you're reading...
Politics

Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers: Lessons in Socialism

Aaron Rodgers. Super Bowl Champion. Mega-Star Quarterback. Welfare Recipient.

On Sunday, the Green Bay Packers remained unbeaten with a 24-3 trouncing of the St Louis Rams.  The Packers are the defending Superbowl champions, and their superstar quarterback, Aaron Rodgers, was the Superbowl MVP.  One of the most storied franchises in NFL history with a record 13 league championships, including four Super Bowl victories, it is almost unthinkable to imagine Green Bay, Wisconsin without its football team.  In 2011, Charles Woodson and Aaron Rodgers topped the salary charts for Green Bay, each pulling in over $7 million.  The total payroll was $63,723,500.

Green Bay is arguably one of the best loved and undoubtedly one of the most historically significant teams in the NFL.  Most fans know this.  What many people might not know is that Rodgers, Woodson, and the entire team — from top to bottom — are welfare recipients.  They are products of a socialist organization that shares money equally with every team regardless of merit.

Approximately 2/3 of the NFL’s income comes from television revenue.  Approximately 2/3 of team revenue goes to the players, which means that essentially, television pays the players’ salaries.  Here’s the important part:  The TV money is split equally between every team in the league.  The lowly Jaguars and the mighty Packers receive exactly the same funding.  The Green Bay Packers, whose hometown has approximately ten times fewer people than a typical NFL city, rely on profit sharing — socialism — to stay afloat, despite being one of the most talented teams in the country.

The NFL also has the equivalent of “corporate regulation.”  Minimum wage is set at around $375K per year.  While there is no hard upper cap per player, there are practical limitations to how much any individual can be paid based on the overall salary cap..  Since football is a team sport, it is impractical to pay one or two players exhorbitant salaries while paying league minimum to everyone else.  In the regulated marketplace, small market teams like Arizona or Jacksonville will snatch underpaid players in a heartbeat and compensate them more fairly.  They’re able to do this because of profit sharing.  Socialism.  Even more notably, the NFL prohibits corporate ownership of teams.

The NFL is a shining example of the American Dream.  Since the socialist system was introduced in 1994, there have been 23 teams in the Superbowl.  There are only 32 teams total.  That means that as a result of socialism, 72% of NFL franchises have had a moment of greatness.  In a comparable period before socialization, only 15 teams went to the Superbowl, with large market teams like San Francisco, Miami, Pittsburgh, and Dallas each making far more appearances than any of the small market teams like Atlanta or… Green Bay.

The number of “worsts to firsts” in the NFL since socialization is encouraging.  The lowly Raiders, Cardinals, Seahawks, Panthers, Rams, and Titans have all had atrocious seasons within just a couple of years of Superbowl appearances.  This season, the Lions look to be making a similar turnaround, and may be on the big stage within a year or two.

 

Continue reading on Examiner.com Lessons in limited socialism from sports. – Atlanta Progressive | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-atlanta/lessons-limited-socialism-from-sports#ixzz1bAiETqk0

Advertisements

Discussion

45 thoughts on “Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers: Lessons in Socialism

  1. I live in a predomently left wing part of the country. My riding never had a conservative in either the federal or provincial seats (We have Socialist NDP for federal and recently re-elected Liberal for provincial) and the only jobs here are basically call centers or places that requires lots of experience.

    The min wage in Ontario is $10.25/hour. The issue with min wage, is that it discourages companies from hiring people fresh off the presses, rather opting for more experienced workers. Especially mom and pop shops who find it difficult to pay people that wage.

    I look at job postings in my city daily and I’ve seen a posting for a stocker Home Depot requiring 1-2 years experience!

    That’s probably why the NFL only recruits from high schools. They don’t want to risk 375K on a no-name. Luckily I believe that the province has a student wage for co-op students. That is students at my local college can work for a company in their field. If it wasn’t for the lower student wage, I doubt they would get it. If a company had to choose between somebody with a diploma and somebody without and have to pay them X amount of dollars regardless of who they choose, who do they think they’ll choose?

    That’s my issue with min wage. Do you think a talented football player from college would care the NFL is paying him less than 375k? Even 50K would be a good salary for him. The team saves money, and if they like him, they can raise his salary to keep him on the team. Rather than risk 375K, they pick a superstar college player.

    Maybe that would work, but I don’t know a lot about football, except it involves lots of beer and chicken wings.

    I don’t have a problem with fairness, but we need to make sure some programs aren’t more fair than others.

    Posted by Alison | October 18, 2011, 6:28 pm
  2. Oh another thing Will:

    Us cold hearted evil conservatives are more likely to donate to charity than you fighting for the little guy liberals.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3799/is_20070701/ai_n19369255/

    Which I find quite amusing.

    Posted by Alison | October 18, 2011, 11:41 pm
  3. That’s probably why the NFL only recruits from high schools. They don’t want to risk 375K on a no-name.

