BREAKING: Nike PAID DeAndre Ayton when he was at Arizona

[Clyde Frazier]

As a side note, if Ayton was getting paid all this money, did he pay tax on it?

Before everyone gets cranky, think about it, either:
- He declared the income, paid tax on it and the federal government has known about his income the whole time
or
- Some dude making over $100k skated on paying 10's of thousands in taxes. While pennies to an NBA player, if anyone here just chose not to pay 10's of thousands in taxes we would be in a lot of trouble.

Well, this is why it should be legal in the first place.

[jamalkandur]

Last year Adidas was sentenced for same exact crime but in larger scale and nobody cared, but when somebody accused Nike with same crime people go nuts. Also if Nİke really paid Ayton this shows;
1. They didn't pay enough because he signed with Puma.
2. Ayton swindled Nike took cash then ducked out.

Or this whole thing just smoke and mirrors by shady Lawyer who just caught red handed.

[Ben Simmons]

Why are we taking news from Creepy Porn Lawyer as if hes relevant. Guy is as sketchy as they come

Exactly, his recent form could land him a job at CNN

Or fox

Well, Fox is the opposite to CNN.
CNN worship him, while Fox attack him every chance they get, in fact Fox's Tucker Carlson was the first person on-air to call him "the Creepy Porn Lawyer"

[Sgt P]

Who cares?

[MrDollarBills]

Avenatti will be lucky if he isn't doing a few years in federal prison because the feds aren't bringing those charges unless its a slam dunk.

That being said, it wouldn't shock me if his allegations are true. I also could care less. I don't think it should be illegal for these kids to be paid, this whole system is garbage and I don't blame any kid for accepting money from sneaker companies.

However, taxes should be paid on all money received.

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

Okay so you agree black markets would still exist.

No, they wouldn't. Not in an-cap, minarchism, or anything resembling an actual laissez-faire system.

As far as sweatshops, market competition doesn't exist in pure capitalism. Market competition is a bad thing that firms will do everything in their power to remove.

Firms aren't allowed to do "everything in their power" in pure capitalism. I already addressed that.

For example, that might look like AT&T and Verizon partnering to buy American Tower and other tower companies and then immediately drop Tmobile and Sprint from their towers, destroying their businesses overnight (granted the entire wireless communications industry couldn't even exist without government protection, since without the ability to own a given spectrum, anyone could interfere with the signal for any reason).

You answered your own question.

...and without that set-up, AT&T would not be able to destroy T-Mobile and Sprints wireless network without violating a contractual agreement. Which would be a use of force and thus not allowed.

Except labor has even less leverage than Tmobile and Sprint in a pure capitalist society.

No it doesn't, and I suspect that I'm about to see a strawman version of "pure capitalist."

Examples can be see in the late 1800s. Corporations overmatch labor due to game theory, self interest of the actors.

Game Theory is purely unrelated to capitalism because 1) Game Theory exists in a set system of choices and payoffs that can be modeled. Capitalism is not a set system so there is no perfect strategy. And 2) John Nash's theories apply only to zero-sum games, capitalism is not zero-sum. "A Beautiful Mind" had a purely incorrect explanation of a Nash Equilibrium. These are not the only problems.

The corporation can act as a single unified party and split labor apart. Labor's gains really only occurred at the ballot box, not as much directly through bargaining (except where government helped support unions with certain favorable policies to allow them to bargain more effectively).

Oligopolies cannot form unless they have a means to force out competitors, otherwise the minute they start charging more than something is worth, they will incentivize others to join, or simply cause people to stop buying their service (and no, they cannot monopolize food, water, sunlight, land or other essentials). Keeping out competitors requires force, either through government intervention (which is not pure capitalism) or outright violence, which likewise isn't.

I answered my own question? The idea that you think the US would be better off if all spectrum was unlicensed is nonsensical.

[-G-]

WHO CARES?????

