PDA

View Full Version : Not made in America


Yellowbeard
07-06-2009, 03:54 PM
John Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock

(MADE IN JAPAN ) for 6 am.

While his coffeepot

(MADE IN CHINA )

was perking, he shaved with his

electric razor

(MADE IN HONG KONG )

He put on a dress shirt

(MADE IN SRI LANKA ),

designer jeans

(MADE IN SINGAPORE )

and

tennis shoes

(MADE IN KOREA)

After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet

(MADE IN INDIA )

he sat down with his calculator

(MADE IN MEXICO )

to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch

(MADE IN TAIWAN )

to the radio

(MADE IN INDIA )

he got in his car

(MADE IN GERMANY )

filled it with GAS

(from Saudi Arabia )

and continued his search

for a good paying AMERICAN JOB.

At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his Computer

(made in MALAYSIA ),

John decided to relax for a while.

He put on his sandals

(MADE IN BRAZIL ),

poured himself a glass of wine

(MADE IN FRANCE )

and turned on his TV

(MADE IN INDONESIA ),

and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job

in AMERICA

AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM A PRESIDENT

MADE IN KENYA

Terez
07-06-2009, 03:58 PM
The productions of the items you mentioned have little to do with good-paying jobs, hence the problem. Like the CEO of Nike said when Mike Moore interviewed him: "Americans don't want to make shoes."

Also, Obama is from Hawaii.

Neilbert
07-06-2009, 04:16 PM
No, American's would be happy to make shoes. They just aren't about to manufacture a sneaker that sells for over a hundred dollars for pennies per day.

It has far more to do with corporate profit margins than it does to do with the work that Americans are "willing" to do.

Yellowbeard
07-06-2009, 04:21 PM
Like the CEO of Nike said when Mike Moore interviewed him: "Americans don't want to make shoes."

In this economy I think Americans would do anything for a pay check.

I also think you underestimate the people, tasks, and skills required to make electrical items, appliances, cars, etc. and what it takes to bring them all together to actually produce something.

Add in the fact that they all have to be made from some sort of source of materials...and there's all sorts of opportunity for manufacturer and production of goods in America that would provide quality paying jobs for people.

Also, Obama is from Hawaii.

hehe, i knew that would get a rise out of someone.

Terez
07-06-2009, 04:39 PM
hehe, i knew that would get a rise out of someone.
Yes, some of us don't like to be reminded of all the idiots that live in this country. I'm sure they'll be back in the spotlight for the next election though...

Crispin's Crispian
07-06-2009, 04:44 PM
Yes, some of us don't like to be reminded of all the idiots that live in this country. I'm sure they'll be back in the spotlight for the next election though...
His name does still sound like Osama, though.

Hawaii or Kenya, there's that.

Neilbert
07-06-2009, 04:50 PM
In this economy I think Americans would do anything for a pay check.

You still have to pay them minimum wage, and fuuuuuck that. How then are you supposed to afford both your salary and Michael Jordan's 175 million dollar endorsement deal?

JSUCamel
07-06-2009, 04:56 PM
You still have to pay them minimum wage, and fuuuuuck that. How then are you supposed to afford both your salary and Michael Jordan's 175 million dollar endorsement deal?

For a second there, I was trying to figure out why a dead pop star was getting a $175 million endorsement deal for sneakers. I blame the media's current obsession.

Yellowbeard
07-06-2009, 05:02 PM
i don't have a problem with the whole kenya thing. i think if he had been born in kenya (which he probably wasn't...hawaii records from 50 years ago are hard to muddle thru but there's enough that it looks like he was more likely born in hawaii than kenya), he still had an american mother that raised him in america and would have most likely had him made a citizen at some point.

as for the natural born part...***shrugs***. we'll let illegal aliens join the army. why not let a guy that's a citizen, but not born on US soil, be president? aside from the constitutional legal argument...practically speaking if the guy could be a good leader, why not? i guess i'm not so worried about a president's ethnic/social background as i am his ability and policies.

of course, i don't like obama's domestic policies, but that's a whole different issue.

Neilbert
07-06-2009, 05:52 PM
I'm fairly sure that if you are born of American parents who just happen to be on foreign soil at the time you are still an American citizen.

Ozymandias
07-06-2009, 06:02 PM
No, American's would be happy to make shoes. They just aren't about to manufacture a sneaker that sells for over a hundred dollars for pennies per day.

It has far more to do with corporate profit margins than it does to do with the work that Americans are "willing" to do.

So your advocating for socialism? If someone is willing to work for cheaper then them, than they are screwed, and screw them. Find another job.

Ozymandias
07-06-2009, 06:06 PM
as for the natural born part...***shrugs***. we'll let illegal aliens join the army. why not let a guy that's a citizen, but not born on US soil, be president? aside from the constitutional legal argument...practically speaking if the guy could be a good leader, why not? i guess i'm not so worried about a president's ethnic/social background as i am his ability and policies.

Strategically speaking, lets say a terrorist snuck through the nets and joined the army as an illegal alien. His capacity to do harm would be limited. As supposed to the commander in chief of the most destructive military power ever assembled, whose word is literally law (exec orders, ya know), and... well, you get the picture.

Neilbert
07-06-2009, 06:15 PM
So your advocating for socialism? If someone is willing to work for cheaper then them, than they are screwed, and screw them. Find another job.

Yes, I suppose I am. If you see people getting payed pennies to manufacture a shoe, while the owner of the corporation makes millions upon millions, and it doesn't strike you that something isn't quite right here, then you are a horrible person.

Too bad for you socialism is already here, you just need to be rich to take advantage. What the fuck do you think the bank bailout was? What the fuck do you think farm subsidies are? What the fuck do you think it is when a state uses tax dollars to pay to build a stadium?

"But it's socialism" is the most retarded argument you could possibly give in relation to American society.

Find another job? Ha. You are a very ignorant individual if you think that's the solution.

As supposed to the commander in chief of the most destructive military power ever assembled, whose word is literally law (exec orders, ya know), and... well, you get the picture.

You honestly think someone would be that dedicated to the cause, and amass that much power without anyone noticing his true dedication, and maintain his dedication despite having the power to provide himself and everyone he really cares about a comfortable and wealthy life?