    LOL

    Do you think a talented football player from college would care the NFL is paying him less than 375k?

    You mean, could we get away with paying them an infinitesimal fraction of the profits they help to create? Sure we could!

    Do we WANT to do that?

    The issue with min wage, is that it discourages companies from hiring people fresh off the presses, rather opting for more experienced workers.

    All or nothing thinking. There are many options to solve that specific problem without completely abolishing legal restraints on greed.

    Posted by Ian | October 19, 2011, 8:55 am
  4. What many people might not know is that Rodgers, Woodson, and the entire team — from top to bottom — are welfare recipients. They are products of a socialist organization that shares money equally with every team regardless of merit.

    The reason many people don’t know that is because it isn’t true. Really, calling professional athletes “welfare recipients” is so profoundly stupid that it boggles the mind. Welfare recipients do not earn their income, whereas professional athletes do earn it. Like it or lump it, professional athletes trade a service — entertainment — for the money they receive, which thoroughly disqualifies it from being “welfare” at any level. It just so happens that, as in the case of circus performers, musicians and actors/actresses, people are willing to pay money to watch professional athletes perform their craft. That is Capitalism, bud, not “socialism”, the fair-market exchange of monetary value for goods or services.

    The TV money is split equally between every team in the league.

    So? That doesn’t make it “socialism”. It only means that all teams get equal exposure via TV and so get equal compensation. I don’t have to go to Green Bay WI if I want to see the Packers play — I just turn on my TV or iPad or computer and watch the game. And I have roughly equal access to all NFL teams that way, so all NFL teams get equal revenue. Hardly mysterious and certainly not socialist.

    shares money equally with every team regardless of merit.

    All of the teams play the same number of regular season games, “regardless of merit”, and those games are televised “regardless of merit”, so obviously, “regardless of merit” has no bearing. Poorly performing teams still play the same number of games the top teams play during regular season, so yeah, they should get equal compensation.

    Trying to claim that the NFL is a socialist system is patently absurd. If that were true, then each individual player would get the exact same pay, “regardless of merit”, but that is obviously not the case. Under true socialism, the added income of the star players would be confiscated and given to the poorest performers so that everyone’s net result were the same. That’s how socialism works (or I should say, doesn’t work), the net result being that star athletes would no longer have any incentive to play exceptional football, since they could get just as much pay by being lazy, not working out, and playing badly.

    But obviously, such isn’t the case. Star performers get paid star salaries, and mediocre performers get correspondingly mediocre pay (relatively speaking, of course). Again, fair-market exchange, which is quite meritorious. And Capitalistic.

    Posted by CB | October 19, 2011, 7:04 pm
  5. Trying to claim that the NFL is a socialist system is patently absurd. If that were true, then each individual player would get the exact same pay, “regardless of merit”

    Yet another conservative who doesn’t understand the difference between socialism and communism.

    Posted by Ian | October 19, 2011, 9:07 pm
  6. Yet another conservative who doesn’t understand the difference between socialism and communism.

    You’re such a tool, Ian…

    They are products of a socialist organization that shares money equally with every team regardless of merit.

    According to your Grand Poobah Hamby, “sharing money equally…regardless of merit” is precisely what socialism is. The only difference is that I am taking it to the individual athlete level whereas Hamby took it to the team level, and I am considering all sources of income whereas Hamby was focused on TV revenues. So the fact that you have an obvious personal problem with my using the exact same definition only proves what a two-faced, double-standard hypocrite you are.

    Posted by CB | October 20, 2011, 9:05 am
  7. CB, until you look up what these words mean and try to understand them, it’s futile to argue with you. You really don’t understand the argument any better than a macaque monkey who happened to glance at a monitor displaying this article.

    What the NFL is doing is not “fair market exchange.” The minimum salaries and equal profit sharing mandated by NFL regulations have nothing to do with free market dynamics. Neither is it a communistic system which aims to maintain a “classless” sport in which no player receives compensation far in excess of other players. Note that Hamby never claimed that it was.

    So quit with the defensive whining, look up the word “socialism,” and see if this article doesn’t start to make a little more sense to you.

    Posted by Ian | October 20, 2011, 1:48 pm
  8. CB, until you look up what these words mean and try to understand them, it’s futile to argue with you. You really don’t understand the argument any better than a macaque monkey who happened to glance at a monitor displaying this article.

    The irony here is sublime…

    What the NFL is doing is not “fair market exchange.” The minimum salaries and equal profit sharing mandated by NFL regulations have nothing to do with free market dynamics.

    It’s truly hard to know where to begin with this level of buffoonery. For starters, to claim that the NFL’s internal policies “have nothing to do with free market dynamics” is so absurd, it’s hard to tell that you aren’t joking just to get a reaction from me. Why do you think the NFL did what they did? The motive was to make games — wait for it — more competitive! And why do that, you ask? It’s to make the televised games more attractive to TV viewers. The whole purpose is for the NFL to make more money, which can then be divvied up within the NFL any way it sees fit. The whole point here is that the NFL is a Capitalist business competing for TV viewers in an open marketplace. It’s only by ignoring these obvious facts that someone can delude themselves into thinking that the NFL is “socialistic” at any level.

