Why do most of my fellow economic libertarians hate economic liberty?
Fucking Dreckfest.
Comments
-
It's fucking capitalism people.
-
-
Libertarian Economy = Liberty to be Fucked by Capitalism
-
ThisTailgater said:Libertarian Economy = Liberty to be Fucked by Capitalism
-
Look at me, I like to create hybrid threads based on another poster's original thread.
I get paid (Libertarian Economy) to drive clicks around here, and if the Minister of DisInformation continues to impact my revenue streams he will be hearing the Vanilla lawyers once they are finished with the site transition.
You have been warned. -
I like to be in favor of all sorts of shit and just ignore the reasons why it will never happen. Gotta go feed my unicorn and jump over a rainbow now.
The intellectually lazy argument is - the players need to be paid!!!111!!
OK, I'm in. Now what? -
In the spirit of liberty and human rights, we can decide now to pay collegiate football playing athletes enough so that they're free to own wheels, dress cool, and take themselves (and a girlfriend) out for a movie and cheeseburger-milkshake date once a week. Or we can wait for the Libertarians to suck(capitalize) the life out of our favorite Game. I don't know what I'd do with all my unused entertainment money if that happened. Give it away for public education of the 1% elites I suppose.
-
Because it currently in equilibrium. Your advocating forced wage levels when the current wage is attracting a qualified and eager labor pool.
-
Two competing thoughts; second one wins.
1. In a free market society, it makes perfect intellectual sense to pay players in a sport that generates 100s of millions of dollars in revenue in large measure because of the players.
2. In this free market society, we have multiple exceptions to the free market default rule that makes life better, and keeping college football amateur-based is but one of them.
On second thought, they are not competing thoughts at all. -
If the current pay is inadequate, why would someone choose to participate? Answer: the current compensation is adequate to maintain a qualify labor pool.creepycoug said:Two competing thoughts; second one wins.
1. In a free market society, it makes perfect intellectual sense to pay players in a sport that generates 100s of millions of dollars in revenue in large measure because of the players.
2. In this free market society, we have multiple exceptions to the free market default rule that makes life better, and keeping college football amateur-based is but one of them.
On second thought, they are not competing thoughts at all.
Why are coaches paid so much? Answer: same as above. -
I think college football players should get health coverage from their schools at minimum and get some additional $. More than $2000 IMO. Giving them too much tho will lead to other various problems.
Also, we need more steel for our stadiums.
-
They do get health coverage.priapism said:
I think college football players should get health coverage from their schools at minimum and get some additional $. More than $2000 IMO. Giving them too much tho will lead to other various problems.
Also, we need more steel for our stadiums.
I think $2250 would be more appropriate than $2000. -
I hear they may want feces as well. Can we make that happen?
-
If you can't see that this thread is another opportunity for you to drive clicks, not even Adam Smith himself can help you.IrishDawg22 said:Look at me, I like to create hybrid threads based on another poster's original thread.
I get paid (Libertarian Economy) to drive clicks around here, and if the Minister of DisInformation continues to impact my revenue streams he will be hearing the Vanilla lawyers once they are finished with the site transition.
You have been warned.
-
I like to be MikeDamoneFuckingStupid and claim the current wage levels are not forced.MikeDamone said:Because it currently in equilibrium. Your advocating forced wage levels when the current wage is attracting a qualified and eager labor pool.
I do that. -
I like to be svenfuckingstupid and act like there is a labor shortage at the current wage and that people aren't entering into the labor market voluntarily at the current wage.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I like to be MikeDamoneFuckingStupid and claim the current wage levels are not forced.MikeDamone said:Because it currently in equilibrium. Your advocating forced wage levels when the current wage is attracting a qualified and eager labor pool.
I do that.
Now, if you want to talk about the prohibition on selling their name or the fact that the NFL lowers their business costs on the taxpayers funding of many football programs, then we could have a better economic discussion. -
Womp. Don't feel compelled to rationalize it in yet another "you see? the market works" apology.MikeDamone said:
If the current pay is inadequate, why would someone choose to participate? Answer: the current compensation is adequate to maintain a qualify labor pool.creepycoug said:Two competing thoughts; second one wins.
1. In a free market society, it makes perfect intellectual sense to pay players in a sport that generates 100s of millions of dollars in revenue in large measure because of the players.
2. In this free market society, we have multiple exceptions to the free market default rule that makes life better, and keeping college football amateur-based is but one of them.
On second thought, they are not competing thoughts at all.
Why are coaches paid so much? Answer: same as above.
The current pay is adequate only in that it is part of a monopoly that would otherwise violate the anti-trust rules. All participants in this monopoly collude, by definition, by agreeing to offer the same deal. It's price fixing. It's collusion. If it weren't exempted from the anti-trust laws, the FTC and DOJ would break it up and fine the living shit out of everybody. There is nothing free market about NCAA membership and cfb. Not even fucking close.
As such, the participants, many, many, many of which are black, relatively poor and stupid, have no other choice. This is the NFL farm system. Period.
You don't have to do all that. It's an exception to free market principles. Just like public school and welfare. Don't over think it. Have another one of your faggy glasses of whine instead. -
No other choice? Lol ok. So now it's poor stupid black people not having a choice and being ripped off? Is that why smart not poor white kids also play?creepycoug said:
Womp. Don't feel compelled to rationalize it in yet another "you see? the market works" apology.MikeDamone said:
If the current pay is inadequate, why would someone choose to participate? Answer: the current compensation is adequate to maintain a qualify labor pool.creepycoug said:Two competing thoughts; second one wins.
1. In a free market society, it makes perfect intellectual sense to pay players in a sport that generates 100s of millions of dollars in revenue in large measure because of the players.
2. In this free market society, we have multiple exceptions to the free market default rule that makes life better, and keeping college football amateur-based is but one of them.
On second thought, they are not competing thoughts at all.
Why are coaches paid so much? Answer: same as above.
The current pay is adequate only in that it is part of a monopoly that would otherwise violate the anti-trust rules. All participants in this monopoly collude, by definition, by agreeing to offer the same deal. It's price fixing. It's collusion. If it weren't exempted from the anti-trust laws, the FTC and DOJ would break it up and fine the living shit out of everybody. There is nothing free market about NCAA membership and cfb. Not even fucking close.
As such, the participants, many, many, many of which are black, relatively poor and stupid, have no other choice. This is the NFL farm system. Period.
You don't have to do all that. It's an exception to free market principles. Just like public school and welfare. Don't over think it. Have another one of your faggy glasses of whine instead.
The NCAA isn't exempt from anti trust laws. Check the facts. They aren't shielded from anti trust lawsuits or government action. Dumb fuck.
What else you got since that was the basis for your fucktarded post.
Players are being willing to start telling the NCAA no, we won't play for what your giving us would be the first step in getting more. That's what it's going to take. But if kids are lined up to take what is being offered, then no..it won't change.
If players are paid as employees, would it be OK to pay star players more? Absolutely it should be.
And I do have an issue with the NFL reducing their business costs at the expense of taxpayer funded institutions. Fuck them, they need to pay full freight for their farm system and for their stadiums. -
Shit. Unleashed. Belongs.
-
TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You've embarrassed yourselves when it comes to arguing against college players getting paid.
Fucking Dreckfest.
College football trumps capitalism.CollegeDoog said:It's fucking capitalism people.
-
The spirit of antebellum American capitalism, formally known as plantation slave owning elitism, is alive and well in collegiate athletics........ which I believe most of us are vastly more interested in than the price of king cotton. The best thing about this is that the time student-athletes are allowed to waste on collegiate athletics is generally limited to 5 years. In Antebellum terms, that's progress.
-
Seems like a lot of folks here support slavery by paying to attend and watching college football on TV. You should stop if you have that big of an issue with it
-
Race is R, YKRaceBannon said:Seems like a lot of folks here support slavery by paying to attend and watching college football on TV. You should stop if you have that big of an issue with it
-
I am for football but against the artificial restriction of the right to work a side job.
-
fuck you are in rare form.
no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.
literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?
fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
-
Damone's economic prowess has been woefully exposed as way too simplistic in a complex market.
Creepycoug laid the smack down. -
What's the problem? Take some money from the conferences and NCAACP and give it to football players, based on a % of revenue generated per sport. Give the bitches a token stipend for therapy for sore backs and STD treatment and the football players a sizeable stipend for new Lacs, Benz and fine thread. It's pretty simple.
-
fuck you are in rare form.
no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.
literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?
fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
fuck you are in rare form.
no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.
literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?
fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
-
i don't know how that happened. i'm a fucking retard interacting with web applications. fuck.RaceBannon said:fuck you are in rare form.
no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.
literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?
fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
fuck you are in rare form.
no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.
literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?
fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
and, yes, I do work for the Washington State Department of Redundancy Department. Guilty as charged. The lawyer thing is just make believe. Ask tops. -
You said they were exempt..dumbfuck...now it's...we'll,yeah but still..not formally exempt. There is not formal or informal exemption. You said the reason they could do what they were doing is that they were exempt. They are not in any way exempt. You said if their weren't exempt the FTC and DOJ would "break it up and fine the living shit out of them". Fuck your an idiot.creepycoug said:
fuck you are in rare form.
no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.
literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?
fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
"Effectively exempt"
Lol ok...but they aren't. I don't think you even understand the implications if they were exempt.
Admit it, you thought they were exempt, called called out on your horse shit and then made up a weak argument to try and fit your original point, but without your main fact.
Yes, they have a choice. 100%. If it's a shitty deal, don't do it. But it's not a shitty deal.
Exactly the response I expected from a government employee.
![[Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/0207c5b8d9863e3a221f61582bd6bfa3_100.png)
