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 🎁
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.
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?
Museums, libraries or mass transit systems to my mind would be more in "the commons" arena and thus more beneficial to a wider swath of the population and not so much a revenue generation vehicle for the already wealthy and well connected. Same with state and national parks. Much of the so called "development" projects also turn out to be the big boys patting each other's behinds with sweet real estate deals. Like I said, case by case basis. You'll have those you're ok with as will we all.
But redistribution of wealth is what it is. Folks can argue over whether that's good, bad, or indifferent. Some would argue a stadium built on tax payer subsidization is good, and that the good spreads out into society at large, even if you want to qualify that as being local. Some view a healthy educated population as beneficial to society. To suggest that is “socialist” however.
I think they started eating zoo animals as well. and no i'm not joking.Panic when the pets are nowhere to be found.I predict a civil war in a month.
Why?
They are OUT of beer! FACT.
They're out of beer and toilet paper, what can possibly go wrong?
Socialism - Where health care and college are "free," but a hamburger will cost you $170
Venezuela, where a hamburger is officially $170
Damn, Taz, that means you could go down there and get a whole dozen "ladies" for your little freaky deaky then and probably just for a hamburger!Socialism - Where health care and college are "free," but a hamburger will cost you $170
Venezuela, where a hamburger is officially $170
They have started eating one another and no I'm not joking.I think they started eating zoo animals as well. and no i'm not joking.Panic when the pets are nowhere to be found.I predict a civil war in a month.
Why?
They are OUT of beer! FACT.
They're out of beer and toilet paper, what can possibly go wrong?
Nut Uhhhh LOL show me that one lmao.They have started eating one another and no I'm not joking.I think they started eating zoo animals as well. and no i'm not joking.Panic when the pets are nowhere to be found.I predict a civil war in a month.
Why?
They are OUT of beer! FACT.
They're out of beer and toilet paper, what can possibly go wrong?
Damn, Taz, that means you could go down there and get a whole dozen "ladies" for your little freaky deaky then and probably just for a hamburger!Socialism - Where health care and college are "free," but a hamburger will cost you $170
Venezuela, where a hamburger is officially $170
roflmao
https://www.google.com/amp/www.inde...a7364521.html?amp?client=ms-android-sprint-usNut Uhhhh LOL show me that one lmao.They have started eating one another and no I'm not joking.I think they started eating zoo animals as well. and no i'm not joking.Panic when the pets are nowhere to be found.I predict a civil war in a month.
Why?
They are OUT of beer! FACT.
They're out of beer and toilet paper, what can possibly go wrong?
