Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.
Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?
They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.
Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.
Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?
They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.
God you are stupid.
When cities finance stadi, they are betting that the profit generated from the taxes collected will be greater than the initial outlay for the stadi. That is NOT socialism. in fact if anything that is a city dabbling in capitalism.
It just keeps getting better in the Socialist Utopia
VENEZUELA: BREW BEER OR FACE JAIL
Venezuela’s president has given the country’s largest brewers an ultimatum to resume production or face a prison sentence for ‘sabotaging the country’.
The country’s largest brewer, Empresas Polar supplies 80% of the beer drunk in Venezuela, including the leading brand Polar Pilsen. Last month the company completely shut down production due to supply problems of its main raw materials.
President Nicolas Maduro has now threatened to take over the closed breweries, saying that the business owners risk being “put in handcuffs”.
He said he was also ordering action “to recover the production apparatus, which is being paralyzed by the bourgeoisie”.
Meanwhile, Polar said it could no longer access the US currency needed to import the malted barley for beer production, and had to close the last of its breweries. Access to foreign exchange is currently under the control of the country’s government.
Venezuela: brew beer or face jail
Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.
Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?
They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.
God you are stupid.
When cities finance stadi, they are betting that the profit generated from the taxes collected will be greater than the initial outlay for the stadi. That is NOT socialism. in fact if anything that is a city dabbling in capitalism.
Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.
Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?
They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.
God you are stupid.
When cities finance stadi, they are betting that the profit generated from the taxes collected will be greater than the initial outlay for the stadi. That is NOT socialism. in fact if anything that is a city dabbling in capitalism.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.
Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?
They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.
God you are stupid.
When cities finance stadi, they are betting that the profit generated from the taxes collected will be greater than the initial outlay for the stadi. That is NOT socialism. in fact if anything that is a city dabbling in capitalism.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
So do you reject any government to business subsidy out of hand, ? Do you consider welfare a subsidy?
Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.
Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?
They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.
God you are stupid.
When cities finance stadi, they are betting that the profit generated from the taxes collected will be greater than the initial outlay for the stadi. That is NOT socialism. in fact if anything that is a city dabbling in capitalism.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.
Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?
They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.
God you are stupid.
When cities finance stadi, they are betting that the profit generated from the taxes collected will be greater than the initial outlay for the stadi. That is NOT socialism. in fact if anything that is a city dabbling in capitalism.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
Oh, so now I see. you don't understand how government financing of stadi works.
When a city finances a stadi, they retain ownership. They then rent the stadi out to various organizations . They don't simply pay for a stadi and then give it to a NFL team or what have you.
Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?
They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.
God you are stupid.
When cities finance stadi, they are betting that the profit generated from the taxes collected will be greater than the initial outlay for the stadi. That is NOT socialism. in fact if anything that is a city dabbling in capitalism.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
Oh, so now I see. you don't understand how government financing of stadi works.
When a city finances a stadi, they retain ownership. They then rent the stadi out to various organizations . They don't simply pay for a stadi and then give it to a NFL team or what have you.
After they've built the team another stadium? Please, you're smarter than that.
They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.
God you are stupid.
When cities finance stadi, they are betting that the profit generated from the taxes collected will be greater than the initial outlay for the stadi. That is NOT socialism. in fact if anything that is a city dabbling in capitalism.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
Oh, so now I see. you don't understand how government financing of stadi works.
When a city finances a stadi, they retain ownership. They then rent the stadi out to various organizations . They don't simply pay for a stadi and then give it to a NFL team or what have you.
After they've built the team another stadium? Please, you're smarter than that.
What? Citiies do NOT buy stadi and simply turn them over to private businesses. They build them, retain ownership and RENT them out to teams and other sources of revenue.
This is why someone like Jerry Jones financed his own stadi rather than taking the city up on their offer to do so, he didn't want it being used for anything but football, but wouldn't have that control if the city owned it.
God you are stupid.
When cities finance stadi, they are betting that the profit generated from the taxes collected will be greater than the initial outlay for the stadi. That is NOT socialism. in fact if anything that is a city dabbling in capitalism.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
Oh, so now I see. you don't understand how government financing of stadi works.
When a city finances a stadi, they retain ownership. They then rent the stadi out to various organizations . They don't simply pay for a stadi and then give it to a NFL team or what have you.
After they've built the team another stadium? Please, you're smarter than that.