Such an individual would certainly need to be the antichrist to pull it off, and in that case you should vote for him because it's what God would want.

Crispin's Crispian
07-06-2009, 06:18 PM
Strategically speaking, lets say a terrorist snuck through the nets and joined the army as an illegal alien. His capacity to do harm would be limited. As supposed to the commander in chief of the most destructive military power ever assembled, whose word is literally law (exec orders, ya know), and... well, you get the picture.
That sounds familiar.

Did the Governator star in the Manchurian Candidate?

Crispin's Crispian
07-06-2009, 06:22 PM
It's that pesky poverty issue. If you live in abject poverty, pennies per day sounds pretty nice.

It's only spoiled Americans that expect to afford to live above the poverty line. The developing world just wants to live...or at least wants its children to live.

As long as there are people in poverty, and as long as American-based corporations can afford to build factories where those people live, this will all continue.

Ozymandias
07-06-2009, 06:28 PM
Yes, I suppose I am. If you see people getting payed pennies to manufacture a shoe, while the owner of the corporation makes millions upon millions, and it doesn't strike you that something isn't quite right here, then you are a horrible person.

Or a capitalist... I think that (a) the owner is not responsible for working conditions in his host country, and if that worker wants better conditions he can vote or fight for it, and (b) that anyways, that owner worked hard his life, and spent a great deal of time and capital to achieve his position. American owner X, who outsourced to China, cannot affect working conditions there.

What the fuck do you think the bank bailout was?

If anything, a reaffirmation of a capitalist system where the rich prosper and the poor get saddled with the irresponsible debt forced on them by the banks, right, bucko?

What the fuck do you think farm subsidies are?

Are farmers necessarily so rich?

What the fuck do you think it is when a state uses tax dollars to pay to build a stadium?

See, again, this is the rich getting richer, non? In any case, there is a real argument to be make that this is a responsible use of money. Especially if you subscribe to a bread-and-circus type of philosophy. I mean, in the end, isn't all public institutions like parks and whatever just a waste?

"But it's socialism" is literally the most retarded argument you could possibly give in relation to American society.

Not really. Its obviously not a perfectly capitalist society... but it is the MOST capitalist in the entire world. From a certain perspective, we're the perfect capitalists, because we're the closest anyone has gotten in the real world. Except Gilded Era Anglo-Saxon nations, I guess.

Find another job? Ha. You are a very ignorant individual if you think that's the solution.

If you don't have a job, find another? How is that NOT the solution. Mind you I'm not saying that answer is easy or even remotely fair to the unemployed... but it is the ideal solution.

Neilbert
07-06-2009, 06:50 PM
Or a capitalist...

What's the difference?

Capitalism only works if everyone is honest, and nobody games the system. Good luck getting that to work.

(b) that anyways, that owner worked hard his life

Bill Gates would be just another nobody if his father (or uncle I forget) hadn't been able to float him a huge loan. George W Bush would have been just another poor drunken frat boy working at some shitty bar somewhere if his father didn't have connections and money out the yin yang.

You can find millionaires who got there through hard work and etc, but I'm not talking about millionaires. I'm talking about the top 1%, and those assholes got most of their money through inheritance and sucking at the government teat.

If anything, a reaffirmation of a capitalist system where the rich prosper and the poor get saddled with the irresponsible debt forced on them by the banks, right, bucko?

Capitalism has been bastardized beyond recognition when horrible investments have no negative consequences. That's not a reaffirmation of a capitalist system unless you completely redefine capitalism to mean something else entirely.

Are farmers necessarily so rich?

Oh you think I'm talking about small family farms. How cute.

See, again, this is the rich getting richer, non?

You are going to have to explain why this is a good thing. It seems like you are advocating for feudalism.

In any case, there is a real argument to be make that this is a responsible use of money. Especially if you subscribe to a bread-and-circus type of philosophy.

Yeah, you could make that argument, if you decided to ignore all facts and figures. Unfortunately the simple fact is that stadiums cost tax payers money, they do not bring in revenue, and they do not increase quality of life.

I mean, in the end, isn't all public institutions like parks and whatever just a waste?

Not at all, parks and public lands increase local property vales increasing tax revenues. Stadiums just make sports team owners wealthy and the subsudies go well beyond offsetting any increase in tax revenues. They also increase quality of life, and encourage people to go outside and exercise, decreasing obesity and reducing strain on health care.

From a certain perspective, we're the perfect capitalists, because we're the closest anyone has gotten in the real world.

Nope, pure capitalism has been attempted. Guess how successful it was?

If you don't have a job, find another? How is that NOT the solution.

Because huge corporations can buy out land and governments in such volumes that leave finding new employment irrelevant if not impossible. Find another job might be the eventual solution, but it is in no way a first step.

It's that pesky poverty issue. If you live in abject poverty, pennies per day sounds pretty nice.

You can not, in America, afford the calories to stay alive on pennies per day, much less things like shelter.

(you can make more money taking cans out of people's trash, do you think the homeless aren't living well below the poverty line?)

It's only spoiled Americans that expect to afford to live above the poverty line. The developing world just wants to live...or at least wants its children to live.

The poverty line in America is easily above minimum wage. Sure, some of that takes into account the American lifestyle (mostly the needing transportation), but for the most part it's just more expensive here.

JSUCamel
07-06-2009, 07:04 PM
Ozy, for the love of Pete! (http://youryoure.com/)

Ozymandias
07-06-2009, 07:19 PM
What's the difference?

Capitalism only works if everyone is honest, and nobody games the system. Good luck getting that to work.

Thats hardly true. Capitalism assumes the poor will be exploited and alienated from their labor and the rich will get rich. Capitalism apologists trying to stave off incipient socialism will try and claim that private charity will take its place, but that is in no way a tenet of capitalism

Bill Gates would be just another nobody if his father (or uncle I forget) hadn't been able to float him a huge loan. George W Bush would have been just another poor drunken frat boy working at some shitty bar somewhere if his father didn't have connections and money out the yin yang.


You can find millionaires who got there through hard work and etc, but I'm not talking about millionaires. I'm talking about the top 1%, and those assholes got most of their money through inheritance and sucking at the government teat.