    If you want to start whining about formal definitions, then understand that formal definitions of “socialism” talk about collective ownership of all capital, means of production, etc., and often such definitions include government ownership/control of those means. Well, the NFL is not a “government” — it’s a business entity. And there is no “collective ownership” of anything — the teams are privately owned. If the NFL were “socialist”, then each player of each team would have partial ownership of all teams combined, but such is obviously not the case.

    Perhaps you should take your own advise regarding learning what words mean, and stop letting people like Bill Maher do your thinking for you…

    Posted by CB | October 20, 2011, 2:27 pm
  9. Everybody here realizes that communism is a form of socialism right?

    Posted by Alison | October 20, 2011, 3:30 pm
  10. CB wrote:

    Why do you think the NFL did what they did? The motive was to make games — wait for it — more competitive! And why do that, you ask? It’s to make the televised games more attractive to TV viewers. The whole purpose is for the NFL to make more money

    That’s actually a great analogy for mixed socialism and capitalism (which was…kinda the point of the article). By eliminating the previous “laissez faire” system where it was every team for itself, and moving to a regulated system with more evenly distributed resources, the NFL allowed more teams to be competitive, which increased the profitability of the entire sport. Not every team benefited from this–the previous powerhouses lost some of their advantages–but the move resulted in an overall benefit for the sport.

    The same thing can happen at a national level, if you the drop the “small government” rhetoric and make individual economic leaders accountable to the regulation of an authority whose interest is the prosperity of the entire economy.

    Alison wrote:

    Everybody here realizes that communism is a form of socialism right?

    A fascist dictatorship and a liberal democracy are both forms of government. They both involve a central authority enforcing laws. This is not a liability for liberal democracies.

    Posted by Ian | October 20, 2011, 4:34 pm
  11. A fascist dictatorship and a liberal democracy are both forms of government. They both involve a central authority enforcing laws. This is not a liability for liberal democracies.

    Ian gets it. Alison doesn’t.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | October 20, 2011, 4:38 pm
  12. I never said it was a liability. I said communism was a form of socialism.

    It was a response to this:

    Yet another conservative who doesn’t understand the difference between socialism and communism.

    In other words, asking the difference between socialism and communism is like asking for the difference between christianity and catholicism. Catholicism is a form of christianity just like communism is a form of socialism.

    This was a minor nit-pick when asked for the difference between socialism and communism. There are different FORMS of socialism that are different from communism, just like there are different FORMS of christianity that are different from catholicism.

    The point being, you can say your FORM of socialism is different than communism [which CB doesn’t seem to get], but you can’t say communism ISN’T a form socialism.

    All apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples. Capiche?

    Posted by Alison | October 20, 2011, 4:54 pm
  13. which CB doesn’t seem to get

    There is nothing to “get”, Alison — I never mentioned communism at all. It was Ian who brought it up in the first place — it was non sequitur then and it still is now.

    Posted by CB | October 21, 2011, 1:35 pm
  14. CB wrote:

    I never mentioned communism at all.

    And also:

    Trying to claim that the NFL is a socialist system is patently absurd. If that were true, then each individual player would get the exact same pay, “regardless of merit”, but that is obviously not the case. Under true socialism, the added income of the star players would be confiscated and given to the poorest performers so that everyone’s net result were the same.

    You’re calling it “socialism,” but what you’re describing is communism. Like I said, you need to understand what these words mean before you use them in arguments.

    Posted by Ian | October 21, 2011, 2:57 pm
  15. You’re calling it “socialism,” but what you’re describing is communism.

    Which, as Alison observes, is a form of socialism, assuming your assertion is even correct for the sake of argument. As I observed, I was simply using the definition implied by Hamby, but simply expanded the scope a bit. Also as I observed, your attempts to make an issue of this is non sequitur.

    Posted by CB | October 22, 2011, 1:29 am
  16. Rather than trying to harangue me over “socialism vs. communism”, why don’t you harangue Hamby over his silly idea that football players are “welfare recipients”? Talk about straining on gnats while swallowing camels…

    Posted by CB | October 22, 2011, 1:32 am
  17. CB, your argument is like saying, “America doesn’t have a government because it isn’t [begins describing fascism].” The reason it’s important for you (and conservatives in general) to understand that socialism =/= communism is because we’d like to see your side of the debate rise above the level of “Socialism BAD!!! HURRR!!!! DURRRRR!!”

    Posted by Ian | October 22, 2011, 8:16 am
  18. to understand that socialism =/= communism is because we’d like to see your side of the debate rise above the level of “Socialism BAD!!! HURRR!!!! DURRRRR!!”

    I never said that socialism=communism, therefore it’s bad, I just said the communism=socialism.

