What happens when one corporation spends one-thousand-three-hundred-eighty-four-point-nine percent more than another? Quite simple; competition is eliminated. Pro-free-market-economists call it a monopoly.
How much is 1384.9%? If one were to take IBM, number 10 on the Fortune 500 list of the highest-revenue companies, and try to find a company which brings in 1384.9% less -- the companies would include Brunswick (best known for bowling products), McGraw-Hill (textbooks), and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD -- technology), to name a few.
To deny that Major League Baseball has become, at the least, an oligopoly, would be nescient. Teams like the Yankees can use their massive profits, which mainly coincide with their superlative media markets, to "mark up" the prices of free agents to the point where smaller-market teams simply do not have the financial wherewithal to acquire talented players.
The USA finds itself in a similar predicament. As the more-than 77 million baby-boomers between the ages 41 and 59 reach the point of retirement, they drool at their gargantuan pensions and other retirement benefits -- passing that expense on to the next generation. And, according to a paper published by a researcher for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said expenses could amount to $65.9 trillion -- forcing the US into bankruptcy.
Unfortunately, neither the US Government nor Major League Baseball seems to be concerned about the impending destruction due to their financial malpractice. While the NBA, NHL and NFL all have implemented salary caps, the MLB has responded with a subordinate "luxury tax" and ineffective revenue-sharing policies. Some owners pocket every-last-cent of the money they receive in these systems, and because there is no tax for impecuniousness, there are few incentives to take risks by spending more money.
As the price of players continues to skyrocket, division races turn into shopping-sprees, and the competitiveness of small-budget teams is unremarkable. With the same-old-teams playing in the same-old-playoffs with the same-old-players, the fan-following diminishes and the state-of-the-game deteriorates.
The government seems to be consonant to these philosophies. Why worry when we can procrastinate, after all? Constantly, this country's leaders dial out and circumvent the imminent economic future, promising tax cuts and dealing out more and more money in Social Security.
Not to mention that, as of recent, the US has become the proverbial ATM machine for Third World countries -- inflict mass genocide, and the US will ship you boat-loads of cash, only further contributing to inflation. Somehow, it has become our responsibility to clean up the messes belonging to other countries, and the longer this occurs, the more bankrupt we become.
Let's not forget that the value of the US Dollar is consequent to the public opinion of it -- the more money we print, the less that money is worth, it's as simple as that. When people start to lose confidence in the American economic system due to the doubling in personal and corporate income taxes to pay for 77 million retirement plans, they move their business elsewhere. Mass-outsourcing of corporate affairs is already evident as the US coaxes its people into believing that their financial-futures are secure.
In fact, in 2004 International Business Machines (IBM) was sued for its "age discriminatory" conversion from a traditional to a cash-balance pension plan and forced to pay more than $300 million to settle these issues. However, the government later passed the Pension Security and Transparency Act in 2005, which seemingly encouraged IBM's conversion, saying that cash balance pensions are not age discriminatory. Somewhat controversially, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report which stated that a cash balance plan would lower retirement benefits for most workers.
But if the government is encouraging lesser retirement benefits, certainly, they must be aware of the threat greater plans pose on the society of the future. So why haven't they publicly addressed these problems, admitting what hardships these pensions will create? Because, they, like the MLB have decided to ignore these problems as much as possible -- the last thing Bush wants is more negative publicity.
Sad when major organizations are driven solely by publicity, isn't it? Now, any attempt to resolve the pending problems might prove to be too late -- as Professor Laurence Kotlikoff contends, the government is already bankrupt. And although some baseball aficionados are still anticipating a salary minimum and maximum in the near future, such a result seems unlikely.
The economic rigmarole may just out-wit these organizations, consequently the outcome can only be negative for the millions of Americans who love and cherish their way-of-life and national pastime.
The fallacy in this is that spending does not equate with championships and small market teams can be competitive and even win. The Twins, Marlins, Diamondbacks have all proven this very recently while the Yankees spend and spend, but it never guarantees them the World Series.
