all things equally (monastaries that have been running without major incident for hundreds if not thousands of years...I apologize for the spelling errors) or if your talking about dictatorships that refuse to allow any amount of freedom.....consists of two very different but completely opposite states of socialism......and you can very reasonably opt out of the former.

what if i refuse to work for corrupt robber barons that are bending me over whenever they see fit? do i refuse to work for those assholes or do i starve and die? which is the harsher form of coercion?

i refuse to begin a debate distorted by your obviously warped views. if you have the cajones to start a debate on an even keel i'll gladly participate.

i'm not a big fan of the man myself, but that seems rather petty.

[apoemtothedead]

valid points.......if you fail to look at the a's (my favorite team) standings have been in the last 15 years (barring the moneyball approach which has failed them in recent years.....due to richer teams adopting the approach)
You do realize that the very concept of Moneyball is inherently impossible for the "richer teams" to adopt, right? It's simple supply and demand. You must be one of those people people who thinks Moneyball is going for players with high OBPs.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The A's attendance was still lousy in the early 2000s when they were consistently good. They filled more seats, but only broke the top half of attendance once. Which should again point to the fact that attendance isn't directly related to performance but rather, in the A's case, an old stadium, a more popular team (with a new stadium and Barry Bonds) 10 miles away, and the Oakland/San Leandro area being unable to afford a consistent amount of baseball tickets.

Don't try to pull the "the A's are my favorite team and therefore I know more about them than you" crap either. Growing up I went to 25+ A's games a year. My A's dick is far longer than yours.

[J.C.]

If it weren't for the fact that major league attendance has been on the rise in the past decade, you could have a legitimate point. Interest in teams has way less to do with performance on the field (see: Chicago Cubs) and more to do with the socio-economic factors of the area. As an extreme example, The Oakland A's won the World Series in 1972, 1973 and 1974. They also had the lowest attendance in the league in 1974. Not much to do with inequality of teams driving down the interest there.

That's why I've always said we need to contract the A's.

[apoemtothedead]

That's why I've always said we need to contract the A's.
Your face makes my dick contract.

[open mind]

You do realize that the very concept of Moneyball is inherently impossible for the "richer teams" to adopt, right? It's simple supply and demand. You must be one of those people people who thinks Moneyball is going for players with high OBPs.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The A's attendance was still lousy in the early 2000s when they were consistently good. They filled more seats, but only broke the top half of attendance once. Which should again point to the fact that attendance isn't directly related to performance but rather, in the A's case, an old stadium, a more popular team (with a new stadium and Barry Bonds) 10 miles away, and the Oakland/San Leandro area being unable to afford a consistent amount of baseball tickets.

Don't try to pull the "the A's are my favorite team and therefore I know more about them than you" crap either. Growing up I went to 25+ A's games a year. My A's dick is far longer than yours.

why is it impossible? from what i've heard the moneyball approach (if done right) can make you competitive and save you money......that doesn't sound like something the yankees can't afford to do.

i'm not sure why you went on that rant.

i never said i knew more then you.