NBA owners want more parity. Or SOCIALISM

[Leto]

So we're actually analysing the legitimacy of my suggestion that the NBA salary cap is similar to the Third Reich. Hmm. This place has changed.

Actually it was such a ridiculous statement I am surprised anybody responded to it. However, it wasnt an educated response anyway as "Nazi" was short for "national socialist party" though Hitler didnt care for the socialists he hated the communists and his only way to gain a victory in a popular vote was to co-opt the national socialists. (Source: The Rise an Fall of Nazi Germany by T.L. Jarman)

Exactly. Parity, created through a socialist economic policies, is not only a good idea, its necessary for the survival of the league. There's a lesson to be learned here....

How is the economy doing in Europe these days? Some lesson.

The type of economic system is unrelated to the amount of wealth it produces. Instead, that's related to resources. E.g., if you have a lot of gold, you have a lot of gold. All that's in question is how its distributed.

Edit: If you notice, you'll see "socialism" hasn't really hurt the NFL much, has it?

[ranger001]

This is exactly how Nazi Germany started.

Well the Nazis were fascists, considered as extreme right wing. So you are vehemently disagreeing with the OP I see.

Well, if you were at least half as smart as Sham, you would have looked up the term "Nazi" before you answered his post.

And if you were half as smart as you think you are you would know that the Nazis were FASCISTS. Look it up in wikipedia or your history books. Just because they had "socialists" in their name was a misnomer.

[ranger001]

So we're actually analysing the legitimacy of my suggestion that the NBA salary cap is similar to the Third Reich. Hmm. This place has changed.

Actually it was such a ridiculous statement I am surprised anybody responded to it. However, it wasnt an educated response anyway as "Nazi" was short for "national socialist party" though Hitler didnt care for the socialists he hated the communists and his only way to gain a victory in a popular vote was to co-opt the national socialists. (Source: The Rise an Fall of Nazi Germany by T.L. Jarman)

Exactly. Parity, created through a socialist economic policies, is not only a good idea, its necessary for the survival of the league. There's a lesson to be learned here....

How is the economy doing in Europe these days? Some lesson.

How is the economy doing in the USA?

[killbuckner]

Do owe finally need a moderator for the CBA forum?

[Three34]

Probably, but not as much as we need a sense of humour.

[ranger001]

Yeah perhaps. Although when someone calls you uneducated by themselves making an uneducated response it kind of gives you a wtf moment.

[mysticbb]

And if you were half as smart as you think you are you would know that the Nazis were FASCISTS. Look it up in wikipedia or your history books. Just because they had "socialists" in their name was a misnomer.

Lol, a misnomer, holy crap, get over yourself and educate yourself better, before you throw out such crap. National Socialism is the combination of Nationalism and Socialism, exactly what the Nazis did in Germany. The political ideology Fascism doesn't mean that the economy can't be Socialism.

The problem with people like you is that they are only able to see the world in black or white. The combination of things seems to be to complicated, thus being political right can't be combined with something which can be declared as economic left.

[Three34]

If you go really really far left, do you end up going all the way around and come out on the right? Does politics work in such a cylindrical fashion?

[ranger001]

And if you were half as smart as you think you are you would know that the Nazis were FASCISTS. Look it up in wikipedia or your history books. Just because they had "socialists" in their name was a misnomer.

Lol, a misnomer, holy crap, get over yourself and educate yourself better, before you throw out such crap. National Socialism is the combination of Nationalism and Socialism, exactly what the Nazis did in Germany. The political ideology Fascism doesn't mean that the economy can't be Socialism.

The problem with people like you is that they are only able to see the world in black or white. The combination of things seems to be to complicated, thus being political right can't be combined with something which can be declared as economic left.

haha, no YOU get over yourself and get educated before throwing out crap.

Fascism is defined as politically extreme right wing. Because economic controls look socialist in fascism doesn't mean the Nazis were socialist. In fact this is the norm in fascism.

Anybody who know pol-sci will laugh at you if you go spout that the nazis were socialist.

Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
Consider yourself schooled!

[gflem]

It seems that Hitler used facism as a means to an end. The end being totalitarian power over the society. Economically, with the state controlling the businesses it was socialistic. I see nothing in that definition of facism in regards to economic policy. Mussolini was a facist, and extremely popular with the elites here and in Europe at that time.

How is the economy doing in the USA?

With excessive regultion and taxation along with bloated social programs and those here who feel entitled to be supported by the government (ie the taxpayers) the economy here is circling the drain. Add in the eco-loonies that wont allow us to access our own energy sources and its not very far at all from being a socialist country. Go ahead and flame away, I'm done with this, we are way of topic anyway.

[Three34]

Would you rather be attacked by one horse-sized duck, or ten duck-sized horses?

[mysticbb]

[
haha, no YOU get over yourself and get educated before throwing out crap.

Fascism is defined as politically extreme right wing. Because economic controls look socialist in fascism doesn't mean the Nazis were socialist. In fact this is the norm in fascism.

