NFL's successfulsocialist model

[Skeptic]

All designed to maintain competition.

Indeed so; they are all designed to make sure that all the teams retain at least some semblance of equal playing strength--by penalizing succesful teams and helping unsuccesful ones from year to year.

This is done so that the league as a whole will have more fans and thus make as much money as possible. The NFL had no trouble fighting against OTHER football leagues, such as the USFL, which tried to get more viewers.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: NFL's successfulsocialist model

In the heads of many USians, it is only socialism if it fails. There is no such thing as successful socialism. If it works, it can't be socialism.

So what would you call the new reports of rationed Canadian healthcare then? I was calling that socialist long before its failings were common knowledge.

And you're right - if it works, it CAN'T be socialism. That little adage works both ways, y'know.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: NFL's successfulsocialist model

Amusing as always Jocko and I mean that in a positive way.

If it's not socialist then what is it?

Sorry, I should have added that football would also be the only sport. The fact that it's not pretty much moves it out of the socialist column IMHO.

What it is - for lack of a better terms - is an oligopoly. It's self-administrated by a closed circle of its own elites (owners). But since it supplies no basic necessities (except for hawkers of NFL merchandise) it's a harmless one.

 

[Orwell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: NFL's successfulsocialist model

So what would you call the new reports of rationed Canadian healthcare then? I was calling that socialist long before its failings were common knowledge.

And you're right - if it works, it CAN'T be socialism. That little adage works both ways, y'know.

Hey, I just had a big argument on another thread about that!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58106

The Canadian system isn't perfect, it has failings, but it's very far from being a "failure". And it still is much better than the american system!

 

[CBL4]

Until the free agent boom the NFL was just made up of the haves (49ers, Cowboys, Broncos) who were always in the superbowl and the have nots who werent.

Actually free agency made the haves vs. have not happen. It was the salary cap that ended it. (BTW, how can you forget the Radskins who won three superbowls when Jeck Kent Cooke could buy the best talent.)

The somewhat flexible salary cap and free agency allow teams to get good fast. Of course, as Snyder with the Redskins showed, you cannot just spend money and expect success. You need to have someone who knows how to spend money correctly. The after affect of misguided spending can guarantee failure for several years.

CBL

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NFL's successfulsocialist model

Hey, I just had a big argument on another thread about that!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58106

The Canadian system isn't perfect, it has failings, but it's very far from being a "failure". And it still is much better than the american system!

Where rationing is involved, the American system would have to employ leeches, barbershop bleedings and witchcraft to be much worse.

Like I just said, your socialism/failure argument cuts both ways, as you just demonstrated.

 

[Orwell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NFL's successfulsocialist model

Where rationing is involved, the American system would have to employ leeches, barbershop bleedings and witchcraft to be much worse.

Like I just said, your socialism/failure argument cuts both ways, as you just demonstrated.

Mmmm, I don't remember ever arguing that is only capitalism if it fails, there is no such thing as successful capitalism, if it works, it can't be capitalism.

On the contrary, I have said that there are many things capitalism does well, and others it does not as well.

 

[bmillsap]

I think the distinction here is that a professional sports team as we know them in the U.S. can't really exist as a standalone business. In most other industries, any company would be happy to be the only (fill-in-the-blank) company. But you can't have a football league with one football team. So it's somewhat unique in that each individual business DEPENDS on the existence of some amount of competition among similar businesses for their survival, their product doesn't really exist by itself. I guess you could have a barnstorming-type business model, but I can't imagine that would be terribly successful nowadays.

Another way to look at it is that the sports LEAGUE is more like the independent business than the sports TEAM in this case.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Interesting idea for a thread - kudos.

How about Baseball under Communism? The players get paid virtually nothing compared to American counterparts - they can't be paid more for baseball, it's just a silly game and we're all the same.

Imagine a world where baseball is played just for the fun of it. A place where world-class players walk or ride their bikes to the ballpark, and know the fans by their first names. A place where some of the best baseball in the world is played, with no luxury boxes, no owners, no MasterCard commercials and, above all, no labor conflicts.

Warning: visually ugly site about Cuban baseball.

You might think that these fans were drunken bleacher bums, but they were not. There is no alcohol sold in the ballpark, probably because it is too expensive. Although Cuban beer is decent, it costs about $1. The average Cuban wage-earner makes $20 per month, so imagine spending 5 percent of your paycheck on a single beer.