As for the baby boomers of which I am one, many of us are not looking at huge pensions or pay outs. My social security check, should I retire at age 63 will be about 1500 a month. Whoopie! But even if you think that is just awesome, I earned it. I paid it in. And everyone who has put money into a pension has earned it. The government needs to learn to quit spending on social programs and pork barrel spending to shore up the dollar.
The government needs to learn to quit spending on social programs and pork barrel spending to shore up the dollar.
Well, certainly there are a few different approaches to fix this massive deficit; and of course, I only name a few. In fact, one method to rid a $65.9 trillion deficit would be to cut government spending by 143% (if that were possible). The government could also cut all Social Security spending by 2/3.
The fallacy in this is that spending does not equate with championships and small market teams can be competitive and even win.
Championships? No. Wins? Yes. By spending 60 million more than any other team, the Yankees can almost guarantee competitiveness; whereas, others cannot.
The Twins, Marlins, Diamondbacks have all proven this very recently while the Yankees spend and spend, but it never guarantees them the World Series.
You might not be aware, but the above is a fallacy, itself. You cannot use the few erroneous outcomes to disprove the norm. I don't know why you mention the Twins here, as they haven't won a Championship since 1991; and, obviously, both the Marlins and the Diamondbacks' payrolls were much closer to New York's when they won the World Championship. Sure, spending can't 100% guarantee a championship, but as long as the Yankees win and make the playoffs, they relieve the competitiveness of the game.
And finally, salary caps add more strategy to the game. Right now, the Yankees can simply out-bid every team for free agents -- however, in a salary cap policy, they have to pick and chose their moves, and not overpay players.
I think the point you make -- the United States' huge impending economic difficulties -- is enough reason to move from a capitalist economy to a socialist economy.
But that's just my opinion.
I think that if, in baseball, a salary cap is going to be implemented, then a salary floor must also be implemented. A lot of your lower-tier teams do have money to spend but they choose not to. They can't, obviously, compete with the Yankees and Red Sox, but they can turn their $15-40 million payrolls into $55-60 million.
The owners are the biggest problem, I believe, because they have no rooting interest in the actual game -- only the business side of it.
Couldn't agree with you more, Ultra. There definitely needs to be a minimum payroll. I wrote a piece not too long ago about the cheap-skate billionaires of the low-payroll teams.
While you and Ultra fawn over the advantages of a socialistic economy, I'll just say this. The points you make are one of the reasons I went from a baseball junkie to one who ignores the sport, at least professionally. If MLB still had a baseball man running the show, i.e., someone like Bowie Kuhn, Bart Giamatti or Faye Vincent, instead of one of their own, like Bud Selig, these problems would have been solved a long time ago. At the risk of being called a shill for promoting my own work, I wrote a post touching on these points, and others, recently. Check it out if you want.
As for Ultra's brilliant statement that the U.S. should change to a socialistic economy due to our impending economic difficulties, I would present Canada as evidence to the contrary. To which Ultra will respond with evidence to contradict me. Namely, it can be done correctly if run correctly. My point exactly. So can capitalism. Like any business, team, etc. It all depends on who's running the show.
Regarding Ultra's comment from 11:18 this morning: I agree wholeheartedly with what he, and you NS, said about a salary cap (et. al.) and that the owners are the biggest problem. And George Steinbrenner is just as much a part of the problem as the cheapest owner in MLB is.
Ricko, to be completely honest, I don't think any economic system can ever run correctly without ever collapsing (because of corruption), and that's including socialism and capitalism. I just think socialism is better in both the short and the long run -- it gives equality to all people as opposed to capitalism, which gives advantages to the richest and disadvantages to the poor.
Don't kid yourself, Ultra. Ideally, yes, everyone is equal. But due to the very factor you mention, corruption, it would be nescient to think that is actually the case.
No kidding, Ricko. I'd rather be close to equality than what we have now. There will never be complete equality. But we can try to get as close as we can.
Is there really any reason why some people should have to eat from garbage cans and use newspapers as blankets while others live in five-story mansions with 15 bedrooms that they don't even use?
Ultra-No, there's no reason. But now you're getting into an interesting subject that probably is a subject for a different day, or different forum. We have people in this country who started with nothing, have worked their tails off, and have found great success, and live in a big dwelling because they can or feel they've earned it. And rightly so. Some, not all, but perhaps most, of the homeless have done little to help their situation.