Anybody who know pol-sci will laugh at you if you go spout that the nazis were socialist.

Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
Consider yourself schooled! :D

:lol:

I quote myself. I guess it is really too complicated for you.

The combination of things seems to be to complicated, thus being political right can't be combined with something which can be declared as economic left.

Whether the Nazis were right in the political sense isn't the question here (in fact I wrote that Fascism is political right, but whatever). Explain the economic system in Germany between 1933 and 1945 and try to not use Socialism in that context. ;)

@gflem

Correct, the NSDAP controlled the economy by using Socialism as their economy system. They wanted to get more parity among germans, that's Socialism.

[ranger001]

Correct, the NSDAP controlled the economy by using Socialism as their economy system. They wanted to get more parity among germans, that's Socialism.

You can try to spin this however you want but I said the Nazis are FASCISTS and are on the RIGHT, that is a FACT. You were quite wrong to label that "crap", that is accepted political science. The Nazis wanted parity? Only in name. Tell that crap to the Jewish people.

Wikipedia:-
"Nazism was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany. It was a unique variety of fascism... in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Fascism does use socialist economic controls so you think this entitles you to equate Nazism to Socialism, lol. You might disagree with accepted theory that Nazism is a form of fascism but that does not make accepted theory "crap".

I, wikipedia and political science are in agreement. You can continue to consider yourself correct and everyone else as spouting "crap" but that is up to you.

[HartfordWhalers]

The type of economic system is unrelated to the amount of wealth it produces. Instead, that's related to resources. E.g., if you have a lot of gold, you have a lot of gold. All that's in question is how its distributed.

Edit: If you notice, you'll see "socialism" hasn't really hurt the NFL much, has it?

Perhaps in a very short run sense, but certainly not true over a long run perspective.

[truthiness]

Socialist governments are usually democratic nowadays. Its got nothing to do with coercion. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have had socialist governments for years that have been voted in.

1. Sham caught on to the irony. Maybe it's more visible from Europe

2. When you talk about "socialism" in the US, you usually refer to socialism as practiced behind the iron curtain.

3. Sweden, Denmark, Norway are SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES, not socialist. There's a difference: Social democracy is capitalism with a strong social safety net. Read more.

[truthiness]

You can try to spin this however you want but I said the Nazis are FASCISTS and are on the RIGHT, that is a FACT. You were quite wrong to label that "crap", that is accepted political science. The Nazis wanted parity? Only in name. Tell that crap to the Jewish people.

1. They sought to create parity between Germans. They didn't care much about the "untermensch". That's still socialism, the same way greek democracy went along with slavery. In fact, US democracy went along with slavery and than segregation for quite a while

2. Socialism/communism had a very strong nationalistic component. Communism were nearly as racist as fascists. You should have seen the "cultural diversity" in former communist countries (hint: there was none, whatsoever).

3. Just as Sham hints (you didn't catch on, did you ?), the communism and fascism are not on opposite sides, but in fact are closely related.

With excessive regultion and taxation along with bloated social programs and those here who feel entitled to be supported by the government (ie the taxpayers) the economy here is circling the drain. Add in the eco-loonies that wont allow us to access our own energy sources and its not very far at all from being a socialist country. Go ahead and flame away, I'm done with this, we are way of topic anyway.

Oh, hi Glenn Beck.
I say you do away with regulation all together. The poison in your food, soil and water will be 10 times tastier. Yo, China, let'em have it.

[ZaQ-]

To get back to the topic, parity is a pipe dream in a 30 team NBA, unless you want to make the teams suck. This is not the NFL, to have success you either need superstars (there are not 30) or be extremely shrewd in personnel decisions.

In my opinion it's more exciting when teams are stacked, the playoffs get much better.

[ranger001]

Its hard to believe that in the face of overwhelming evidence people are still trying to argue that the Nazis were socialists and not fascists. You guys should update Wikipedia so that the rest of the world gets the message.

[Nanogeek]

Calling revenue sharing socialism is like calling anti-monopoly rules in the US socialism. Only the daft think anti-monopoly rules attempt to institute socialism.

The NBA wants a level playing field for franchises regardless of their location or owner resources. Its in the NBA's interest to promote level competition to avoid smaller market franchises from becoming perennial doormats and becoming unviable.

If the big markets really want to have an uneven playing field they would actually have to agree to revenue sharing anyway to keep the smaller market teams viable. How so? If teams like the Lakers, Knicks, etc. could spend whatever they want and assemble super teams then smaller market teams like Charlotte, Memphis, etc. would lose money since they'd likely have a hard time winning. To keep them viable the big market teams would need to subsidize them. Based on the premise the NBA does not want teams folding constantly, revenue sharing is a reality.

[yangzhe2011]

the majority of stars don't want to play in smaller non-glitzy cities, and these teams have absolutely no shot at resigning their star players.