    I already stated my objections to the system in my first post, and nowhere did I say that socialism was communism and therefore bad. When I pointed out communism was a form of socialism, I even explicitly said in the follow up post that just because communism is a form of socialism, doesn’t mean socialism is bad.

    CB seems to be caught up on the idea if it’s not communism, it’s not socialism, which doesn’t follow, and you seem to be caught up on is that something is communism therefore it’s bad, and if it’s bad it isn’t socialism, which also doesn’t follow.

    Posted by Alison | October 22, 2011, 3:12 pm
  19. Alison, I haven’t said anything like that. All I’m trying to do is to pry CB’s brain off of the idea that socialism in all its forms is just exactly the same thing as communism. I suppose when I say “conservatives in general,” I should say AMERICAN conservatives in general.

    Posted by Ian | October 22, 2011, 5:22 pm
  20. Rather than trying to harangue me over “socialism vs. communism”, why don’t you harangue Hamby over his silly idea that football players are “welfare recipients”? Talk about straining on gnats while swallowing camels…
    Posted by CB | October 22, 2011, 1:32 am

    CB, Why let the facts get in the way of a good Atheist rant? The fact that Hamby (by sleight of hand) leaves out the heavy multi-million dollar endorsement contracts given to individual high achieving players, and fails to mention that the equitable monetary value of the FOR PROFIT teams to the individual owners is well into the hundreds of millions over their origional investment will do nothing to sway the likes of an atheist who swallow whole whatever Hamby decides to ejaculate into their minds.

    Regardless, anyone who thinks the NFL is a socialist venture and not a capitalist for profit enterprise is a fucking idiot!!!

    Posted by PG | October 22, 2011, 11:18 pm
  21. The fact that Hamby (by sleight of hand) leaves out the heavy multi-million dollar endorsement contracts given to individual high achieving players

    PG, maybe because contracts like that are incompatible with communism specifically, but not socialism generally.

    This stuff is so over their heads…

    Posted by Ian | October 23, 2011, 5:47 am
  22. PG, maybe because contracts like that are incompatible with communism specifically, but not socialism generally.

    This stuff is so over their heads…
    Posted by Ian | October 23, 2011, 5:47 am

    Repost:

    “Regardless, anyone who thinks the NFL is a socialist venture and not a capitalist for profit enterprise is a fucking idiot!!!”

    Posted by PG | October 23, 2011, 12:09 pm
  23. The reason it’s important for you (and conservatives in general) to understand that socialism =/= communism…

    Perhaps you should “explain” that to Hamby before condescending to “teach” me any “lessons”, chief. Like I said, and you ignored, I was using Hamby’s definitions.

    Rather than trying to harangue me over “socialism vs. communism”, why don’t you harangue Hamby over his silly idea that football players are “welfare recipients”? Talk about straining on gnats while swallowing camels…

    ..we’d like to see your side of the debate rise above the level of “Socialism BAD!!! HURRR!!!! DURRRRR!!”

    Straw man mischaracterizing aside, the simple fact is, the bigger Government is, the less freedom we have. The more decisions about our personal lives Government makes for us, the fewer choices we have. That’s just the way it is, chief. If you want to advocate for Bigger Government and Socialism, fine. Knock yourself out. Just don’t so miffed when those of us who know better choose not to buy the snake oil you’re trying to sell.

    CB seems to be…

    What “seems” to you is irrelevant. What is relevant is the truth.

    Posted by CB | October 23, 2011, 3:31 pm
  24. You know, many if not most publicly held corporations are “governed” internally by boards of directors and other officials elected by stock holders. So, if you are a flaming liberal who is dying to see the “marvels of Socialism” at work under every rock you turn over, you could argue that this is an example of “centralized planning”. Since “centralized planning” is a common characteristic of Socialism in practice, you can give yourself a raging woody by claiming that corporations are Socialist endeavors by virtue of the fact that their policies are the result of “central planning”. Of course, that argument is absurd, just as the current argument is absurd. Businesses aren’t governments, nor are they economies. They are businesses operating within an economy. It’s only by ignoring these obvious facts that the flaming liberal can delude himself into believing that corporations in general, and the NFL in particular, are “socialist”.

    Posted by CB | October 23, 2011, 3:43 pm
  25. the simple fact is, the bigger Government is, the less freedom we have

    And the smaller the government is, the less it can protect you from exploitation and oppression, and thus the less freedom you have. Until you understand that that there is no freedom without justice, you don’t understand freedom. What you understand is Getting To Do What I Want, which is not a problem if you’re King George III, but not so acceptable if you’re the guys George wants to exploit.

    Posted by Ian | October 23, 2011, 4:02 pm
  26. There is so much epic fail in your last post that words fail…

    And the smaller the government is, the less it can protect you from exploitation and oppression, and thus the less freedom you have.