Which are often the poor. Go back the heydey of capitalism... poor people often advanced high. Carnegie, Gould... every wealthy family starts off poor. Do I need to quote WoT here?

Boy, the Creator never made the Houses. Some forget it, but go far enough back in any House, and you'll find a commoner who showed uncommon courage or kept his head and took charge when everybody else was running around like plucked geese

Capitalism has been bastardized beyond recognition when horrible investments have no negative consequences.

Your right... its much closer to socialism, as per an earlier point of yours, and of course, your forgetting th fact that banks were bailed out for an essentially socialist reason... to spare unemployment and loss of savings. So perhaps you had a point... but not even close to what you wanted to mean, I suspect.

Oh you think I'm talking about small family farms. How cute.

Nah, but I gave it a shot. Anyways, I like having food on the table. Give em their subsidies.

You are going to have to explain why this is a good thing. It seems like you are advocating for feudalism.

I was explaining why it was essentially capitalist and not re-distirbutive (read: socialist).

Yeah, you could make that argument, if you decided to ignore all facts and figures. Unfortunately the simple fact is that stadiums cost tax payers money, they do not bring in revenue, and they do not increase quality of life.

Of course they do! Have you ever sat in Shea Stadium, and the Citi Field? Let me tell you, its much better in Citi.

Not at all, parks and public lands increase local property vales increasing tax revenues.

Occasionally... or sometimes, they hurt, eventually.

Stadiums just make sports team owners wealthy and the subsudies go well beyond offsetting any increase in tax revenues. They also increase quality of life, and encourage people to go outside and exercise, decreasing obesity and reducing strain on health care.

bread and circuses, my friend.

Nope, pure capitalism has been attempted. Guess how successful it was?

Well, it transformed America and England from backwater economic countries into powerhouses of industry and economy. Especially the former.

Because huge corporations can buy out land and governments in such volumes that leave finding new employment irrelevant if not impossible. Find another job might be the eventual solution, but it is in no way a first step.

Never said it was. I said it was the solution. Not a fair or easy one, but the solution. I'm glad you agree.

Mind you I'm not saying that answer is easy or even remotely fair to the unemployed... but it is the ideal solution.

You can not, in America, afford the calories to stay alive on pennies per day, much less things like shelter.

Move to China. You'll be able to afford it there.

(you can make more money taking cans out of people's trash, do you think the homeless aren't living well below the poverty line?)

Yeah... I do think so. Its inevitable.

Neilbert
07-06-2009, 07:52 PM
Thats hardly true. Capitalism assumes the poor will be exploited and alienated from their labor and the rich will get rich.

No, not even a little. That's capitalism in practice, not capitalism in theory, and why the hell are you arguing that exploiting the poor and alienating them from their labor is a good thing?

Which are often the poor. Go back the heydey of capitalism... poor people often advanced high.

If you go back far enough everyone started out broke as a joke. What's your point?

Do I need to quote WoT here?

You could, but then I could quote it back showing you a list of incompetent nobles who haven't worked a day or earned a penny in their life.

Your right... its much closer to socialism, as per an earlier point of yours, and of course, your forgetting th fact that banks were bailed out for an essentially socialist reason... to spare unemployment and loss of savings.

If that were true the money would have been given to the poor, not to the banks.

Anyways, I like having food on the table. Give em their subsidies.

How incredibly short sighted of you.

I was explaining why it was essentially capitalist and not re-distirbutive (read: socialist).

The rich getting richer is not inherent to capitalism. In true capitalism the rich wouldn't get richer like this, because they would be giving up something of equivalent value to get what they want.

Of course they do! Have you ever sat in Shea Stadium, and the Citi Field? Let me tell you, its much better in Citi.

They bring in revenue? No, not even a little. They improve quality of life? Not for the people and businesses living near them, but I'm glad you enjoyed the game.

Occasionally... or sometimes, they hurt, eventually.

No, homes near parks have higher property values than similar homes which are not. That's a fact.

bread and circuses, my friend.

Yeah, it worked so well for the Romans that we should do it too. :rolleyes:

Never said it was. I said it was the solution. Not a fair or easy one, but the solution. I'm glad you agree.

Yeah, it is a solution in the same way that death is a solution to all of life's problems.

Yeah... I do think so. Its inevitable.

Only if people like you are allowed to run the show.

As distasteful as I find hippies, people like you are far worse.

AbbeyRoad
07-07-2009, 01:43 AM
Strategically speaking, lets say a terrorist snuck through the nets and joined the army as an illegal alien. His capacity to do harm would be limited. As supposed to the commander in chief of the most destructive military power ever assembled, whose word is literally law (exec orders, ya know), and... well, you get the picture.

Pshhh. You underestimate the political power, money, track record, scrutiny, campaigning, etc. that goes into even being considered as a serious candidate for the presidency. Not to mention most have to serve in public office for years, etc. A terrorist "sneaking" into the country and rising to the presidency is a pretty moot point, and could only take place in Hollywood.

Ozymandias
07-07-2009, 09:09 AM
No, not even a little. That's capitalism in practice, not capitalism in theory, and why the hell are you arguing that exploiting the poor and alienating them from their labor is a good thing?

I'm not... but we live in a world of reality, not theory. Nothing works as its supposed to in theory. You can either live in the clouds, or accept whats real and do your best to change it. For example, this country has accepted that pure caiptalism will never work because pure capitalism exists in a world without humans (i.e. greed and avarice), and has instituted certain socialist policies like welfare or unemployment benefits, certain redistributive fiscal policies, and has made real world capitalism a little more fair to the exploited.


You could, but then I could quote it back showing you a list of incompetent nobles who haven't worked a day or earned a penny in their life.

Work is subjective.... your assuming work is grubbing in the fields or herding or whatever. The Randland nobles are spoiled and entitled and generally stupid, but that doesn't mean they don't work as generals and soldiers, or administrators and bureaucrats. Thats work, just not what you want work to be or what the main characters think it should be.

If that were true the money would have been given to the poor, not to the banks.

If it were pure socialism, yes. I didn't say it was, I said it was socialist in nature. You have these two extremes in your head, and no room for anything else... except those two are the only situations which are just about guaranteed to never exist.

How incredibly short sighted of you.

Riiight. Eating is short sighted. What would you rather we do with that money? Dump it into the defense budget? I'd rather have my sliced bread than another army brigade.

The rich getting richer is not inherent to capitalism. In true capitalism the rich wouldn't get richer like this, because they would be giving up something of equivalent value to get what they want.

But in every capitalist society the rich get richer without gov't intervention. Therefore, again getting out of your little capitalist dreamworld, we can see that capitalism on the ground means concentration of wealth. In this, Marx was all too right.

They bring in revenue? No, not even a little. They improve quality of life? Not for the people and businesses living near them, but I'm glad you enjoyed the game.

When I go to a game, I buy my sixpack of beer at a deli next door. And my sandwiches to tailgate. Those guys have all benefited from that stadium... and, of course, the city collects all revenues from the stadium. Parking, perhaps a cut from concessions, and the like. If run efficiently, it can actually be somewhat profitable.

So I'd say yeah... it does bring in revenue, even a little. And it improves the quality of life for the 45000 people who go there 82 times a year. Thats also worth something.

No, homes near parks have higher property values than similar homes which are not. That's a fact.

False. As Gil stated on an earlier thread, sometimes parks run out of money and become decrepit hangouts of gangs and crack fiends. For an example, a park right near my apt in Philadelphia... couldn't pay me to walk past there after nightfall. Definitely drives down home values when you can see people shooting up, and shooting each other, on any given night. So try again, bucko.

Yeah, it worked so well for the Romans that we should do it too. :rolleyes:

... it did.

Yeah, it is a solution in the same way that death is a solution to all of life's problems.

No, not even remotely the same. If I don't have a job, and I want one, the goal is to get a job. If I'm lonely and want a wife... the solution isn't "kill myself."

As distasteful as I find hippies, people like you are far worse.

People like me are the reason you get to enjoy the standard of living you do. People like me are the reason we're not China... hence, we're the reason you have the required internet access to discuss this with me. People like me are what drove American industrialism; no, it wasn't fair and it wasn't pretty, but I'm the reason this country is what it is. And that doesn't mean I don't support some redistribution of wealth or gov't intervention in society.

Ozymandias
07-07-2009, 09:13 AM
Pshhh. You underestimate the political power, money, track record, scrutiny, campaigning, etc. that goes into even being considered as a serious candidate for the presidency. Not to mention most have to serve in public office for years, etc. A terrorist "sneaking" into the country and rising to the presidency is a pretty moot point, and could only take place in Hollywood.

Do I? Who is the Governor of California? A foreign born person, I believe? And you don't think the Governator could mount a credible Presidential campaign? Reagan did it, and is apparantly now considered the greatest President ever for almost no reason. And Arnold is actually a decent bipartisan governor, in my opinion.

No... I think your overestimating how relatively easy it is. What is Arnold was Prez, and Austria came calling and asked for some small favor. He might be more inclined to grant it.

Gilshalos Sedai
07-07-2009, 09:29 AM
If Schwarzenegger becomes president.... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/

Neilbert
07-07-2009, 10:17 AM
Work is subjective.... your assuming work is grubbing in the fields or herding or whatever. The Randland nobles are spoiled and entitled and generally stupid, but that doesn't mean they don't work as generals and soldiers, or administrators and bureaucrats. Thats work, just not what you want work to be or what the main characters think it should be.

No, I'm actually not. The Nobles I'm talking about spend all their time drinking and playing cards, while paying other people to be administrators and bureaucrats or soldiers. Nice assumption, but nowhere near the mark.

If it were pure socialism, yes. I didn't say it was, I said it was socialist in nature.

It's good that we agree. I said originally that it was socialism in nature, just socialism that directly benefits the rich and theoretically (no not really) might possibly benefit everyone else, but only accidentally.

Riiight. Eating is short sighted. What would you rather we do with that money? Dump it into the defense budget? I'd rather have my sliced bread than another army brigade.

No, I would prefer that people pay the actual cost of food, so small farmers can make a living, giant corporations can stop raping the land growing massive quantities of genetically engineered crops (cus they have already raped the land so hard nothing else will grow), and so that the US can stop dumping its cheap and abundant food on Africa screwing over their economy.

Suggesting that I would rather it go to the military, or suggesting yourself that it might go to the military, is again, incredibly short sighted.

But in every capitalist society the rich get richer without gov't intervention. Therefore, again getting out of your little capitalist dreamworld, we can see that capitalism on the ground means concentration of wealth. In this, Marx was all too right.

I agree with you, I'm just perplexed that you don't think this is a bad thing.

When I go to a game, I buy my sixpack of beer at a deli next door. And my sandwiches to tailgate. Those guys have all benefited from that stadium... and, of course, the city collects all revenues from the stadium. Parking, perhaps a cut from concessions, and the like. If run efficiently, it can actually be somewhat profitable.

Yes, in theory it could actually be profitable (for the state/city), but it's time for you to leave your little dream world and accept that in reality it never actually is.

These meager profits that the state pulls in from taxing stadium revenue do not offset the hundreds of millions in tax dollars that got spent to build the stadium, nor does the slight boon in business during (really just before and after) games (and how many of those are there really?) offset the opportunity cost of local business. (Not to mention that most of the money gets spent inside the stadium, at stadium concessions.)

Not to mention that in less then 10 years the teams are going to start bitching and wanting a new stadium, so you don't even have the long term to recoup your investment.

So I'd say yeah... it does bring in revenue, even a little.

You can bring in revenue and still lose money. It's really basic accounting.

False. As Gil stated on an earlier thread, sometimes parks run out of money and become decrepit hangouts of gangs and crack fiends. For an example, a park right near my apt in Philadelphia... couldn't pay me to walk past there after nightfall.

That's true, but parks that aren't in shithole neighborhoods increase property values, and it's incredibly mypoic to blame local crime on the presence of a park. That has less do with the park running out of money, and more to do with your city being Philadelphia. Urban decay is a whole nother conversation, which parks play a very small role in.

(PS: It increases property values for local drug dealers. You can't ignore the fact that parks provide value, it's just a question of who takes advantage.)

.. it did.

Clearly it did not because the Roman Empire collapsed.

No, not even remotely the same. If I don't have a job, and I want one, the goal is to get a job. If I'm lonely and want a wife... the solution isn't "kill myself."

Sure it is. If you kill yourself you won't be lonely anymore.

People like me are the reason you get to enjoy the standard of living you do.

People like you are fucking parasites, and the fact that you claim to take credit for my standard of life (which is crap by a lot of first world metrics anyways) is disgusting on many levels.

And it improves the quality of life for the 45000 people who go there 82 times a year. Thats also worth something.

Screwing over a city of a million plus, and a state of millions more out of tax dollars and revenue and opportunity costs, so that 45000 people can enjoy a game at no net benefit to the city or state, in fact a net cost.

Pretty sure that's textbook parasite.

Ozymandias
07-07-2009, 01:09 PM
No, I'm actually not. The Nobles I'm talking about spend all their time drinking and playing cards, while paying other people to be administrators and bureaucrats or soldiers. Nice assumption, but nowhere near the mark.

Well, actually, we saw them do that it one scene. Of course, your ignoring the fact that Nalesean and Edorion and Co all end up becoming battle-hardened professional soldiers... Nalesean dies, Edorion makes the mad dash from Cairhien to meet Rand... as nice as it is to look at that one scene in the Stone and extrapolate, its not the reality.

Faile tells us about Borderland customs, where you either fight or administrate.

No, I would prefer that people pay the actual cost of food, so small farmers can make a living, giant corporations can stop raping the land growing massive quantities of genetically engineered crops (cus they have already raped the land so hard nothing else will grow), and so that the US can stop dumping its cheap and abundant food on Africa screwing over their economy.

Which would make food mroe expensive which would screw over poorer people... great.

Suggesting that I would rather it go to the military, or suggesting yourself that it might go to the military, is again, incredibly short sighted.

It was a facetious comment. I'll shy away from making lighthearted comments in the future.

I agree with you, I'm just perplexed that you don't think this is a bad thing.

I think that of all the systems in the entire world, ours has produced the most wealth for the most people of any society in history, even with accumulation of wealth. So, since we are at the moment the best that has ever been, how can it NOT be a good thing?

Yes, in theory it could actually be profitable (for the state/city), but it's time for you to leave your little dream world and accept that in reality it never actually is.

Time to educate. The Mets rent Citifield from the city. For construction, the city owes about 8 million dollars a year for 40 years. The Mets are paying a yearly rent of about 4MM. So owning a stadium is actually profitable... of course, the public funding they were given offsets that, but the point is that objectively, stadium ownership can be and is profitable.

And we can't ignore all the NYC union workers who were hired to build the stadium, or the NYers who staff it, and who then pay income taxes and buy things in NY they wouldn't otherwise do or afford.

These meager profits that the state pulls in from taxing stadium revenue do not offset the hundreds of millions in tax dollars that got spent to build the stadium, nor does the slight boon in business during (really just before and after) games (and how many of those are there really?) offset the opportunity cost of local business. (Not to mention that most of the money gets spent inside the stadium, at stadium concessions.)

Obviosuly the boon to local business is tiny by comparison... but you did say there was no financial benefit, and there is. Of course, you've thoroughly avoided addressing any of the real revenue sources for the city/state: 160 million in rent revenues means the overall expenditures are down to 100MM. Parking revenue, plus the more indirect benefits of higher employment and more tax revenues on that employment, probably bring it down further. Of the 600 million spent, lets say half goes to paying for construction labor. Not even. We'll say a third. So 200 million. I'm pretty sure the state government takes about 7% of that... another 14 million. And the city income taxes are too complicated for me to work out at the moment, so we'll say 3% and be done with it... 6 million. So our total costs are down to 80 million for the stadium.

Then we throw in the aforementioned benefits of increased employment, workers making money, local business making money from construction workers, from stadium visitors, parking revenues, the overall increased happiness at a nice new stadium, etc etc.

Is it a zero sum game? No. But government spending never is. In the end, the state and city wasted money, yeah. But you could say the same for parks and such, too.

Not to mention that in less then 10 years the teams are going to start bitching and wanting a new stadium, so you don't even have the long term to recoup your investment.

Wrong. Yankee Stadium was around for 32 years. Shea was there for 44. Try again.

You can bring in revenue and still lose money. It's really basic accounting.

Of course. With private business this is a big deal. The question with government is ALWAYS that of what price happines and quality of life should warrant. If each fan who sits in CitiField finds his or her experience enriched by the value of a single dollar, and the stadium is there for forty years, then your generating 120MM in quality of life.

That's true, but parks that aren't in shithole neighborhoods increase property values, and it's incredibly mypoic to blame local crime on the presence of a park. That has less do with the park running out of money, and more to do with your city being Philadelphia. Urban decay is a whole nother conversation, which parks play a very small role in.

You claimed parks invariably boost property values. I pointed out an example of a park that depresses them. There are plenty of examples of it around the country, I'm sure. Another example of a theory going wrong once it hits the ground.

Clearly it did not because the Roman Empire collapsed.

But not because of the bread-and-circus act.

People like you are fucking parasites, and the fact that you claim to take credit for my standard of life (which is crap by a lot of first world metrics anyways) is disgusting on many levels.

I personally don't. But industrialists, financiers, entrepreneurs like myself throughout the history of this country (by which I mean who hold the same business ethics I do) have built this nation into an economic powerhouse. Redistribution of wealth, or keeping jobs in America, would only depress growth and lead to a reduction in your quality of life. Or would have, ahd it happened in the past, I should say.



Screwing over a city of a million plus, and a state of millions more out of tax dollars and revenue and opportunity costs, so that 45000 people can enjoy a game at no net benefit to the city or state, in fact a net cost.

What is the benefit of welfare? Nothing... poor people screw the taxpayers out of our hard earned money, at no net benefit to the state. Or how about building roads? Or airports? Government is what it is, because it doesn't consider the bottom line as rigorously as a private corporation might, when making a deal. Most government spending will never return a profit. I'm not sure what your point is.

Like a road, an baseball stadium is an infrastructure improvement that doesn't make money for the city, but makes the quality of life of the residents that much better. Your theory of government seems to be one where the government makes no move that won't be profitable.

Gilshalos Sedai
07-07-2009, 01:17 PM
Clearly it did not because the Roman Empire collapsed.

But not because of the bread-and-circus act.


Well, according to Nixon, it was because everyone was gay.

Davian93
07-07-2009, 01:26 PM
Well, according to Nixon, it was because everyone was gay.

And he would know...he was elected President twice.

Neilbert
07-07-2009, 07:33 PM
Which would make food mroe expensive which would screw over poorer people... great.

Which would lead an increase in the minimum wage and everyone eating better food. Probably less meat though, and that is not a bad thing.

I think that of all the systems in the entire world, ours has produced the most wealth for the most people of any society in history, even with accumulation of wealth.

Eh, hard to say, but as far as wealth distribution goes no.

Time to educate. The Mets rent Citifield from the city. For construction, the city owes about 8 million dollars a year for 40 years. The Mets are paying a yearly rent of about 4MM.

The city pays 8 million a year and takes in 4 million and this isn't operating at a loss somehow?

Not to mention the fact that it ignores completely whatever backroom deals are made and what tax breaks are offered, and there are always tax breaks offered.

Why do you think Guiliani got to load his trunk with Yankee merch whenever he felt like it?

So owning a stadium is actually profitable... of course, the public funding they were given offsets that, but the point is that objectively, stadium ownership can be and is profitable.

For the owners, not for anyone else. If you remove tax breaks and other incentives then the entire sports industry, Baseball, Football, Basketball, and Hockey all operate at a loss. A large loss. The money that makes up the difference and makes them profitable comes from tax payers.

If the State of Washington were to just hand me a hundred million dollars would you consider that to be profitable?

And we can't ignore all the NYC union workers who were hired to build the stadium, or the NYers who staff it, and who then pay income taxes and buy things in NY they wouldn't otherwise do or afford.

Actually yes we can, because those tax dollars could have been spent on things like.. oh say public transportation, or education (which actually increases both quality of life and return on investment), which would provide jobs, tax revenues etc.

Obviosuly the boon to local business is tiny by comparison... but you did say there was no financial benefit, and there is.

No, I said they are a net loss. A concept that you can't get through your thick head. Just because a business venture takes in money does not mean it is profitable.

Then we throw in the aforementioned benefits of increased employment, workers making money, local business making money from construction workers, from stadium visitors, parking revenues, the overall increased happiness at a nice new stadium, etc etc.

Net fucking loss, understand the concept? By your own reasoning the happiness is 88 games X 45k people, which pales in comparison to the population of New York or even Seattle.

Is it a zero sum game? No. But government spending never is. In the end, the state and city wasted money, yeah. But you could say the same for parks and such, too.

I really couldn't. Properly planned cities (which include parks and public transportation) increase both quality of life for everyone (not just people who go to games) and increase tax revenues. They might operate at a loss, but everyone gets to enjoy the services they provide, not just a small subset of the population.

Wrong. Yankee Stadium was around for 32 years. Shea was there for 44. Try again.

The Stadium's playing field was substantially shortened, with monuments once in play relegated to a newly created Monument Park and deep center reduced by over 40 feet. The cost of the 1970s renovations, $160 million, was originally borne by New York City and is now being paid off by New York State.

Still haven't paid it off, clamoring for another.

I live in Washington state. Here we hadn't even finished paying off the Kingdome before we demolished it and built the Mariners another stadium.

If each fan who sits in CitiField finds his or her experience enriched by the value of a single dollar, and the stadium is there for forty years, then your generating 120MM in quality of life.

Do you know what an opportunity cost is? By paying for a stadium you lose the ability to pay for other things.

How many dollars is being stuck in a traffic jam worth? How many dollars is freezing to death while stuck in a traffic jam caused by snow and a baseball game? Happened earlier this year. How many people freeze to death riding public transit?

How many dollars is not being able to spend that money on something worthwhile like education worth? By the metric of revenue being increased then education is the clear winner, so the real question is how much more is a baseball game worth to you than having an educated populace?

Currently education is pretty much the only thing the US economy has going for it, but screw that, Ozy want's to watch his baseball game.

You claimed parks invariably boost property values. I pointed out an example of a park that depresses them. There are plenty of examples of it around the country, I'm sure. Another example of a theory going wrong once it hits the ground.

And there are much more examples of parks increasing property values. Find a decent neighborhood and shop around, the houses closer to parks will have higher property values, much like the houses with scenic views will have higher property values. A thing is only as good as you make it, and expecting a single crappy park to magically combat urban decay is absurd.

But not because of the bread-and-circus act.

Jury is still out on that one, I have heard many scholars claim that bread and circuses contributed to the decline.

Redistribution of wealth, or keeping jobs in America, would only depress growth and lead to a reduction in your quality of life. Or would have, ahd it happened in the past, I should say.

Redistribution of wealth is only a good thing when the wealth is being redistributed from the poor to the rich?

Middle class spending doesn't spur growth of the economy?

Small businesses, owned by the rapidly shrinking middle class aren't the backbone of our economy?

Women being forced into (not choosing to enter) the workforce because a single working person can't afford to raise a family is somehow increased quality of life?

Pull your head out of your ass. Redistributing wealth to the wealthy (feudalism) decreases quality of life dramatically for everyone else except the very richest of people.

If you think that fastest growth of the economy is a metric for quality of life, ask yourself how you would have liked to live under Stalin, because IIRC he's the reigning champ.

What is the benefit of welfare? Nothing... poor people screw the taxpayers out of our hard earned money, at no net benefit to the state.

Stability lowers crime. That's a benefit to everyone.

Or how about building roads?

If you think roads don't provide a benefit to both revenue and quality of life then you are stupid beyond words to describe.

Most government spending will never return a profit. I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that stadiums lose money, and increase quality of life for a small subset of the population. By any metric they are a bad investment.

Like a road, an baseball stadium is an infrastructure improvement that doesn't make money for the city, but makes the quality of life of the residents that much better.

No, it makes the quality of life better for a small percentage of the residents, and worse for everyone else. Local bars and restaurants actually tend to do better business when they don't have to compete with a giant ugly stadium. For everyone who likes going to see the game, there's a dozen people stuck in a traffic jam caused by that game.

Again, net detriment to quality of life.

Your theory of government seems to be one where the government makes no move that won't be profitable.

You miss the point entirely if you think that's what I'm arguing.

Public works should benefit the public. Eg: Everyone, not just sports fans who can afford tickets. Where's my free ticket to the game? Why am I not allowed to play baseball at Safeco while the season is out? Oh, cus it's privately owned, despite my tax dollars paying for the bulk of it. How is that not fucked up?

This isn't a public works project, this is the government investing in a private business venture, eating the losses and keeping none of the profits. Sound familiar?

I'm done here. If you are comparing the benefits of stadiums to the benefits of roads it is very clear you are not arguing from any place more rational than "love of the game".

Ozymandias
07-08-2009, 09:22 AM
Which would lead an increase in the minimum wage and everyone eating better food. Probably less meat though, and that is not a bad thing.

Which means less economic growth, more outsourcing, less jobs... nothing happens in a vacuum, bud.

Eh, hard to say, but as far as wealth distribution goes no.

Does it matter? If the every person is still relatively wealthier than his counterpart in every society that ever existed, then who cares? Or not who cares, but who can argue that our system isn't the best the world has seen?

And its basically fact that Americans enjoy a higher standard of living than any people in history.

Not to mention the fact that it ignores completely whatever backroom deals are made and what tax breaks are offered, and there are always tax breaks offered.

That actually includes the backroom deals.

Why do you think Guiliani got to load his trunk with Yankee merch whenever he felt like it?

Mainly because he was a high-profile Yankees fan. They let plenty of people do that.

For the owners, not for anyone else. If you remove tax breaks and other incentives then the entire sports industry, Baseball, Football, Basketball, and Hockey all operate at a loss. A large loss. The money that makes up the difference and makes them profitable comes from tax payers.

Yep. And you know what, if you said to the average taxpayer, "listen, you can either have an extra 10 bucks a year and have no sports to watch or enjoy, or pay the 10 dollars to have sports teams," just about everyone would pay.

Oh, and the tax shelter laws have been drastically amended over the last 15 years, so this complaint no longer holds nearly as true as it used to.

If the State of Washington were to just hand me a hundred million dollars would you consider that to be profitable?

Depends what you were gonna do with it.

Actually yes we can, because those tax dollars could have been spent on things like.. oh say public transportation, or education (which actually increases both quality of life and return on investment), which would provide jobs, tax revenues etc.

Firstly, the problem with urban education isn't necessarily funding. The whole system needs an overall. I volunteer at a school in West Philadelphia which received a nice grant a few years back, so they bought all new textbooks and whatever, upgraded facilities... two years later, half the textbooks are are gone, the other half are defaced, and everything is back where it was.

No, I said they are a net loss. A concept that you can't get through your thick head. Just because a business venture takes in money does not mean it is profitable.

Thanks for explaining. Government doesn't work like that, though.

Net fucking loss, understand the concept? By your own reasoning the happiness is 88 games X 45k people, which pales in comparison to the population of New York or even Seattle.

Its 81, and we'll say 80x45k is 3,600,000. The population of Seattle is a 6th of that, and even the metro area is smaller at 3,400,000. So actually... it doesn't pale in comparison.

I really couldn't. Properly planned cities (which include parks and public transportation) increase both quality of life for everyone (not just people who go to games) and increase tax revenues. They might operate at a loss, but everyone gets to enjoy the services they provide, not just a small subset of the population.

They increase quality of life for those who use them. And many parks which operate at a loss, even the beautiful ones, are only accessible to a small number. Look at Corona Park (its literally across the street from CitiField, and is where the 68 World's Fair was held, I think... you see it in MiB); probably hugely expensive to keep up, and relatively few people use it anymore.

How about zoos? Or museums? Should we stop funding all museums? They usually operate at or on the fringe of a loss. And only the people who can afford to pay get to go. Is the Neilbert theory of government for or against museum grants? Keep in mind more people would rather see a Mets game than go to the Met, and its about as affordable.

Do you know what an opportunity cost is? By paying for a stadium you lose the ability to pay for other things.

I know what it is. I happen to be of the belief that providing entertainment is worth something. Sure, owners get richer and whatever, but the state clearly made a decision and decided it was worth it.

How many dollars is being stuck in a traffic jam worth? How many dollars is freezing to death while stuck in a traffic jam caused by snow and a baseball game? Happened earlier this year. How many people freeze to death riding public transit?

My guess would be a far larger amount of people die on public transport than in baseball related deaths every year.

How many dollars is not being able to spend that money on something worthwhile like education worth? By the metric of revenue being increased then education is the clear winner, so the real question is how much more is a baseball game worth to you than having an educated populace?

Depends. I need a dumb population to exploit for personal gain, you know. You've blithely assumed you know where all this excess money is gonna be spent.

Currently education is pretty much the only thing the US economy has going for it, but screw that, Ozy want's to watch his baseball game.

Yep. And given what are probably a huge number of high-school dropouts who love their baseball, I'm probably not alone!

Jury is still out on that one, I have heard many scholars claim that bread and circuses contributed to the decline.

So you're admitting that your implicit claim that bread-and-circuses were the cause of Rome's fall was misleading? Good enough for me.

Redistribution of wealth is only a good thing when the wealth is being redistributed from the poor to the rich?

I'll address this and all the fine examples you posted below by saying this. Redistribution of wealth, achieved through things like a high minimum wage, welfare and unemployment payments, and astronomical taxes for the wealthy, are all disincentives to work hard and succeed. Ergo, people WON'T work as hard or succeed as often. Its hard to justify working 16 hour days just to see 90% of that go back to someone who works his 8 hour day and goes home.

If you think that fastest growth of the economy is a metric for quality of life, ask yourself how you would have liked to live under Stalin, because IIRC he's the reigning champ.

No, but I think that economic growth will lead to increased quality of life. If you think distributive economies are bad... look at places like Russia and China pre-Xaoping, where people's lives sucked compared to here. I'll say it again. Our economic system has consistently provided a higher standard of living for its people than any other implemented in human history. The Cold War was nothing if not an affirmation that socialism cannot work in human society. And yet you cling to this believe that greater socialism will lead to more happiness? I support some socialist policies, but blatant redistribution of wealth is silly.