[CycklopsGT]

The problem is that you keep focusing on the term 'unabated' but I just used it as more or less of as a synonym for unregulated and unchecked. We can use those terms if that's going to be a problem for you one way or the other.

"More or less synonyms" is a way to introduce misunderstandings and equivocations.

Anything that stops people from making free choices is an "abatement" to the market. Including theft, fraud, and coercion. A government can pass 'regulations" which also screw up the market, they are not identical categories and you shouldn't mix them up.

And sweatshops are literally the product of a company seeking to maximize its profits by minimizing its labor costs as much as possible. That's why they usually formulate in countries with extremely lax labor laws that go unchecked and don't have much -- if any -- constraints at all.

Sweatshops do NOT form in countries with lax labor laws. There's no correlation with a country's place on the economic freedom index and low work wages or limited options for workers. Sweatshops form in country's with flawed or destroyed infrastructures, which can happen due to war but mainly happen due to bad government policy that prevents competitors from entering.

What a sweatshop indicates is not that a capitalist is offering bad hours, but that the alternatives for the people in that country are worse. Otherwise, they wouldn't work in the sweatshop, and if the capitalist tries to force them to do so, they aren't a capitalist anymore, they're a slave-owner (and there's NO correlation there or equivocation between capitalism and slavery, don't even try it).

The idea that they are a product of regulation is absolutely hysterical and just more junk perpetuated by mouthbreathing capitalists pretending that unrestrained Reaganomics is the cure for all.

I drew a line between "regulation" and "abatement" to help you get your strawmen straight, and you weren't able to parse the point and just repeated the same thing blindly. If I was struggling as much as you are with basic words, I wouldn't call anyone else a "mouthbreather."

[CycklopsGT]

Okay so you agree black markets would still exist.

No, they wouldn't. Not in an-cap, minarchism, or anything resembling an actual laissez-faire system.

As far as sweatshops, market competition doesn't exist in pure capitalism. Market competition is a bad thing that firms will do everything in their power to remove.

Firms aren't allowed to do "everything in their power" in pure capitalism. I already addressed that.

For example, that might look like AT&T and Verizon partnering to buy American Tower and other tower companies and then immediately drop Tmobile and Sprint from their towers, destroying their businesses overnight (granted the entire wireless communications industry couldn't even exist without government protection, since without the ability to own a given spectrum, anyone could interfere with the signal for any reason).

You answered your own question.

...and without that set-up, AT&T would not be able to destroy T-Mobile and Sprints wireless network without violating a contractual agreement. Which would be a use of force and thus not allowed.

Except labor has even less leverage than Tmobile and Sprint in a pure capitalist society.

No it doesn't, and I suspect that I'm about to see a strawman version of "pure capitalist."

Examples can be see in the late 1800s. Corporations overmatch labor due to game theory, self interest of the actors.

Game Theory is purely unrelated to capitalism because 1) Game Theory exists in a set system of choices and payoffs that can be modeled. Capitalism is not a set system so there is no perfect strategy. And 2) John Nash's theories apply only to zero-sum games, capitalism is not zero-sum. "A Beautiful Mind" had a purely incorrect explanation of a Nash Equilibrium. These are not the only problems.

The corporation can act as a single unified party and split labor apart. Labor's gains really only occurred at the ballot box, not as much directly through bargaining (except where government helped support unions with certain favorable policies to allow them to bargain more effectively).

Oligopolies cannot form unless they have a means to force out competitors, otherwise the minute they start charging more than something is worth, they will incentivize others to join, or simply cause people to stop buying their service (and no, they cannot monopolize food, water, sunlight, land or other essentials). Keeping out competitors requires force, either through government intervention (which is not pure capitalism) or outright violence, which likewise isn't.

I answered my own question? The idea that you think the US would be better off if all spectrum was unlicensed is nonsensical.

Try again, and this time write an actual substantive reply to the many points I made to you.