    I mean, there is massive epic fail in just this one sentence, on several of levels. Like I’ve said before, it’s hard not to believe that you aren’t just saying obtuse things to yank my chain.

    Are you at all familiar with this field of study called “history”, by any chance? Historically, one major source of oppression and exploitation has been powerful governments, exploiting and oppressing those whom they were ostensibly governing. It’s quite ironic that you bring up King George III, since he represents exactly what I am saying, and was a major reason for the Declaration of Independence’s and the Constitution’s coming into existence. And of course, we have the more recent examples of the Soviet Union, China, the various Muslim countries, North Korea, ad nauseam.

    The whole point of limited government is to reduce the potential of being exploited and oppressed by government. Implicit in your failed assertions is the utterly naive idea that, while other man-made institutions such as churches and businesses — especially large corporations — are allegedly sources of exploitation and oppression, for some mysterious reason government is not. No, in your naive view, “government” == “justice”, which is absurd given recent world history.

    If you ever look at the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, you might notice that it does not contain a laundry list of things We The People are allowed to do. No, on the contrary, with few exceptions, it contains a list of things the Federal Government is forbidden from doing, things like unreasonable searches and seizures, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. To put it another way, the Bill of Rights places limitations on the Federal Government’s powers, and it is in that spirit that I and other limited government advocates choose to promote the ideals of limited government. Also, from these observations, it should be clear that the Framers/Founding Fathers themselves realized the potential of government itself being a major source of oppression and exploitation.

    Until you understand that there is no freedom without justice, you don’t understand freedom.

    On the contrary, until you understand that Big Government doesn’t equate to Justice, you simply don’t understand Justice or Freedom.

    Like I said, some of the most unjust enterprises in history have been big, powerful governments. And of course, there is the thorny problem of how we even define “justice”. Those of us who advocate for limited government define it along the lines of equal opportunity with minimal government interference. Those who advocate for so-called “economic justice” or “social justice” apparently define it along the lines of equal outcome, regardless of merit or effort. Plato had to construct an entire hypothetical Republic just to explore what the term “justice” even meant.

    And of course, you play the typical liberal game that says any reduction in government equates to a lack of police or fire services and so forth. It’s a bankrupt argument that misses the point. There are things government should be doing, and limited government advocates promote exactly that, limiting government to that which it should be doing as spelled out in the Constitution. Maintaining security is one thing the government should be doing. “Spreading the wealth around” most certainly is not.

    What you understand is Getting To Do What I Want…

    Well, yeah, that is pretty much what “freedom” is all about, chief, your transparent attempts to trivialize notwithstanding. As long as I am not causing harm to others, I should indeed be allowed to do what I want without some government entity or bureaucrat telling me otherwise, even if they are ostensibly doing so “for my own good”. I don’t need government trying to save me from myself. I need it to stay out of my way while I pursue happiness. And if I am wildly successful in my endeavors, I don’t need government taking away that which I have earned in order to finance “green energy” boondoggles like Solyndra, for example.

    Cue clever “tl;dr” response from Alex…

    Posted by CB | October 24, 2011, 11:42 am
  27. It’s quite ironic that you bring up King George III, since he represents exactly what I am saying, and was a major reason for the Declaration of Independence’s and the Constitution’s coming into existence.

    If you find my reference to King George ironic, then that’s one more example of a CB Reading Comprehension Fail. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother trying to communicate with you…

    some of the most unjust enterprises in history have been big, powerful governments

    All of the unjust enterprises in history were controlled by people. Humans. From the British Empire to the robber barons of the industrial revolution. Why do we need protection from exploitation by political leaders but not from economic leaders? Why do you believe people in positions of economic power are morally superior to people in positions of political power?

    Well, yeah, that is pretty much what “freedom” is all about, chief, your transparent attempts to trivialize notwithstanding. As long as I am not causing harm to others, I should indeed be allowed to do what I want without some government entity or bureaucrat telling me otherwise

    You do understand that the whole point of government regulation of business is to intercede when people in positions of economic leadership are abusing their power and causing harm to others, don’t you?

    I don’t need government taking away that which I have earned in order to finance “green energy” boondoggles like Solyndra, for example.

    That was what, $535 million?

    How many TRILLIONS of dollars have we Americans poured into the fucking financial sector in response to the gross incompetence of economic leaders?

    Humans are not fit to wield unaccountable power, whether it be political or economic.

    Posted by Ian | October 24, 2011, 4:11 pm
  28. If you find my reference to King George ironic, then that’s one more example of a CB Reading Comprehension Fail. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother trying to communicate with you…

    Well, no one is twisting your arm, chief. I see that you don’t bother to explain why this is allegedly an example of my alleged “Reading Comprehension Fail”. You just barf up the raw assertion with nothing to back it up. I at least try to explain why your post was an epic fail. I guess we can chalk this up to your infantile IKYABWAI nonsense.

    Truth be told, I share that last sentiment with you, given your demonstrated dismal communication skill.