The Cuban baseball season extends 90 games, beginning in late November, typically, and ending in early April when the heat picks up. There are 16 teams divided into two leagues — one for each province and two for Havana.

The games were the least interesting part of the adventure. The league was bereft of decent starting pitching, but the relief pitchers were rarely used. Apparently, they do not use a pitch count nor are there specialties such as setup men, long relievers and closers. It was basically an offensive league, with marginal defense.

Most likened the quality of play to Class A or AA minor-league ball.

In fairness, the training facilities and equipment are so lacking that whatever talent is developed cannot be fully exploited.

There are sports academies for each province's high-school players, who are enthusiastic but seldom get to test themselves against competition from other Latin American or international teams.

To really see Cuban baseball, you have to rent a car or take a chartered bus all over the island, which spans approximately 800 miles from east to west. Wherever we went, we experienced nothing but outpourings of genuine welcome. We met the commissioner of baseball, who spoke nonstop for a couple of hours. We met several times after the game with the home team in simple locker rooms. We sat in dugouts. We were allowed on the field before practice. We were also sold game-worn uniforms on the sly for about $40 by some enterprising players, and we gave away lots of equipment and souvenirs.

Perhaps the most unique scene we encountered took place in a city park in Havana. Every day, the "Peña" takes place. It is a boisterous throng of baseball fans who joyously argue about all things baseball. The members pay a small fee each year to join the heated discussions. We were very welcome as Americans, even with our meager Spanish and their marginal English. Everyone wanted to know what we thought of Jose Contreras, demoted by the Yankees after we left.

Cuban fans are intensely interested in the progress of any player in "las liguas majores," the major leagues. They follow American baseball carefully and were grateful to be given recent editions of baseball magazines.

The ballplayers make the same as everyone else in Cuba. There is no free agency and few trades.

The good news is seats only cost 12 cents...

 

[Orwell]

How about baseball under capitalism? The players get paid obscene amounts of dough, way more than doctors, professors, plumbers, etc. (you know, the really useful people), just to play a silly game.

 

[pgwenthold]

How about baseball under capitalism? The players get paid obscene amounts of dough, way more than doctors, professors, plumbers, etc. (you know, the really useful people), just to play a silly game.

The day that 50 000 people pay $30 a piece to watch a team of 11 plumbers fix a bathroom sink, along with TV and radio paying billions of dollars to televise it, will be the day they will make the same money as major league baseball players.

You are correct. This is as capitalistic as it gets. People are being paid in terms of the revenue they generate, not in how much the "state" thinks they are worth.

They are paid exactly what they are worth - in $$$.

Although I am all for getting obscene salaries for professors.

 

[Orwell]

The day that 50 000 people pay $30 a piece to watch a team of 11 plumbers fix a bathroom sink, along with TV and radio paying billions of dollars to televise it, will be the day they will make the same money as major league baseball players.

You are correct. This is as capitalistic as it gets. People are being paid in terms of the revenue they generate, not in how much the "state" thinks they are worth.

They are paid exactly what they are worth - in $$$.

Although I am all for getting obscene salaries for professors.

I got no problem with that! But see, the great thing about capitalism is that it tries to give people what they want. But that's also the terrible thing about capitalism. Capitalism in itself is generally totally amoral. It doesn't care about justice or fairness.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I got no problem with that! But see, the great thing about capitalism is that it tries to give people what they want. But that's also the terrible thing about capitalism. Capitalism in itself is generally totally amoral. It doesn't care about justice or fairness.

So what is just and fair?

 

[Orwell]

So what is just and fair?

Justice \Jus"tice\, n. [F., fr. L. justitia, fr. justus just.
See Just, a.]

1. The quality of being just; conformity to the principles of
righteousness and rectitude in all things; strict
performance of moral obligations; practical conformity to
human or divine law; integrity in the dealings of men with
each other; rectitude; equity; uprightness.

Justice and judgment are the haditation of thy
throne. -- Ps. ixxxix.
11.

The king-becoming graces, As justice, verity,
temperance, stableness, . . . I have no relish of
them. -- Shak.

2. Conformity to truth and reality in expressing opinions and
in conduct; fair representation of facts respecting merit
or demerit; honesty; fidelity; impartiality; as, the
justice of a description or of a judgment; historical
justice.

3. The rendering to every one his due or right; just
treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or
punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives.