What? Citiies do NOT buy stadi and simply turn them over to private businesses. They build them, retain ownership and RENT them out to teams and other sources of revenue.
This is why someone like Jerry Jones financed his own stadi rather than taking the city up on their offer to do so, he didn't want it being used for anything but football, but wouldn't have that control if the city owned it.
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Professional sports team owners? Can you explain?
They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.
God you are stupid.
When cities finance stadi, they are betting that the profit generated from the taxes collected will be greater than the initial outlay for the stadi. That is NOT socialism. in fact if anything that is a city dabbling in capitalism.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
So do you reject any government to business subsidy out of hand, ? Do you consider welfare a subsidy?
"So do you reject any government to business subsidy out of hand, and only support subsidizing individuals?"
I think it all comes down to a case by case basis type thing and should always be looked at in terms of what will benefit society best as a whole via tax legislation and what's to be funded via taxation. But I reject that subsidizing big pharma, big agribusiness, wealthy sports team owners and such is not subsidizing individuals. It is, and the bottom line of those perched at the top of these organizations. To buy into anything else one must buy into trickle down economics. Sorry, I just don't, society has been waiting decades for evidence.
If taxpayers provide welfare and subsidies to Walmart workers for eample who are working full time for Walmart and get tutorials from their employer as to how to sign up for tax payer funded benefits I would view that more as subsidizing Walmart rather than subsidizing the employee who Walmart can't seem to find a way to pay something a full time worker can live on despite Walmart's consistent and lucrative profit margin.
This is what I see in the american economy:
Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internal profit versus externalized risk and expense for the “job creator” class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez faire capitalism for the masses
There has indeed been a vast redistribution of wealth over the past 5-6 decades, just not in the direction everyone's always prattling on about, and it is the only bipartisan effort one can really find in terms of the complicity of our political system's cooperation in the endeavor.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
Oh, so now I see. you don't understand how government financing of stadi works.
When a city finances a stadi, they retain ownership. They then rent the stadi out to various organizations . They don't simply pay for a stadi and then give it to a NFL team or what have you.
After they've built the team another stadium? Please, you're smarter than that.
What? Citiies do NOT buy stadi and simply turn them over to private businesses. They build them, retain ownership and RENT them out to teams and other sources of revenue.
This is why someone like Jerry Jones financed his own stadi rather than taking the city up on their offer to do so, he didn't want it being used for anything but football, but wouldn't have that control if the city owned it.
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Yes, I'm sure ALL government owned stadiums are done this way. It would be illegal to build a $400M stadi with tax payer money and then give it to a private company.
I'm sure you get how it works, I'm not sure you understand why cities risk it. And I KNOW you don't understand that it isn't socialism.
The theory is that a $400M stadi will generate $1B in revenue in the form of rent and taxes over it's lifetime.
Or more.
It's really no different than a city investing money in the stock market or any other investment. Now most research actually shows that at best it is a break even scenario for cities, BUT that doesn't make it socialism, which is really the only point I was making.
They inevitably leverage taxpayer funding for their stadiums/palaces/private infrastructure. Internalized profit, externalized risk/expense onto the backs of the working class whether they attend sporting events or not.
God you are stupid.
When cities finance stadi, they are betting that the profit generated from the taxes collected will be greater than the initial outlay for the stadi. That is NOT socialism. in fact if anything that is a city dabbling in capitalism.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
So do you reject any government to business subsidy out of hand, ? Do you consider welfare a subsidy?
"So do you reject any government to business subsidy out of hand, and only support subsidizing individuals?"
I think it all comes down to a case by case basis type thing and should always be looked at in terms of what will benefit society best as a whole via tax legislation and what's to be funded via taxation. But I reject that subsidizing big pharma, big agribusiness, wealthy sports team owners and such is not subsidizing individuals. It is, and the bottom line of those perched at the top of these organizations. To buy into anything else one must buy into trickle down economics. Sorry, I just don't, society has been waiting decades for evidence.
If taxpayers provide welfare and subsidies to Walmart workers for eample who are working full time for Walmart and get tutorials from their employer as to how to sign up for tax payer funded benefits I would view that more as subsidizing Walmart rather than subsidizing the employee who Walmart can't seem to find a way to pay something a full time worker can live on despite Walmart's consistent and lucrative profit margin.
This is what I see in the american economy:
Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internal profit versus externalized risk and expense for the “job creator” class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez faire capitalism for the masses
There has indeed been a vast redistribution of wealth over the past 5-6 decades, just not in the direction everyone's always prattling on about, and it is the only bipartisan effort one can really find in terms of the complicity of our political system's cooperation in the endeavor.