    Why do we need protection from exploitation by political leaders but not from economic leaders?

    See what I mean? Kindly point out where I claimed we didn’t need protection from economic leaders. No, I simply point out that we do need protection from Government, something completely missing from your argument. Indeed, you appear to be trying to sell Socialism, which does give more power to Government than Capitalism does. I object to giving any institution excessive power, whether it’s Government or Business, or even the Church. Thing is, Government is sort of at the top of the food chain, as it were, and here you are, arguing in favor of giving that entity at the top of the food chain more power.

    Why do you believe people in positions of economic power are morally superior to people in positions of political power?

    You really should quit pretending that you can read minds, and concentrate on learning how to read words a little bit better. You haven’t a clue what I believe, as your interrogative clearly shows. What I do believe is that old axiom: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And again, it is Government that is at the top of the power food chain, placing it closer than Business to the “absolute power” category, so we need retraints on how much power Government can acquire. Government already places restraints on Business, but who or what places retraints on Government?

    You do understand that the whole point of government regulation of business is to intercede when people in positions of economic leadership are abusing their power and causing harm to others, don’t you?

    Indeed I do, and I also understand that such charges of abuse can be exaggerated by government officials to gin up popular support for more government power, to increase regulations and otherwise expand government. And apparently, people like you fall for it every time.

    How many TRILLIONS of dollars have we Americans poured into the fucking financial sector in response to the gross incompetence of economic leaders?

    Now you’re preaching to the choir, chief! It is precisely this kind of Government abuse I am railing against, this kind of wealth redistribution I said Government has no business doing. And yes, bailing out your cronies who gave you campaign contributions, using tax money to do so, is a form of wealth redistribution — taking money from successful companies and individual workers to prop up failing businesses that Government wants propped up.

    So basically, you’re agreeing with me, yet you still advocate for Socialism…

    Humans are not fit to wield unaccountable power, whether it be political or economic.

    Again, we’re in agreement.

    Posted by CB | October 25, 2011, 9:00 am
  29. I see that you don’t bother to explain why this is allegedly an example of my alleged “Reading Comprehension Fail”.

    Here ya go:

    in your naive view, “government” == “justice”, which is absurd given recent world history.

    Why the hell do you think that’s my view? Government=justice? Where did that come from?

    Do you see why it’s difficult to communicate with someone who decides to interpret my argument in light of a completely arbitrary equation? If you wouldn’t project that onto me, then you might understand that I’m using George III as an example of someone who was fighting to get what he wanted, but not fighting for freedom.

    Why don’t you try replacing that random “government=justice” crap with this: “Freedom =/= absence of accountability.”

    No, I simply point out that we do need protection from Government, something completely missing from your argument.

    I think you’re a little confused, CB. When have I ever argued against checks on the government’s power? What I’m arguing is that we need do need checks on economic power.

    We need a balance between a stifling, oppressive government with too much power, and an impotent or corrupt government which does nothing to protect its citizens. Laissez faire capitalism is an example of the latter.

    Government already places restraints on Business, but who or what places retraints on Government?

    Uh…democracy?

    Now you’re preaching to the choir, chief! It is precisely this kind of Government abuse I am railing against

    I’m hoping you’re about to tell me that you opposed Bush’s presidency right from the start, and voted against him every step of the way. Which is what I did. Cause if you didn’t, then you’re kind of a tool.

    Posted by Ian | October 25, 2011, 3:35 pm
  30. Why the hell do you think that’s my view? Government=justice? Where did that come from?

    Here you go…

    And the smaller the government is, the less it can protect you from exploitation and oppression, and thus the less freedom you have. Until you understand that that there is no freedom without justice, you don’t understand freedom.

    Posted by Ian | October 23, 2011, 4:02 pm

    The implications are clear, even with my alleged “Reading Comprehension Fail”. If government shrinks, so does justice. If you want [more/less] justice, you need [more/less] government to get it.

    I’m using George III as an example of someone who was fighting to get what he wanted, but not fighting for freedom.

    I am and was fully aware of that, chief, hence my puzzlement at your “Reading Comprehension Fail” nonsense. The irony is that George III represents why we need protection from Government, and why giving more power to Government is not necessarily a good idea.

    …random “government=justice” crap…

    There’s nothing “random” about it, unless you’re admitting that the implications of your writing are “random”, which may very well be the case…

    Why don’t you try replacing that random “government=justice” crap with this: “Freedom =/= absence of accountability.”

    And now you are, ironically, doing exactly that which you accuse me of doing, namely, boiling down my argument to a meaningless, “random” equation (Freedom == absence of accountability) and offering an opposing inequality (Freedom =/= absence of accountability) by way of rebuttal. Kindly point out where I advocate the absence of accountability, if you think you can. Limited government =/= absence of accountability, now there is an inequality worth noting. Also note how “limited government” and “freedom” are interchangeable in the two inequalities:

    Freedom =/= absence of accountability

    Limited government =/= absence of accountability

    Since the two are interchangeable, logic suggests that there is, perhaps, some positive correlation betwixt the two…food for thought, that.