On the other hand, we have heirs who no redeeming qualities whatsoever (see 'Hilton, Paris'), who are benefitting from the aforementioned 'working their tail off' types. We no doubt also have homeless who are in the situation they are in through little fault of their own.
Unfortunately, there is no concrete solution. Having said that, I feel our system is as good as any. Not better than any, but as good. The pros and cons of any similarly successful society are certainly debatable and have merit.
Yeah, I can agree with you on that Ricko. But I'm basically saying that everyone should have to work hard; no one should work hard and get no reward, and no one should not work and get rewarded.
Capitalism, as it is in America, only benefits the rich. The middle class gets just enough to get by (and just enough not to complain) and the lower class continues to get kicked while they're down.
Socialism takes out the classes, cuts down on unemployment and homelessness, and implements as close to equality as you're going to get.
I would be fine with a capitalist system if so many people didn't have to work two full-time jobs just to pay for a place to life, much less food and other musts, such as electricity and water.
Agree with your first paragraph. I would take a bit of disagreeance (is that a word?) on what you followed that with, though. I think your view of the capitalistic system is over-simplistic. The classes all have an opportunity to improve themselves, and I could give many, many examples of such, as I think you could, too. As for socialism, is equality among all always a good thing? You would have some working much harder than others and getting rewarded the same, correct? Granted, those are the exceptions, but that happens in any society, unfortunately.
As for your last paragraph, I do agree with that. At the risk of dating myself here, when I was a kid, I can only think of one of my friend’s mothers who worked, and that was in the family business. So, yes, it’s much harder to get by nowadays. Both your views and mine have some merit, as I said. I wish I had the solution. If I did, I would be a very rich man and would invite my 50 favorite bloggers to a HUGE weeklong party. And money wouldn’t matter. Ahh, the power of dreaming.
The classes all have an opportunity to improve themselves
Not all classes have an opportunity. And most of those that do get the opportunity are in the upper-middle class. Once you're born in a class, you're basically stuck in it unless you get lucky.
For example, to get a good job nowadays, you need a college-level education, but a lot of people in the lower-middle class and below can't afford to spend the time or the money to go to college.
As for socialism, is equality among all always a good thing?
Ask African-Americans and women. But I do know what you're getting at when you say, "You would have some working much harder than others and getting rewarded the same."
I'll take that over the Paris Hilton-dumpster diver scenario any day.
To get a good job nowadays you need a college level education, you say. Not true. I think you are being rather idealistic in saying that. (Just my opinion). It helps, but not true. You need a good work ethic and a strong sense of accountability and responsibility. You show up for work on time and work hard, you'll succeed. If you don't, you won't. I can't be any clearer and plain than that. And I can list dozens of examples to show that, including several people I know who are VERY successful. I bet you could, too.
Having said that, you are correct about the odds of being successful if you have a college degree. They are greatly increased. You said a "college level education," which I assume you meant as getting a degree. Not sure.
But, again, if you think that people like Paris Hilton do not exist in a socialist economy, you are kidding yourself. Anyone from a famous family, no matter where, is going to have an easier life. No one said it's fair. Just the way it is. Look at the royal family in the U.K. None of them will ever have to work a day in their life, unless they screw it up, which is a definite possibility.
To get a good job nowadays you need a college level education, you say. Not true.
In most fields, if you want to have a good-paying job with benefits, you need a degree. A work ethic is great, but if you don't have much on your resume, they're going to hire someone else.
including several people I know who are VERY successful
But what class are they in? What type of job did they get and in what industry? Who is the employer and where is it located? Did these people have an "in" with anyone at the place of employment?
There are a lot of factors that go into getting a job without a college-level education. For the most part, you're out of luck until you get that degree.
But, again, if you think that people like Paris Hilton do not exist in a socialist economy, you are kidding yourself.
I'm not saying that. Like I said, I'll take "some working much harder than others and getting rewarded the same" over the Paris Hilton-dumpster diver scenario any day.
I think I've addressed most, if not all, of the situations we both brought up already. As I said earlier, there is no panacea, though we both make good points.
As for 'what class are they in,' that depends on what you mean by 'class.' I think you understand what I mean by that. There are two meanings, and both are important.
UM: "Capitalism, as it is in America, only benefits the rich. The middle class gets just enough to get by (and just enough not to complain) and the lower class continues to get kicked while they're down."
Obviously you don't understand our country Ultra. The low-class pays no taxes, gets free health care for themselves and their families and the middle class gets sumped on? I was in teh low class not to long ago and to be honest our system is set up to benefit those in the low class. Rich folks can't get free healthcare, pay the most in taxes, and have part of their paycheck thrown back into the low class. And you have to remember what low class is in this country. If having a house, SUV, a computer, 3 TVs, etc is low class here then what would it be elsewhere? the myth that capitalism only benefits the rich is completely ridiculous. It is the low class who pays nothing and gets it from those who work hard. Your beloved socialism at work.
UM: "Yeah, I can agree with you on that Ricko. But I'm basically saying that everyone should have to work hard; no one should work hard and get no reward, and no one should not work and get rewarded."
This is why socialsim fails in the endas well as in the beginning. What reward is there in socialism if you work all day to pay for someone's elses stuff? Socialism breeds laziness. Look at those on welfare. I have never seen such a niave take on this.
UM: "Socialism takes out the classes, cuts down on unemployment and homelessness, and implements as close to equality as you're going to get."
Socialism cuts out unemployment? Um ok. Homelessness? Um ok. This sounds all well intentioned, it really does, but it is a dream. There are classes in every country and state. And there always will be. B/c some people have enough complacency to stay poor, while others will work hard to get rich. It is called motivation which socialism stimes. For what you are talking about to work everyone would have to make the same amount, live in the exact same cookie-cutter house, etc. It is a dream that will never happen except for maybe under a dictator. Who is going to make these non-motivated people work? What a joke.
The low-class pays no taxes, gets free health care for themselves and their families
You live in Louisiana, tell that to those who were struggling to get by even before Hurricane Katrina hit.
No taxes? I hope you're using this in exaggeration, because everyone pays taxes. It's taken out of your paycheck before you have a chance to count it.
Free healthcare? In Amerca? Please, show me the name of one company that offers free healthcare. Bush was hawking his Medicare plan immediately after Katrina hit instead of going into Louisiana, and it wasn't even about nationalizing healthcare like Canada.
I was in teh low class not to long ago and to be honest our system is set up to benefit those in the low class.
That would explain why people in the lower class struggle to improve their life and end up begging for food and money because they can't get a job, because they have no credentials, because they grew up in a poor community that left no way out.
Ask any kid who grew up in a #### what ways there are to get out and he'll tell you basketball and music. Most of the kids you see on the And1 mixtape tour and in college basketball today are kids who played their way out of poverty. They couldn't go to school and become a doctor or a lawyer. It's just not an option because of their situation.
And you have to remember what low class is in this country. If having a house, SUV, a computer, 3 TVs, etc is low class
That's not lower class -- that's middle class.
Someone in the lower class would love to have just the first item on your list (a house -- they have shacks and one-room apartments).
Click here to see why you're completely wrong about the lower class.
Rich folks can't get free healthcare, pay the most in taxes, and have part of their paycheck thrown back into the low class.
They can't get free healthcare because they can afford it. They pay the most in taxes because it's such an insignificant subtraction from their income. what they pay might be 1 or 2% of their income as opposed to 30% of someone from the lower-middle class.
What reward is there in socialism if you work all day to pay for someone's elses stuff?
You don't work "for someone else's stuff." In socialism, it is one big community and the government regulates the economy, such as how many of what item gets produced and how many of it people get. It is to ensure that the gap from the rich to the poor is significantly shortened.
You'd rather have people digging through garbage cans for sustenance while the Paris Hilton's of the world have exorbitant luxuries that the lower class would give their right arm to have?
Socialism cuts out unemployment? Um ok. Homelessness? Um ok.
Is "Um ok" a rebuttal of my claim or is it your nickname for me?
There are classes in every country and state. And there always will be.
I'm not denying that, but I am saying that the gap between the poor and the rich is significantly shortened in socialism as opposed to capitalism.