Stability lowers crime. That's a benefit to everyone.

Can we prove that welfare payments and crime are directly correlated? If so, I'll wait on the link, and if not, I'll just ignore this.

If you think roads don't provide a benefit to both revenue and quality of life then you are stupid beyond words to describe.

Of course I do. I spend every day financing road-building. Revenue, yes, quality of life not so much.

My point is that stadiums lose money, and increase quality of life for a small subset of the population. By any metric they are a bad investment.

They increase QoL for a huge number... even assuming that half of those visitors are repeats, thats still more people being served than the entire populations of North and South Dakota, and Montana combined!

I'm looking at my ticket right now. 23.00 for a seat. Not horrendous, its not even the worst possible seat (though close). Its not your place to decide what qualifies as an increase in QoL for me or anyone else. As you can clearly see, I think the $XX.XX I pay in taxes for the new stadium are completely worth it. Even throwing in the price of the ticket. The upgrade in facilities is enormous. Many people feel the same. I'm sure many don't. On the other hand, my tax dollars also go to building a park somewhere in Rochester, I'm sure, and I don't get to see any benefit of that unless I want to spend the gas money and time to drive up there to frolic for an hour. Your trying to impose your belief about value on me and everyone else.

You miss the point entirely if you think that's what I'm arguing.

Public works should benefit the public. Eg: Everyone, not just sports fans who can afford tickets. Where's my free ticket to the game? Why am I not allowed to play baseball at Safeco while the season is out? Oh, cus it's privately owned, despite my tax dollars paying for the bulk of it. How is that not fucked up?

So why the hell do my federal income taxes go to North Dakota to subsidize all the infrastructure projects they need? The place shouldn't even be a state. Literally, the administration costs of doing the bureaucratic activities needed to support and represent a governing apparatus for a state of 500,000 are astronomically out of whack. But no one complains about that. The fact of the matter is, I will never enjoy the benefits of most of my tax dollars and neither will anyone else. Paying people welfare, paying them not to work, is the definition of a waste because I don't now even have the option of paying to increase my quality of life.

This isn't a public works project, this is the government investing in a private business venture, eating the losses and keeping none of the profits. Sound familiar?

Sounds like all government enterprises, more or less.

Stadiums are for the public benefit. Even if you have to pay, it still increases everyone's happiness to have a sports team, to have a beautiful stadium to go to, etc etc. Look at some PPP toll roads, like I-80 in PA. What is that, but an example of the public funding a road, handing over control of it to a private mnanagement company, and then letting the public pay A LOT more in total to use it (in comparison to a stadium).

Your railing against the stadiums because they seem like perfect examples of corporate greed and government excess, but in reality that kind of thing happens all the time, everywhere. Its how government operates. And you display a complete lack of knowledge of how our road system works if you see it being that much different.

You disagree with my assumption that a nice baseball stadium increases quality of life. Thats you trying to impose your own values on me and those like me. Ask most people if they'd rather have a baseball stadium or a couple dozen extra miles of highway, and I think you'll get the answer as to who the American public tends to agree with.

Zanguini
07-08-2009, 09:45 AM
Id rather have a couple extra miles of highway leading towards a football stadium

Neilbert
07-08-2009, 10:38 AM
Even if you have to pay, it still increases everyone's happiness to have a sports team, to have a beautiful stadium to go to, etc etc.

it is very clear you are not arguing from any place more rational than "love of the game".

It does not increase "everyone's" happiness. Not by a long shot. It increases (your numbers) 45000 people's happiness 80 times a year (wouldn't it be closer to 40? I wouldn't think all 80 would be home games). Leaving everyone else getting absolutely no benefit 285-325 days of the year and a headache the remaining 40-80.

Washington voters just told the Sonics to take a hike. How does that one strike you?

Which means less economic growth, more outsourcing, less jobs... nothing happens in a vacuum, bud.

Less economic growth maybe, but certainly less outsourcing and more jobs.

I need a dumb population to exploit for personal gain, you know.

Ozy's argument in a nutshell: Fuck everyone else as long as I get mine.

Why don't you move to some third world shithole. There's gotta be lots more idiots for you to exploit there. Then you can stop turning my country into one.

Firstly, the problem with urban education isn't necessarily funding.

If you are talking about college education then yes it is. If you are talking about pre college that pile of shit should be burnt to the ground and rebuilt completely.

They increase quality of life for those who use them.

I lived in Tacoma, the city with the second largest city park in the country. On sunny days you can't hardly find a place to stand, and Tacoman's will give up Point Defiance when you pry it from their cold dead hands. (Oh, and it's free!)

Parks done right kick ass. For everyone. Too bad all the money gets pissed away on frivolous shit.

A tiny field (too small for sports), swings and a big toy do not a park make.

So you're admitting that your implicit claim that bread-and-circuses were the cause of Rome's fall was misleading?

Where did I say that bread and circuses caused Rome's fall? I said it didn't help things.

Our economic system has consistently provided a higher standard of living for its people than any other implemented in human history.

Bullshit. To give one small example, our infant mortality rate is lower than Signapore's. That isn't a higher standard of living. Do some research and you will find that across the board Americans are less happy just about every other first world country, and a good chunk of the third world ones.

Your trying to impose your belief about value on m e and everyone else.

Yup, just like you. The difference is that I don't see any reason for taxpayer monies to go directly into the pockets of the wealthy.

I wonder how your dreams of a feudalistic society will work out when you discover you're just another serf?

To add some numbers:

Tacoma has a population of just under 200,000.
Point Defiance gets about 2 million visitors per year (it's an estimate they don't keep track).

So on average everyone in Tacoma uses the park 10 times per year. Does everyone in New York attend 10 baseball games?

Redistribution of wealth, achieved through things like a high minimum wage, welfare and unemployment payments, and astronomical taxes for the wealthy, are all disincentives to work hard and succeed. Ergo, people WON'T work as hard or succeed as often.

Someone just finished reading Atlas Shrugged.

Look at Corona Park

I just GISed it and it's a piece of shit, especially compared to point defiance. Fucking sad when Tacoma has a better park than New York City. (Point Defiance is better than Central Park too going by GIS, cus I've never been there.)