    Those of us who advocate intelligently for freedom do so fully understanding that freedom implies responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy.

    No, I simply point out that we do need protection from Government, something completely missing from your argument.

    I think you’re a little confused, CB. When have I ever argued against checks on the government’s power?

    The irony continues, and the one who is confused is you. I never said that you “argued against checks on the government’s power”, I simply said that any mention of such checks were “completely missing from your argument”. Can you not tell the difference, Ian? Again, you were apparently advocating for more Government Power, but there was no mention of any kind of check on that power, and that is all I claimed.

    Apparently inevitable Bush Hate nonsense ignored and snipped. Too bad, but I surmise that the though of any common ground between us just left a bad taste in your mouth. I kind of suspected it would.

    Posted by CB | October 25, 2011, 5:05 pm
  31. The implications are clear, even with my alleged “Reading Comprehension Fail”

    ORLY?

    If government shrinks, so does justice. If you want [more/less] justice, you need [more/less] government to get it

    Fail.

    If the government was unjust and exploitative to begin with, then its shrinking does not decrease justice. Neither does its growth increase justice.

    If the government is just and democratic, then increasing its sphere of influence does increase justice.

    Limited government =/= absence of accountability

    And who/what are those who operate outside the limitations of government accountable to?

    Freedom without responsibility is anarchy.

    Right. Under laissez faire capitalism, who are economic leaders responsible to?

    Apparently inevitable Bush Hate nonsense ignored and snipped.

    Tool.

    Posted by Ian | October 25, 2011, 10:44 pm
  32. If government shrinks, so does justice. If you want [more/less] justice, you need [more/less] government to get it

    Fail.

    On your part. Like it or lump it, that was the implication of your assertions.

    If the government was unjust and exploitative to begin with, then its shrinking does not decrease justice. Neither does its growth increase justice.

    Precisely, chief. That’s been my point all along. I’m glad to see you finally coming around…

    Regardless, that was most definitely not implied by your assertions. If that is what you meant, well, too bad, so sad, you need to be more explicit. Unlike you, I don’t pretend I can read minds.

    And who/what are those who operate outside the limitations of government accountable to?

    What does that even mean? If it’s a government agency or official who’s “operat[ing] outside the limitations of government”, then what they are doing is illegal or unconstitutional, by definition. I don’t even know what it means for a business to “operate outside the limitations of government“.

    Under laissez faire capitalism, who are economic leaders responsible to?

    Consumers. The marketplace. Stockholders.

    Generally speaking, one doesn’t stay in business very long if one puts out an inferior or dangerous product. Killing/harming your consumers simply isn’t very good for business. Of course that doesn’t mean that such things never happen — of course they do, and of course we do need some government regulation and oversight. But we don’t need government trying to protect us from ourselves (banning incandescent lights and transfats and so on and so on ad nauseam.) or trying to destroy certain industries (coal energy) while trying to force other industries to thrive (“green” energy boondoggles). Let the market choose the winners and losers, not Government. There will always be those who abuse the system, whether it’s in the business environment or within government. But again, it’s government that’s at the top of the food chain, so that’s where the greatest danger lies, in my view.

    Tool.

    George W. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, yet you had to drag him in anyway, just so you could vent your irrational hatred at him, and at me for not aligning myself with your views 100%, even though, as I observed, there is common ground between us. Apparently, that fact has your panties in such a wad that you have to foment conflict at any cost. And you call me a “tool”? You’re just pegging the irony meter again, chief.

    Posted by CB | October 26, 2011, 9:16 am
  33. I don’t even know what it means for a business to “operate outside the limitations of government“.

    Do you think that this might represent a failure on your part to understand a simple concept?

    Let the market choose the winners and losers

    All of the wealth created during Bush’s administration was destroyed in the Meltdown. It set the stock market back a decade. People lost their retirements over it. And none of it was necessary.

    This is the kind of harm we need government to protect us from. Cause right now there are people who worked their whole lives for money that’s sitting in the bank account of some wall street asshole. And do you know what? They’re the LOSERS. The people who actually added value to the economy and drove real growth are the losers. And the assholes who exploited them, destroying value for the sake of greed, are the winners. This is what happens when you let the market choose the winners and losers.

    This is because “winning” doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with creating value. An investment firm can “win” by short selling their own investors. The outcome is that the economy takes a net loss, while a few individuals profit enormously.

    Take football as an example. If there were no referees–no enforcement of regulations instituted by a governing body–then a team could win the game by shooting their opponents. And you could defend their actions by saying, “Let the game determine the winners and the losers. We don’t need no stinking referees telling them what to do.”

    George W. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion

    He spearheaded the bailouts you profess to loathe. Tell me: did you vote for him? Are you willing to admit that, on retrospect, your support for him may not have helped America achieve worthwhile goals?