Yep, politicians want to stick their hands in the cookie jar, and providing subsidies is one way they get paid, quid pro quo. With respect to the sports teams- I am not to concerned about it, because it works at the local level, and economics is not the only reason to build something. If it were, how many museums, libraries or mass transit systems would be built?
I ask for a link and I get blabber.Look pard, no one can "prove" anything to you because you're a "believer". This is like a religion with you. You "believe" which means you don't think or question. We've been playing both sides in the middle east and Afghanistan, for example, at least as far back as our toppling of the democratically elected govt of Iran. That's sure turned out swell. That fact that our ridiculous adventures there continually blow up in our faces would trigger reflection in a more enlightened population. Sadam. Osama. Both of those relationships came back to bite us in the arse. Our position with the Saudi’s is also very schizophrenic. We’re really quite naïve when it comes to what we as a society will swallow verbatim from a television or radio. I find it endlessly amusing that folks who claim to dislike and mistrust big govt are very often totally unable to question their own govt in any substantive manor. They just don’t like “one” of the “two” political parties.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
Oh, so now I see. you don't understand how government financing of stadi works.
When a city finances a stadi, they retain ownership. They then rent the stadi out to various organizations . They don't simply pay for a stadi and then give it to a NFL team or what have you.
After they've built the team another stadium? Please, you're smarter than that.
What? Citiies do NOT buy stadi and simply turn them over to private businesses. They build them, retain ownership and RENT them out to teams and other sources of revenue.
This is why someone like Jerry Jones financed his own stadi rather than taking the city up on their offer to do so, he didn't want it being used for anything but football, but wouldn't have that control if the city owned it.
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Yes, I'm sure ALL government owned stadiums are done this way. It would be illegal to build a $400M stadi with tax payer money and then give it to a private company.
I'm sure you get how it works, I'm not sure you understand why cities risk it. And I KNOW you don't understand that it isn't socialism.
The theory is that a $400M stadi will generate $1B in revenue in the form of rent and taxes over it's lifetime.
Or more.
It's really no different than a city investing money in the stock market or any other investment. Now most research actually shows that at best it is a break even scenario for cities, BUT that doesn't make it socialism, which is really the only point I was making.
They are redistributing wealth from the commons into the pockets of the well to do. They are taking taxpayer money and subsidizing sports team franchises and owners. Tack whatever name on it you like. When we subsidize the unsubstantial people we label it "welfare" and "socialism", when we subsidize the substantial people, oh my, no, it must be called something else.
Oh, so now I see. you don't understand how government financing of stadi works.
When a city finances a stadi, they retain ownership. They then rent the stadi out to various organizations . They don't simply pay for a stadi and then give it to a NFL team or what have you.
After they've built the team another stadium? Please, you're smarter than that.
What? Citiies do NOT buy stadi and simply turn them over to private businesses. They build them, retain ownership and RENT them out to teams and other sources of revenue.
This is why someone like Jerry Jones financed his own stadi rather than taking the city up on their offer to do so, he didn't want it being used for anything but football, but wouldn't have that control if the city owned it.
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Yes, I'm sure ALL government owned stadiums are done this way. It would be illegal to build a $400M stadi with tax payer money and then give it to a private company.
I'm sure you get how it works, I'm not sure you understand why cities risk it. And I KNOW you don't understand that it isn't socialism.
The theory is that a $400M stadi will generate $1B in revenue in the form of rent and taxes over it's lifetime.
Or more.
It's really no different than a city investing money in the stock market or any other investment. Now most research actually shows that at best it is a break even scenario for cities, BUT that doesn't make it socialism, which is really the only point I was making.
I ask for a link and I get blabber.Look pard, no one can "prove" anything to you because you're a "believer". This is like a religion with you. You "believe" which means you don't think or question. We've been playing both sides in the middle east and Afghanistan, for example, at least as far back as our toppling of the democratically elected govt of Iran. That's sure turned out swell. That fact that our ridiculous adventures there continually blow up in our faces would trigger reflection in a more enlightened population. Sadam. Osama. Both of those relationships came back to bite us in the arse. Our position with the Saudi’s is also very schizophrenic. We’re really quite naïve when it comes to what we as a society will swallow verbatim from a television or radio. I find it endlessly amusing that folks who claim to dislike and mistrust big govt are very often totally unable to question their own govt in any substantive manor. They just don’t like “one” of the “two” political parties.