It is called motivation which socialism stimes.
You still have to work to get food, clothing, healthcare, etc. in socialism. It's not like you can sit at home watching six straight re-runs of SportsCenter and still get the same paycheck your neighbor gets for working twelve-hour shifts.
Just in case you didn't click the link I gave above, here is the definition of lower class in the United States:
The lower class in the United States consists of about 20% of the population and is deficient in all three factors which define class: wealth, power and prestige. The lower class is generally poorly educated, with low literacy and other employment skills. Their health is often relatively poor, with a life expectancy below the rest of the population. As a rule, they have a low rate of political participation. There is a high rate of unemployment and physical disability. Lack of money defines the class, as does lack of power and prestige. A significant portion of the lower class, especially single women with children, the disabled and the elderly, receives welfare.
Last edited by UltraMegaOK1988 on August 7th at 10:24 AM.
Ultra having the things I stated above are not middle class, I had all those things and made $35,000 a year. I actually took a pay cut when I joined the Fire Department which started at #34,000 a year. Is that amount of money middle class? I think not. Going to any other place and you would be considered priveleged. Which I considered it to be. The lower class at the end of the day may get money taken out of their checks like everyone else but they get it all back, plus some due to child tax credits.
Right in socialism government is the answer. Which is never a good thing at all. Those people in New Orleans were living in government housing, which is free...lol. They chose to live there anyways. Perhaps if you would have worked the shelters you would realize that the people down there were not thankful for anything anyone did for them. Why? b/c they have your exact mindset of government this, government that. I saw it with my own two eyes up close and in person. So next time realize I live downhere before you tell me who to ask about Katrina...lol.
Did you even read the definition of lower class? Having a house, a car, a computer, and three televisions is not lower class.
Lower class implies that you don't have enough for the frivolities that are cars, computers, and televisions. If they're on welfare, they get just enough from the government to have a roof over their head and food on the table. Anything extra they have is, in all likelihood, due to donations from charities and kind people.
You were not lower class. If anything, you were lower-middle class.
As far as companies paying for employee health care: much could be solved here if companies would stop paying it all together, except for on the job liability. I would rather an employer pay their employees $4,000 more in salary a year and tell them to find their own insurance. Why does a company have to pay for John Doe's health habits outside of working hours? You want to see unemployment drop into the 3% range, allow companies to drop health coverage on employees. The amount of money saved would be ridiculous and along with the amount of extra employees they could hire. Health coverage should be the individuals responsilbity, not a private company's.
Just ask us in Louisiana about property insurance hikes right now due to people not having flood insurance down in New Orleans. Why do I have to pay a higher premium b/c some #### built his house in a flood plain and chose not to get insurance? I say liquidate all his assets and leave him stripped bare. Don't put it on people who live 300 miles away.
Ultra even people on welfare have TV, cell phones, rims and tires. Again academia is not found out in the real world. Have you ever been to a #### or a hood? You also must understand the standard of living throughout each state. We here in Louisiana have one of the lowest in the country.
Ultra even people on welfare have TV, cell phones, rims and tires.
That has to be completely wrong. How could they afford it? Welfare is not enough to be able to afford these frivolities and still have a roof over your head and food on the table. It's just not feasible.
Show me some facts and I'll agree with you. Just saying that they have these frivolities doesn't make it true. When you saw it, was it a lot of people, or just one person? Perhaps he owned the cell phone before he went on welfare, or maybe it was donated to him by a family member, friend, or community member. I wouldn't be so quick to assume he buys this stuff with welfare, because welfare just isn't enough.
I do agree that you shouldn't have to pay for someone else's mistakes, such as building on that flood plain.
Last edited by UltraMegaOK1988 on August 7th at 1:35 PM.
Ultra I use to work in the Parish Helath Unit. IN the Health Unit you would see people drive up in Lincoln Navigators, Yukons, Suburbans,etc applying for free government housing, WIC, medicad, etc. Now if they are poor enough to apply for section 8 housing, how can they afford the Navigator? It would happen everyday. Was it fraud? Possibly, but I can assure you that I could go back tomorrow and take a picture of it and post it here to prove it to you. UNderstand though that definitions are meaningful but if you make $15,000 a year, there is 15,000 ways to spend it. So just b/c someone is in the lower income class, does not mean they cannot afford things. The standard of living here in Louisiana is very low compared to say Texas. Better yet you go to your local Health Unit and see for yourself. It happens everyday. It is amazing to watch.
You say that I have to be wrong about it. But how someone spends their money is their business. It all comes down to priorities. Some people their car is their #1 priority, others their dwelling. Point is you can buy a whole lot with $15,000 a year not to mention 35,000 a year. But most people will move through at least one class in their lifetime. Sure there are those who do not have the motivation to make more than $25,000 a year and they might be fine with that. It is their choice to do so. Others will find a way to make $100,000. It all comes down to personal choice, discipline, and motivation what class people end up in. Anyone who goes to college can become what they want. It is why you go to college. For those who can't go to college, there are a million other ways to get what you want. All require some kind of work. My UNcle-in-law is in the oil industry and never finished High School. He just got on with a new company that bought him away for $315,000 sa a signing bonus. He had already created and sold 3 other companies before this all without a college education. How? Motivation, discipline, and choice.
Ultra, every society has the wealthy and the poor. In your scenario, you say the gap is closer, but I would argue the gap is even farther apart. In the Soviet Union, when it was socialist, the rich elite had everything but the poor had nothing. There was no middle class. IN these societies, the upper class rule the lower class in what they call a socialist state, but they just get wealthier.
In America, the poor have unemployment, welfare, and I know my mom and dad both had surgeries that they did not pay for. We lived in rural MS and very poor upbringing, and we were always treated at hospitals and doctors.
Around this time, Jones gained notoriety when, as he was being profiled for an MTV biography, he took two of his thirteen children by limousine to a New York State welfare office to pick up his welfare check while his latest album was still in the top ten of the US charts. The entire incident was filmed by an MTV camera crew and was broadcast nationwide.
GR8UN54, it's easy to bring up specific scenarios, but you can't say that most, or even a large part of the minority are taking advantage of welfare. Welfare is designed to cover the bare minimum and nothing more. If you're on welfare, you can't afford to have a roof over your head and food on the table along with frivolities unless you're taking away from one to feed the other.
There are plenty of others who have been brought up in nothing but a one-room tenement and living on nothing more than bread and water, and whatever they found in the garbage. Again, look at a lot of the kids in basketball today and you'll see how hard they worked and still had no way out. A lot of these kids are brought up specifically to be basketball players or musicians because that's the tried-and-true way to get out of the ####.
Socal, socialism in theory closes the gap. The Soviet Union didn't enact socialism the way it was laid out in theory. The USSR was extremely corrupt and power-driven and I would not model any socialist state after it.
I just wanted to comment on LSU's statement about people driving up to the Health Unit in Navigators.
First, I live in Florida, and I've seen similar situations after the hurricanes we've recently been hit with. You'll see people driving up to get emergency supplies (designated for the needy) in Hummers, Navigators, etc. It's a shame.
Second, I would explain that situation by saying one of two things. Like Ultra said, welfare is provided to cover the bare necessities. There is just no possible way that someone on welfare could drive a Navigator, and still be able to afford housing, food, and other needs. So, one of two possible explanations exist. First, the person is squandering their welfare checks on the Navigator and, as a result, cannot afford housing, food, etc. (This would explain why people drive up to the Health Unit in a Navigator. They apply for free housing because they wasted the little money they were given on the Navigator.) The second possibility is that this person really doesn't need the free services and is cheating the government. However, I don't know how much sense this second scenario would make. Why would someone who could afford housing apply for free housing? I've never actually been to any of these projects and seen the free housing. But, I would assume its a meager existence. The first explanation seems like the more likely of the two.