This even-handed justice Commends the ingredients of
our poisoned chalice To our own lips. -- Shak.

4. Agreeableness to right; equity; justness; as, the justice
of a claim.

 

[pgwenthold]

Justice \Jus"tice\, n. [F., fr. L. justitia, fr. justus just.
See Just, a.]

3. The rendering to every one his due or right; just
treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or
punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives.

How does this not describe capitalism?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How does this not describe capitalism?

That's what I was wondering...

 

[Orwell]

in·jus·tice (�_n-j�_s't�_s)
n.
Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice.
A specific unjust act; a wrong.


You can legitimately claim that a certain definition of justice is "capitalist". You can also legitimately claim that capitalism, in practice, often involves injustices.

This is why I say that capitalism (i.e. an economic system in which capital is mostly owned by private individuals and corporations) is amoral.

 

[pgwenthold]

in·jus·tice (�_n-j�_s't�_s)
n.
Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice.
A specific unjust act; a wrong.


You can legitimately claim that a certain definition of justice is "capitalist". You can also legitimately claim that capitalism, in practice, often involves injustices.

Of course, this requires arbritary proclamations about who deserves what. Who is to say that a doctor "deserves" more money than a baseball player? By what criteria is it determined how much a doctor _should_ earn? Because they save lives? How much $$$ do we place on life saving? These are completely undefined concepts.

Try to provide an argument that capitalism is "unfair" that does not involve, "I think X profession should earn more."

(ok, there are legitimate concerns about capitalism, which is why we have things like anti-trust laws, but I don't think that is your concern)

With capitalism, value is an objective concept, and everyone works within the same rules. Your economic value is determined by your economic production.

It ignores the aesthetic issues, and boils economics down to, well, economics.

Socialism takes the other extreme, and ignores economic production and treats everyone perfectly equal. Ditch diggers and doctors contribute equally to the function of society.

This is why I say that capitalism (i.e. an economic system in which capital is mostly owned by private individuals and corporations) is amoral.

You can be just outside of morality. Besides, I wouldn't call it "amoral," it's basically a moral construct of its own.

 

[Orwell]

Of course, this requires arbritary proclamations about who deserves what. Who is to say that a doctor "deserves" more money than a baseball player? By what criteria is it determined how much a doctor _should_ earn? Because they save lives? How much $$$ do we place on life saving? These are completely undefined concepts.

Try to provide an argument that capitalism is "unfair" that does not involve, "I think X profession should earn more."

Once we get to comparisons between "how much a doctor should earn vs. how much a baseball player should earn", we're entering into, I think, silly esoteric arguments. After a certain amount of money, most people will have no trouble living a comfortable life.

I think capitalism becomes unfair, for instance, when capitalists arrange it so that people are unable to win a living wage. I believe that there certain values should pass before the right to make a buck.

(ok, there are legitimate concerns about capitalism, which is why we have things like anti-trust laws, but I don't think that is your concern)

With capitalism, value is an objective concept, and everyone works within the same rules. Your economic value is determined by your economic production.

It ignores the aesthetic issues, and boils economics down to, well, economics.

I don't agree with this. Economics is not a "hard science".

Value might seem like an objective concept, but it isn't. The reason why people value certain things and not others is often totally subjective. Why is a '59 Gibson Les Paul worth over $500 000 dollars whereas a Danelectro from the same year is worth much, much less? Or why is the art work of a certain artist much more prised that the work of someone else? Also, the economical value of something often depends on the way how the accounting is done. For instance: according to certain economic models, the Exxon Valdez accident was good for the Alaskan economy. Some have argued, with figures to support them, that wars are good for business.

Socialism takes the other extreme, and ignores economic production and treats everyone perfectly equal. Ditch diggers and doctors contribute equally to the function of society.

Socialism comprehends various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. What you have said is true for, say, certain kinds of marxism (not all) but false in the case of social democracy (including values of a Representative government, and private property). All western countries, including the US, have adopted certain aspects of socialism to their economies.

You can be just outside of morality. Besides, I wouldn't call it "amoral," it's basically a moral construct of its own.

I meant that capitalism is "amoral" in the sense that it easily accommodates itself to all kinds of different social organisations, from fascism to social democracy, without regards for their "moral value".

Note: I am not anti-capitalist. I appreciate the things capitalism has done. But the kind of of capitalism that certain "free market" fundamentalists push for gives me the heebie-jeebies.