No surprise.
Oh, so now I see. you don't understand how government financing of stadi works.
When a city finances a stadi, they retain ownership. They then rent the stadi out to various organizations . They don't simply pay for a stadi and then give it to a NFL team or what have you.
After they've built the team another stadium? Please, you're smarter than that.
What? Citiies do NOT buy stadi and simply turn them over to private businesses. They build them, retain ownership and RENT them out to teams and other sources of revenue.
This is why someone like Jerry Jones financed his own stadi rather than taking the city up on their offer to do so, he didn't want it being used for anything but football, but wouldn't have that control if the city owned it.
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Yes, I'm sure ALL government owned stadiums are done this way. It would be illegal to build a $400M stadi with tax payer money and then give it to a private company.
I'm sure you get how it works, I'm not sure you understand why cities risk it. And I KNOW you don't understand that it isn't socialism.
The theory is that a $400M stadi will generate $1B in revenue in the form of rent and taxes over it's lifetime.
Or more.
It's really no different than a city investing money in the stock market or any other investment. Now most research actually shows that at best it is a break even scenario for cities, BUT that doesn't make it socialism, which is really the only point I was making.
When they tax other folk's money to do something else with, it's wealth redistribution. Like I say, we've been indoctrinated in this society to see wealth transfered up the food chain into the hands of the more affluent as being different than wealth transerrfed either laterally or down the food chain.
Oh, so now I see. you don't understand how government financing of stadi works.
When a city finances a stadi, they retain ownership. They then rent the stadi out to various organizations . They don't simply pay for a stadi and then give it to a NFL team or what have you.
After they've built the team another stadium? Please, you're smarter than that.
What? Citiies do NOT buy stadi and simply turn them over to private businesses. They build them, retain ownership and RENT them out to teams and other sources of revenue.
This is why someone like Jerry Jones financed his own stadi rather than taking the city up on their offer to do so, he didn't want it being used for anything but football, but wouldn't have that control if the city owned it.
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Yes, I'm sure ALL government owned stadiums are done this way. It would be illegal to build a $400M stadi with tax payer money and then give it to a private company.
I'm sure you get how it works, I'm not sure you understand why cities risk it. And I KNOW you don't understand that it isn't socialism.
The theory is that a $400M stadi will generate $1B in revenue in the form of rent and taxes over it's lifetime.
Or more.
It's really no different than a city investing money in the stock market or any other investment. Now most research actually shows that at best it is a break even scenario for cities, BUT that doesn't make it socialism, which is really the only point I was making.
When they tax other folk's money to do something else with, it's wealth redistribution. Like I say, we've been indoctrinated in this society to see wealth transferred up the food chain into the hands of the more affluent as being different than wealth transferred either laterally or down the food chain. If it moves toward the commons or for things like food assistance, housing, healthcare, education, it’s “socialism” and welfare. If on the other hand the funding moves toward stadiums, Wall Street, subsidizing big pharma, big oil, agribusiness et.al., it’s called “an investment”.
The only difference is who is seen as getting the funding.
After they've built the team another stadium? Please, you're smarter than that.
What? Citiies do NOT buy stadi and simply turn them over to private businesses. They build them, retain ownership and RENT them out to teams and other sources of revenue.
This is why someone like Jerry Jones financed his own stadi rather than taking the city up on their offer to do so, he didn't want it being used for anything but football, but wouldn't have that control if the city owned it.
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Yes, I'm sure ALL government owned stadiums are done this way. It would be illegal to build a $400M stadi with tax payer money and then give it to a private company.
I'm sure you get how it works, I'm not sure you understand why cities risk it. And I KNOW you don't understand that it isn't socialism.
The theory is that a $400M stadi will generate $1B in revenue in the form of rent and taxes over it's lifetime.
Or more.
It's really no different than a city investing money in the stock market or any other investment. Now most research actually shows that at best it is a break even scenario for cities, BUT that doesn't make it socialism, which is really the only point I was making.
When they tax other folk's money to do something else with, it's wealth redistribution. Like I say, we've been indoctrinated in this society to see wealth transfered up the food chain into the hands of the more affluent as being different than wealth transerrfed either laterally or down the food chain.
After they've built the team another stadium? Please, you're smarter than that.
What? Citiies do NOT buy stadi and simply turn them over to private businesses. They build them, retain ownership and RENT them out to teams and other sources of revenue.
This is why someone like Jerry Jones financed his own stadi rather than taking the city up on their offer to do so, he didn't want it being used for anything but football, but wouldn't have that control if the city owned it.
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Yes, I'm sure ALL government owned stadiums are done this way. It would be illegal to build a $400M stadi with tax payer money and then give it to a private company.
I'm sure you get how it works, I'm not sure you understand why cities risk it. And I KNOW you don't understand that it isn't socialism.
The theory is that a $400M stadi will generate $1B in revenue in the form of rent and taxes over it's lifetime.
Or more.
It's really no different than a city investing money in the stock market or any other investment. Now most research actually shows that at best it is a break even scenario for cities, BUT that doesn't make it socialism, which is really the only point I was making.
When they tax other folk's money to do something else with, it's wealth redistribution. Like I say, we've been indoctrinated in this society to see wealth transferred up the food chain into the hands of the more affluent as being different than wealth transferred either laterally or down the food chain. If it moves toward the commons or for things like food assistance, housing, healthcare, education, it’s “socialism” and welfare. If on the other hand the funding moves toward stadiums, Wall Street, subsidizing big pharma, big oil, agribusiness et.al., it’s called “an investment”.
The only difference is who is seen as getting the funding.
Spending tax money is not wealth redistribution. It's tax distribution. That's what taxes are for, to pay for things that benefit society.
That you don't agree with what that ta money is spent on doesn't make it wealth redistribution, which is a made up term that doesn't mean jack shit anyway.
What? Citiies do NOT buy stadi and simply turn them over to private businesses. They build them, retain ownership and RENT them out to teams and other sources of revenue.
This is why someone like Jerry Jones financed his own stadi rather than taking the city up on their offer to do so, he didn't want it being used for anything but football, but wouldn't have that control if the city owned it.
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Yes, I'm sure ALL government owned stadiums are done this way. It would be illegal to build a $400M stadi with tax payer money and then give it to a private company.
I'm sure you get how it works, I'm not sure you understand why cities risk it. And I KNOW you don't understand that it isn't socialism.
The theory is that a $400M stadi will generate $1B in revenue in the form of rent and taxes over it's lifetime.
Or more.
It's really no different than a city investing money in the stock market or any other investment. Now most research actually shows that at best it is a break even scenario for cities, BUT that doesn't make it socialism, which is really the only point I was making.
When they tax other folk's money to do something else with, it's wealth redistribution. Like I say, we've been indoctrinated in this society to see wealth transfered up the food chain into the hands of the more affluent as being different than wealth transerrfed either laterally or down the food chain.
What? Citiies do NOT buy stadi and simply turn them over to private businesses. They build them, retain ownership and RENT them out to teams and other sources of revenue.
This is why someone like Jerry Jones financed his own stadi rather than taking the city up on their offer to do so, he didn't want it being used for anything but football, but wouldn't have that control if the city owned it.
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Yes, I'm sure ALL government owned stadiums are done this way. It would be illegal to build a $400M stadi with tax payer money and then give it to a private company.
I'm sure you get how it works, I'm not sure you understand why cities risk it. And I KNOW you don't understand that it isn't socialism.
The theory is that a $400M stadi will generate $1B in revenue in the form of rent and taxes over it's lifetime.
Or more.
It's really no different than a city investing money in the stock market or any other investment. Now most research actually shows that at best it is a break even scenario for cities, BUT that doesn't make it socialism, which is really the only point I was making.
When they tax other folk's money to do something else with, it's wealth redistribution. Like I say, we've been indoctrinated in this society to see wealth transferred up the food chain into the hands of the more affluent as being different than wealth transferred either laterally or down the food chain. If it moves toward the commons or for things like food assistance, housing, healthcare, education, it’s “socialism” and welfare. If on the other hand the funding moves toward stadiums, Wall Street, subsidizing big pharma, big oil, agribusiness et.al., it’s called “an investment”.
The only difference is who is seen as getting the funding.
Spending tax money is not wealth redistribution. It's tax distribution. That's what taxes are for, to pay for things that benefit society.
That you don't agree with what that ta money is spent on doesn't make it wealth redistribution, which is a made up term that doesn't mean jack shit anyway.
Odd, that's what those who soil themselves over welfare, socialized healthcare and education have been wailing foe decades.