    Posted by Ian | October 26, 2011, 3:05 pm
  34. Yay socialism!

    Posted by Alison | October 27, 2011, 8:14 pm
  35. Do you think that this might represent a failure on your part to understand a simple concept?

    Nope. I think it represents a failure on your part to articulate a concept so that it may be understood.

    This is the kind of harm we need government to protect us from.

    On the contrary, it was government meddling in the housing market that created the environment which led to the Meltdown in the first place.

    This is what happens when you let the market Big Government choose the winners and losers.

    There, fixed it for you.

    He spearheaded the bailouts you profess to loathe

    On the contrary, he tried to rein in Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae, but his efforts were shot down by congressional Democrats.

    Posted by CB | October 31, 2011, 9:35 am
  36. HELLOOOOOO? CB? ARE YOU THERE?

    CB? Come on man, talk to me!

    CB? Is that you? CB! DAMMIT WHERE ARE YOU!

    Posted by Ian | October 31, 2011, 4:13 pm
  37. DAMMIT WHERE ARE YOU!

    Calm down — I haven’t gone anywhere…

    Come on man, talk to me!

    A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

    Government Meddling

    Not that you’ll listen…

    Posted by CB | October 31, 2011, 10:04 pm
  38. Getting past the moderator delay…

    DAMMIT WHERE ARE YOU!

    Calm down — I haven’t gone anywhere…

    Come on man, talk to me!

    A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

    Not that you’ll listen…

    Posted by CB | November 1, 2011, 9:40 am
  39. Here’s the second link (apparently, 2 links in one post cause the post to go into a moderator queue).

    Government Meddling

    Posted by CB | November 1, 2011, 9:41 am
  40. Calm down — I haven’t gone anywhere…

    Sorry, was feeling kinda loopy from a fever and trying to shout across the vast gulf between you and reality.

    I think the SEC was pretty up front about their error in allowing self-regulation and how that contributed to the enormous risks financial institutions took on. Unregulated shadow banking also played a pretty obvious role in bringing about the meltdown. In any case, you can’t deny that Bush spearheaded the bailouts by pointing out his attempt in ’03 to shift oversight of Freddie Mac to a new agency. You’re coming off the tracks there, dude.

    Posted by Ian | November 1, 2011, 6:31 pm
  41. Well, I suppose I could continue citing actual articles which reference actual data, and post actual links to said articles which clearly show how government meddling is the real culprit, but, as I observed in my previous post, you simply wouldn’t listen, and would instead indulge in more character assassination fairy tales rather than putting forth a cogent argument.

    Also as I have stated before, you are quite free to keep hawking Big Government since that apparently floats your boat, but don’t expect those of us who live in the real world to buy your snake oil.

    Posted by CB | November 1, 2011, 7:38 pm
  42. Well, hell’s bells, I just cannot seem to help myself…
    Reason for housing bubble burst not fully explored by SEC panel

    The [SEC] had a chance to investigate the risks that Fannie and Freddie were taking and why the information available in the market was so deficient. But this would have required the commission to examine the losses caused by government housing policy. Angelides refused to do so. Instead, Fannie and Freddie’s contribution to the housing crisis was called “marginal” in the commission’s report.

    As a result, the American people and Congress received a distorted picture of the causes of the financial crisis, not the thorough investigation they deserved.

    Posted by CB | November 1, 2011, 11:50 pm
  43. Horrible analogy to socialism. The NFLs product is good football games, not good football teams. The league is an entertainment conglomerate, a single entity that competes against others in the entertainment industry. The money is moved around to produce the best entertainment product, this is what all companies do to compete.

    Socialism as it is normally implemented is rewarding failure. So society gets more failure and less success. An example can be seen in the NFL draft where the worst teams are rewarded with the first picks. So we now have ‘Suck for Luck’, where teams are trying to loose to be rewarded with the first draft pick. This is really what you get in a welfare system.

    Posted by BOh | November 10, 2011, 11:24 pm
  44. BOh, I think the word you are using doesn’t mean what you think it means in this context. I’m not talking about the socialism in which the government owns all industry. You’d be hard pressed to find more than a few handfuls of American politicians who are that far left. The brand of socialism being discussed is that which is practiced in virtually all of the 39 First World Countries, and which has been practiced in America for… well… pretty much our whole history. We already do it with things like transportation, fire department, police departments, etc. Everybody pays taxes and then the government funds something that everybody gets to use for free (or mostly free). The difference between America and every other First World country is that we don’t do that with healthcare and everyone else does. America’s welfare system is one of the worst in the world, as well. And gee… the numbers are in. America is the worst place in the First World to be poor or sick.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | November 12, 2011, 3:00 pm
  45. America is the worst place in the First World to be poor or sick.

    What are you talking about? Haven’t you heard?? We got OBAMACARE!!! All of our problems are SOLVED!!!

    Posted by CB | November 16, 2011, 10:13 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: