Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers?

Moderators: Dirk, CoreyGallagher, magnumt, ken6199, Yuri Vaultin, BombsquadSammy, Tarik Black, Mr. E, bwgood77, Rhettmatic, Duke4life831, KF10, GimmeDat, Knickstape1214, DayofMourning, Capn'O

Should the Public Fund Stadiums?

Yes
19
9%
No
190
91%
 
Total votes: 209

User avatar
dacrusha
RealGM
Posts: 10,370
And1: 1,654
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: Waiting for Jesse Ventura to show up...
       

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#81 » by dacrusha » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:06 pm

Boneman2 wrote:Indiana taxpayers had no problem funding Lucas Oil Stadium and Bankers Life Fieldhouse as Indiana has the best credit rating out of all 50 states and consistently runs a budget surplus. If your state can't do the same then you're electing the wrong local/ state government officials.


Lucas Oil Stadium is one of the worst public taxpayer deals in sport infrastructure funding history. Right up there with Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati. Those communities will be paying off those loans for the next hundred years.

I'm happy for the good citizens of Indiana that they have a government that runs budget surpluses which enable them to absorb the obscene expenses incurred by NFL owners.
"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team" - Michael Jordan
DoItALL9
Pro Prospect
Posts: 901
And1: 170
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: RE: Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#82 » by DoItALL9 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:10 pm

dc wrote:
jswede wrote:
seren wrote:No. Absolutely not. Even considering this is idiotic. Build some dam facilities for kids instead.

Sent from my XT1575 using RealGM mobile app


.....aaaaaaand then you lose the team.


Yep. Seattle put their foot down. Grew some balls. Took a moral stand on behalf of the country. Drew the line in the sand. No more taxpayer money for billionaires' play toys! We're fed up with it!

So then they lost their team, and they've been trying to get one back ever since.

Other cities should've followed in chorus
DoItALL9
Pro Prospect
Posts: 901
And1: 170
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: RE: Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#83 » by DoItALL9 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:10 pm

dc wrote:
jswede wrote:
seren wrote:No. Absolutely not. Even considering this is idiotic. Build some dam facilities for kids instead.

Sent from my XT1575 using RealGM mobile app


.....aaaaaaand then you lose the team.


Yep. Seattle put their foot down. Grew some balls. Took a moral stand on behalf of the country. Drew the line in the sand. No more taxpayer money for billionaires' play toys! We're fed up with it!

So then they lost their team, and they've been trying to get one back ever since.

Other cities should've followed in chorus
DoItALL9
Pro Prospect
Posts: 901
And1: 170
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: RE: Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#84 » by DoItALL9 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:10 pm

dc wrote:
jswede wrote:
seren wrote:No. Absolutely not. Even considering this is idiotic. Build some dam facilities for kids instead.

Sent from my XT1575 using RealGM mobile app


.....aaaaaaand then you lose the team.


Yep. Seattle put their foot down. Grew some balls. Took a moral stand on behalf of the country. Drew the line in the sand. No more taxpayer money for billionaires' play toys! We're fed up with it!

So then they lost their team, and they've been trying to get one back ever since.

Other cities should've followed in chorus
User avatar
realEAST
Starter
Posts: 2,308
And1: 411
Joined: Mar 25, 2016
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#85 » by realEAST » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:14 pm

coldfish wrote:
realEAST wrote:Above all, it is more than just arenas - new owners are basically gifted what become pretty valuable pieces of land that surround new arenas, which usually make bigger profit for them than arena and team itself.

Not to mention that deals made with local community in process are basically robberies - Bulls United Center is one of the rare examples where local community successfully organized and got at least some value from the whole deal, but they were first offered a disgraceful settlement too.
(most recent example being relocation of Nets)

But in most cases the process of negotitation is carried individually and people who just aren't prepared for carrying out such transactions end up big time losers.

It's predatory capitalism.


In all that private capital has all the backings from the majority or all local political structures, who in turn work against their own citizens from whose taxes they subsidize these arenas in first place, moreso since most of those same citizens will never set foot in those arenas.

Yep, brave new world.


I disagree that this is predatory capitalism. In any type of capitalist system, people would be creating teams and just filling up markets until there was no threat of teams leaving for different markets.

This is something worse and uglier. Corporatism or economic fascism where the government gets in bed with the wealthy private sector.

https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/
When people hear the word “fascism” they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and ‘30s as “corporatism,” that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.”


Nice to hear it :)
I tried to avoid using that term since I didn't want to engage in potentially day long political debate, but agree 100%.
More than familiar, part of my field (wow, first time I wrote this, now this sounds pretentious :)
DoItALL9
Pro Prospect
Posts: 901
And1: 170
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#86 » by DoItALL9 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:14 pm

It needs to start with places such as LA, NY, Chicago and other major markets refusing to pay. Dare the NBA to move from their market!