It seems that this whole debate hinges on the lower class, and helping them make better lives for themselves. I'm not sure if socialism is the answer. I don't know what the answer is. I do
I do know that nothing will ever come of arguing back and forth about it. Solutions need to be offered up by people in a position to do something about the problem. Of course, these people are too busy padding their own bank accounts to worry about the bank accounts (or lack thereof) of the lower class. Nothing will ever change unless the lower class rise up and demand a change. The government will do nothing if left alone to ignore the problem. Action is not taken until there is a problem. And the only time the government perceives a problem is when it is smacking them in the face.
grace: like I said above it is all about priorities. The limits on these programs are very different depending on race, # of kids, income, etc. Also if they have kids they can get the child tax credits and that is a large amount of money every year. We had 3 kids back when I was working there and we made $3,000 alone per year just for having 3 kids. SOme of the people coming in had 5, 6, 7 kids so even if they are making minimum wage and have 6 kids that is basically a $6,000 a year bonus that they can put towards a new car...aka the Navigator. It is very possible for a poor person to have a SUV. Again you have to look at what is considered poor in this country. The government housing was like a $1 a month or something like that but if you are black and a single mother you can get in ahead of everyone else. I am telling ya straight up that it happened everyday of the week. Hell I had my 3 kids on Medicad for a year and I was making $35,000. So again it is very popssible to have a SUV and be poor. I was driving a 2001 Suburban and was making $35,000 at the time. Look I will go by the health unit tomorrow and give the numbers on medicad.
The point Socal was making is that when practiced Socialism fails. I really don't care how it looks on paper, when it is practiced it is not practical or even possible to maintain.
If it is practiced by the right people, it can work beautifully. The trick is to get people to enact socialism who aren't quickly addicted to power and wealth. Socialism, like any other economy, will corrupt, but if it's done right, it can be as close to a cure-all for inequality as you can get.
To be honest, the U.S. has been very fortunate with it's capitalist economy. We've had several Presidents who have done extremely well with the economy (Clinton for one) that have erased the monumental mistakes of others. It's just a matter of when these mistakes start piling up (and they are piling up quickly under Bush) that this game of economic Tetris ends.
I think people are naturally opposed to change and to trying something that has already failed.
That's why I don't expect the U.S. to turn socialist anytime soon. It's just one of my fleeting dreams.
Northsider You know as well as I that neither of the parties concerned really give a damn about having a salary cap. They'd rather maintain the status quo as it represents a windfall for all those in the major markets. Raise this point with Selig or Fehr and they'd bury their heads in the sand. Or they'd tell you that the system that they've got in place is working wonderfully. As the revenue streams start to diminish they may take a renewed look at the situation. It's not as if they can replicate the US government and go out an issue bonds to finance their existence and working capital.
After all is that the way of our government at present ?
I understand where you are coming from but I dont agree with some of the statements made. One of those being that Baby boomers soon retiring have "gargantuan pensions and other retirement benefits"...LOLOL...wait a minute...let me catch my breath...my sides hurt from laughing.
I am 29 years old and have been preparing for my retirement since the age of 23. So I'm ok but to say that these people get huge checks and benefits from the US governmetn is ridiculous. I've seen my grandmothers social security check and that of my late grandfather. I must tell you that both of them put together wouldnt be enough to paint the cardboard box she would be forced to live in if she hadnt saved her money.
Second to say that the USA will be bankrupt because of the millions moving into retirement soon is also silly. This country will never be bankrupt for the simple fact that we will always a President or Congress that keeps an eye on our spending and will pass a bill to cut down on such fears of the doomsdayers like yourself.
Third as SoCal pointed out the MLB will be fine, teams with little money in salary have and will continue to be competitive and dare I say even contend for a World Series Title ala 2003 Florida Marlins.
JMack As long as the government can raise money on the open market , be it with gov't securities and bonds then the country will be kept afloat. Should the international community lose confidence in our economy then all bets are off!
I am an avid sports writer in my part of town and am active in expressing my opinion (at times, I can get carried away, yes). I am known by many as a die-hard Beatles fan and I always get people talking about my constant references to them. Not only do I find them to be the best band to ever grace the planet, thus far, but I also find them a very good source for comparison in my articles. Hope you enjoy my articles on here as I'm just getting started, and I am always open for commentary.
.
Writer and Featured Columnist, RealGM Sports: www.realgm.c om
.
Read My Articles Daily at RealGMBaseba ll.com Under "Call to the Bullpen"
.
Online Blog at www.northside r.net