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app
DoItALL9
Pro Prospect
Posts: 901
And1: 170
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: RE: Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#87 » by DoItALL9 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:17 pm

PizzaSteve wrote:No, but if a positive ROI deal can be structured without gifting public assets, land value or tax concessions to owners, i am not entirely opposed to Public-Private Partnerships. Perhaps owners should have to pay license fees for use of city name like Los Angeles?

That's novel
Warriorfan
General Manager
Posts: 9,113
And1: 762
Joined: Jun 24, 2001
         

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#88 » by Warriorfan » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:34 pm

Cities have to provide police fire and traffic controll for free for games that is enough of a subsidy.
Boneman2
Head Coach
Posts: 7,182
And1: 616
Joined: Jul 07, 2003
Location: Indy
       

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#89 » by Boneman2 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:37 pm

dacrusha wrote:
Boneman2 wrote:Indiana taxpayers had no problem funding Lucas Oil Stadium and Bankers Life Fieldhouse as Indiana has the best credit rating out of all 50 states and consistently runs a budget surplus. If your state can't do the same then you're electing the wrong local/ state government officials.


Lucas Oil Stadium is one of the worst public taxpayer deals in sport infrastructure funding history. Right up there with Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati. Those communities will be paying off those loans for the next hundred years.

I'm happy for the good citizens of Indiana that they have a government that runs budget surpluses which enable them to absorb the obscene expenses incurred by NFL owners.


LOS was initially considered risky debt but in 2015 the state paid $71 M for a fixed rate to escape more volatile interest rate swaps. This upfront money will save a ton in interest.
"A man who fears suffering is already suffering from what he fears." -Michel de Montaigne
User avatar
Soupman
Veteran
Posts: 2,864
And1: 394
Joined: Aug 28, 2010
     

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#90 » by Soupman » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:04 pm

Taxation is theft.
Image
We are fueled by your hate.
Let's Go Cowboys!!!
Daddy 801
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,836
And1: 1,407
Joined: May 14, 2013
 

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#91 » by Daddy 801 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:15 pm

This thread gives me hope for mankind. Not everyone has their head in the sand.
dc
Starter
Posts: 2,132
And1: 1,743
Joined: Aug 11, 2001

Re: RE: Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#92 » by dc » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:22 pm

DoItALL9 wrote:Other cities should've followed in chorus


I'm afraid other cities aren't acting in unison. They're not your friend. They're your competition.

There are numerous "mid-major" cities across the country that would love to get on the map and raise their profile with a pro sports team. They'd love nothing more than to steal away someone else's team if given the opportunity.

At the end of the day, these teams offer something you want. They know this, so they'll leverage this.
Brian Geltzeiler: You see Mark Jackson getting a head coaching job as early as next year?

Adrian Wojnarowski: Not if people make calls on him. Not if an organization is doing their homework and knows all the things he brings with him.
User avatar
Cactus Jack
General Manager
Posts: 9,638
And1: 4,500
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: Seattle
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#93 » by Cactus Jack » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:37 pm

DoItALL9 wrote:It needs to start with places such as LA, NY, Chicago and other major markets refusing to pay. Dare the NBA to move from their market!

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

LA pretty much has. Staples was built with private money. Same with the new Football stadium in Inglewood. 100% private. Ballmer says he also plans to build an arena with his own money. The West coast is pretty much on board & has been for a while now. Which is why the Chargers & Raiders are both moving.

The real issue is that cities without any professional teams will agree to use public funds in fear of losing their teams. Sacramento was held hostage. Other cities like Milwaukee most recently have as well.
Quazza wrote:ALL FUTURE ERECTIONS WILL BE NAMED KEVIN FOR BEING SUCH A STAND UP GUY
Patches Perry
Veteran
Posts: 2,838
And1: 3,570
Joined: May 11, 2016

Re: RE: Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#94 » by Patches Perry » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:48 pm

dc wrote:
DoItALL9 wrote:Other cities should've followed in chorus


I'm afraid other cities aren't acting in unison. They're not your friend. They're your competition.

There are numerous "mid-major" cities across the country that would love to get on the map and raise their profile with a pro sports team. They'd love nothing more than to steal away someone else's team if given the opportunity.

At the end of the day, these teams offer something you want. They know this, so they'll leverage this.


Exactly. Fans can't have it both ways. If a billionaire owner says I'll station my team in your city if you help pay for the arena, you have the right to say no. It just looks petty if you then complain about him taking his team somewhere else where they will help.
DoItALL9
Pro Prospect
Posts: 901
And1: 170
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#95 » by DoItALL9 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:06 pm

Patches Perry wrote:
dc wrote:
DoItALL9 wrote:Other cities should've followed in chorus


I'm afraid other cities aren't acting in unison. They're not your friend. They're your competition.

There are numerous "mid-major" cities across the country that would love to get on the map and raise their profile with a pro sports team. They'd love nothing more than to steal away someone else's team if given the opportunity.

At the end of the day, these teams offer something you want. They know this, so they'll leverage this.


Exactly. Fans can't have it both ways. If a billionaire owner says I'll station my team in your city if you help pay for the arena, you have the right to say no. It just looks petty if you then complain about him taking his team somewhere else where they will help.

Things seem to be changing starting on the West Coast and I'm glad to hear it.
("Mid-major cities" Competition for professional teams maybe taking away from their competitiveness educationally and otherwise.)
Cactus Jack wrote:
DoItALL9 wrote:It needs to start with places such as LA, NY, Chicago and other major markets refusing to pay. Dare the NBA to move from their market!

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

LA pretty much has. Staples was built with private money. Same with the new Football stadium in Inglewood. 100% private. Ballmer says he also plans to build an arena with his own money. The West coast is pretty much on board & has been for a while now. Which is why the Chargers & Raiders are both moving.

The real issue is that cities without any professional teams will agree to use public funds in fear of losing their teams. Sacramento was held hostage. Other cities like Milwaukee most recently have as well.
User avatar
Soupman
Veteran
Posts: 2,864
And1: 394
Joined: Aug 28, 2010
     

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#96 » by Soupman » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:27 pm

realEAST wrote:
coldfish wrote:
realEAST wrote:Above all, it is more than just arenas - new owners are basically gifted what become pretty valuable pieces of land that surround new arenas, which usually make bigger profit for them than arena and team itself.

Not to mention that deals made with local community in process are basically robberies - Bulls United Center is one of the rare examples where local community successfully organized and got at least some value from the whole deal, but they were first offered a disgraceful settlement too.
(most recent example being relocation of Nets)

But in most cases the process of negotitation is carried individually and people who just aren't prepared for carrying out such transactions end up big time losers.

It's predatory capitalism.


In all that private capital has all the backings from the majority or all local political structures, who in turn work against their own citizens from whose taxes they subsidize these arenas in first place, moreso since most of those same citizens will never set foot in those arenas.

Yep, brave new world.


I disagree that this is predatory capitalism. In any type of capitalist system, people would be creating teams and just filling up markets until there was no threat of teams leaving for different markets.

This is something worse and uglier. Corporatism or economic fascism where the government gets in bed with the wealthy private sector.

https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/
When people hear the word “fascism” they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and ‘30s as “corporatism,” that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.”


Nice to hear it :)
I tried to avoid using that term since I didn't want to engage in potentially day long political debate, but agree 100%.
More than familiar, part of my field (wo
w, first time I wrote this, now this sounds pretentious :)


Was "too big to fail" fascist? Where bailouts to major banks/investment firms/auto makers/etc fascist?

Socialism is the workers owning the means of production.
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.

No country is fully capitalist or socialist. Most western democracies are capitalist with some economic restrictions in place(antitrust laws).
What would you call the federal reserve systems controlling interest rates?
Image
We are fueled by your hate.
Let's Go Cowboys!!!
User avatar
XXBKXX
Junior
Posts: 262
And1: 129
Joined: Nov 11, 2016
     

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#97 » by XXBKXX » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:55 pm

Where the idea falls off the tracks for me is "subsidy". It shouldn't be a subsidy with no return for tax payers. When tax payers pay for streetlights, cops, firefighters , education, etc. We see direct benefits from our taxes. If cheap owners want the city to pay for their stadium. Then i believe a portion of the proceeds from home games needs to be reinvested back into the city. Or percentage of the proceeds gets applied to taxes and everyone's state tax gets deducted by X amount every year. In other words, it shouldn't be a straight subisdy or hand out. The bill needs to be written in such a way that there is an eventual pay-back/benefit for the taxpayers. Otherwise, it's just a hand-out to billionaires... Which is silly.





BK
-------------------
Lakers / Angels / Dolphins
BK
-----------------------
Lakers / Angels / Dolphins
User avatar
realEAST
Starter
Posts: 2,308
And1: 411
Joined: Mar 25, 2016
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#98 » by realEAST » Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:44 pm

Soupman wrote:
realEAST wrote:
coldfish wrote:
I disagree that this is predatory capitalism. In any type of capitalist system, people would be creating teams and just filling up markets until there was no threat of teams leaving for different markets.

This is something worse and uglier. Corporatism or economic fascism where the government gets in bed with the wealthy private sector.

https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/


Nice to hear it :)
I tried to avoid using that term since I didn't want to engage in potentially day long political debate, but agree 100%.
More than familiar, part of my field (wo
w, first time I wrote this, now this sounds pretentious :)


Was "too big to fail" fascist? Where bailouts to major banks/investment firms/auto makers/etc fascist?

Socialism is the workers owning the means of production.
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.

No country is fully capitalist or socialist. Most western democracies are capitalist with some economic restrictions in place(antitrust laws).
What would you call the federal reserve systems controlling interest rates?


I think we speak from vastly different positions on one hand and things aren't as simple as you present them on the other hand.

For once no country is or has ever been socialist in the true meaning of the word (and least of them Soviet Union, just to be clear on it).

Closest to it came Sweeden when they had plan to gradually switch to completely publicly owned economy in true sense of the word - not by state but by citizens/workers holding small individual shares of companies they work in.
(see how in the end true, proper socialism, capitalism and democracy all blend into the one thing).
To make the long story short, there wasn't "political courage" to finally make such a move (one great failure by O. Palme), but they opted for further privatization - guess what: they had major economic crisis at the beginning of the 90s.
They are too rich and their public sector is still quite strong, but as privatization takes even greater steps, their economic results are worsening, although still very good (worth noting, there is strong left-green coalition in the seat for a while now, with only one, short period of interuption in eatly 80s that didn't end up well).

Western Europe (including Italy and Spain) itself is quite a bit different from state to state, and we are not even speaking about East Europe.

But todays neoliberal capitalism and socialism can't be farther apart - and in it's most complete, most extreme version, neoliberal capitalism as represent by Republican party even way before Trump and even by bigger, central part of Democrat party (Hilary's circles) - limiting only to USA - can be closely compared and almost equated with corporativism. (there are differences, but they are conditioned historically, more than structurally)

It's not limited only to owning means of production (and what would publicly owned mean - by state or by workers - great differance, as I lean towards latter), but also to treatment of basic public goods and services as are education, health system and welfare system, concessions on land etc.

I know the main kick on government from neoliberal circles is it's inefficieny, which on one hand is completely false, especially in big, rich countries, as backed by numerous studies in multiple time frames. (and where BDP isn't only and ultimate parametre, although it backs it too in most cases).
On the other hand, governments usually aren't efficient exactly when they have close ties to big business, as they cater policies towards it and not benefit of citizens, apart from "holified" circle - and that is main trait of corporativism.

To answer your questions, they also have two sides: on one hand those measures can't be approved knowing what was the cause of the crash of banking system for ex., but at the same time if say moto industry wasn't subsidized the price wouldn't be paid by owners and manages who ran the companies (and banks for that matter) in the ground, but thousends of workers, which would consequentialy further weaken economy.

Practice of bank managers to pay themselves huge bonuses after they had been bailed out by hunderds of bilions of dollars speaks enough of their case.
That is an example of state favoring (extremly corrupt) private sector (which in itself is highly problematic), so yes, it could be labeled corporativism.

I think moto industry is a bit more layerd problem, and that call in the end I can understand.

Point is, something isn't corporativist per se, as seen above, or like central banks controling intrest rates, but in which way they are applied is what determines the character.

The very notion of democracy is questionable in it's alleged bastion (just see how and why Sanders was prevented from being Democrat candidat at elections; all that happening in basically bi partisian system), let alone in most of the other world.

Having that in mind and blaiming government for it's inefficiency is a bit hypocrite imo, since ties to big business is exactly what makes it corrupt and inefficiet in first place, yet those same people are spring of neoliberal ideology now days. So I see it as more a means to an end than true belief.
(Interesting marker here are ties between very conservative church organizations and so called neoliberal circles)

Now I went on a writing spree, I hope I covered it all, it is tricky typing it on a cell.
User avatar
Soupman
Veteran
Posts: 2,864
And1: 394
Joined: Aug 28, 2010
     

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#99 » by Soupman » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:26 am

realEAST wrote:
Soupman wrote:
realEAST wrote:
Nice to hear it :)
I tried to avoid using that term since I didn't want to engage in potentially day long political debate, but agree 100%.
More than familiar, part of my field (wo
w, first time I wrote this, now this sounds pretentious :)


Was "too big to fail" fascist? Where bailouts to major banks/investment firms/auto makers/etc fascist?

Socialism is the workers owning the means of production.
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.

No country is fully capitalist or socialist. Most western democracies are capitalist with some economic restrictions in place(antitrust laws).
What would you call the federal reserve systems controlling interest rates?


I think we speak from vastly different positions on one hand and things aren't as simple as you present them on the other hand.

For once no country is or has ever been socialist in the true meaning of the word (and least of them Soviet Union, just to be clear on it).

Closest to it came Sweeden when they had plan to gradually switch to completely publicly owned economy in true sense of the word - not by state but by citizens/workers holding small individual shares of companies they work in.
(see how in the end true, proper socialism, capitalism and democracy all blend into the one thing).
To make the long story short, there wasn't "political courage" to finally make such a move (one great failure by O. Palme), but they opted for further privatization - guess what: they had major economic crisis at the beginning of the 90s.
They are too rich and their public sector is still quite strong, but as privatization takes even greater steps, their economic results are worsening, although still very good (worth noting, there is strong left-green coalition in the seat for a while now, with only one, short period of interuption in eatly 80s that didn't end up well).

Western Europe (including Italy and Spain) itself is quite a bit different from state to state, and we are not even speaking about East Europe.

But todays neoliberal capitalism and socialism can't be farther apart - and in it's most complete, most extreme version, neoliberal capitalism as represent by Republican party even way before Trump and even by bigger, central part of Democrat party (Hilary's circles) - limiting only to USA - can be closely compared and almost equated with corporativism as economic aspect of fasistic regimes. (there are differences, but they are conditioned historically, more than structurally)

It's not limited only to owning means of production (and what would publicly owned mean - by state or by workers - great differance, as I lean towards latter), but also to treatment of basic public goods and services as are education, health system and welfare system, concessions on land etc.

What treatment of public goods,services,etc would you define as corporatist?

I know the main kick on government from neoliberal circles is it's inefficieny, which on one hand is completely false, especially in big, rich countries, as backed by numerous studies in multiple time frames. (and where BDP isn't only and ultimate parametre, although it backs it too in most cases).

$17 trillion in debt. But government is efficient right? They can tax you but that doesn't mean they have to be responsible with your tax money.

On the other hand, governments usually aren't efficient exactly when they have close ties to big business, as they cater policies towards it and not benefit of citizens, apart from "holified" circle - and that is main trait of corporativism.

Limited liability granted by government.Your forced to have health insurance and car insurance.Who benefits from this? Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Lobbyists lobby to alter/create laws to give one business an advantage against other businesses.Who funds the election campaigns of politicians? Who owns the federal reserve? What is with all the former Goldman Sachs employees being appointed to US treasury positions? Follow the money

To answer your questions, they also have two sides: on one hand those measures can't be approved knowing what was the cause of the crash of banking system for ex., but at the same time if say moto industry wasn't subsidized the price wouldn't be paid by owners and manages who ran the companies (and banks for that matter) in the ground, but tebs of thousends of workers who actually built those companies from the ground.


Practice of bank managers to pay themselves huge bonuses after they had been bailed out by hunderds of bilions of dollars speaks enough of their case.

Who bailed them out?

That is an example of state favoring (extremly corrupt) private sector (which in itself is highly problematic), so yes, it could be labeled corporativism.

I think moto industry is a bit more layerd problem, and that call in the end I can understand.

Point is, something isn't corporativist per se, as seen above, or like central banks controling intrest rates, but in which way they are applied is what determines the character.

Who gives the central banks the authority to create US currency? Who gives the central banks the authority to use Quantitative Easing with US currency?

The very notion of democracy is questionable in it's alleged bastion (just see how and why Sanders was prevented from being Democrat candidat at elections; all that happening in basically bi partisian system), let alone in most of the other world.

What is stopping Bernie Sanders from being on all 50 state election ballots? Who controls ballot access? Who controls how electoral college votes are awarded?

Having that in mind and blaiming government for it's inefficiency is a bit hypocrite imo, since ties to big business is exactly what makes it corrupt and inefficiet in first place, yet those same people are spring of neoliberal ideology now days. So I see it as more a means to an end than true belief.
(Interesting marker here are ties between very conservative church organizations and so called neoliberal circles)

Now I went on a writing spree, I hope I covered it all, it is tricky typing it on a cell.
Image
We are fueled by your hate.
Let's Go Cowboys!!!
SDANNIE
Freshman
Posts: 98
And1: 56
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#100 » by SDANNIE » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:33 am

It depends on how bad the city wants a team. If they don't fund the arena/stadium, the team will find another city who will.

Like it or not, and I'm not thrilled by it, that's the way it is today. It also does give the city some say in whether or not a team leaves for greener pastures.

Return to The General Board