Why do most of my fellow economic libertarians hate economic liberty?

RaceBannon 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 think they should give them a couple hundred more for their stipend, but there is truth to this.

MikeDamone said:

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.

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.

"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.

well you got that wrong too. that's laid off government employee sucking on the unemployment tit. get it right.

ok. I wrote they were exempt. you correctly pointed out to me that there is no formal exemption for the NCAA from the anti-trust laws. you were right. i was wrong. forget the rest.

and now that you've disposed of me, we're just left with your shitty argument. congratulations on winning the smartest retard award dip shit.

when you're ready to pull the one cock out of your mouth, the other out of your ass and the third out of your twat, let me know so we can discuss further.

because like about 70% of this bored, I, too, had Paul Heyne teach me about supply and demand in Kane Hall with 700 other people, so as surprised as it might make you to learn, I really do get your "they're playing so it must be ok" line of thought. it's just that after freshman year, most people add a little more contextual thought to their views. sorry for assuming. it's never a good idea.

rare. form. you. are.

fuck.

MikeDamone said:

creepycoug said:

MikeDamone said:

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.

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.

"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.

well you got that wrong too. that's laid off government employee sucking on the unemployment tit. get it right.

ok. I wrote they were exempt. you correctly pointed out to me that there is no formal exemption for the NCAA from the anti-trust laws. you were right. i was wrong. forget the rest.

and now that you've disposed of me, we're just left with your shitty argument. congratulations on winning the smartest retard award dip shit.

when you're ready to pull the one cock out of your mouth, the other out of your ass and the third out of your twat, let me know so we can discuss.

because like about 70% of this bored, I, too, had Paul Heyne teach me about supply and demand in Kane Hall with 700 other people, so as surprised as it might make you to learn, I really do get your "they're playing so it must be ok" line of thought. it's just that after freshman year, most people add a little more contextual thought to their views. sorry for assuming. it's never a good idea.

rare. form. you. are.

fuck.

Huh? Red herring much?

what do you want? you won. I said so. you are spot on about my apparently careless use of the word. the problem you're struggling with has nothing to do with fish. it's that it doesn't really matter.

everyone gets it. the NCAA has been sued. I think everyone knows that. the point, which you persist in ignoring, is that the NCAA gets to do shit that business doesn't. it gets to regulate how its members hire, pay and compete with one another. that's pretty fucking huge. that has a direct impact on the players.

tell Microsoft it's the same thing.

again, it's a sporting organization. it is viewed by the courts as very different from ordinary players in commerce. I didn't say it was right or wrong, just that it is.

one implication of that reality is that you have no real choice. as I said, if you want that particular product, there is one place to go.

read the cases. the judges make it clear. consider, too, the cases they've been burned in. what do they have in common? they get burned when they wander outside of their regulatory purview and start interfering with real markets. that's when the courts wake up.

but they're basically allowed to restrain the free exchange of labor as represented by college athletes. all of the practical outlets for the application of their talents are member organizations.

what's a fast black kid to do if he doesn't like the NCAA?

RaceBannon 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

well, yes. I do toss and turn at night about it. I guess it turns out that my hedonism knows no moral bounds.

MikeDamone said:

creepycoug said:

MikeDamone said:

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.

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.

"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.

well you got that wrong too. that's laid off government employee sucking on the unemployment tit. get it right.

ok. I wrote they were exempt. you correctly pointed out to me that there is no formal exemption for the NCAA from the anti-trust laws. you were right. i was wrong. forget the rest.

and now that you've disposed of me, we're just left with your shitty argument. congratulations on winning the smartest retard award dip shit.

when you're ready to pull the one cock out of your mouth, the other out of your ass and the third out of your twat, let me know so we can discuss.

because like about 70% of this bored, I, too, had Paul Heyne teach me about supply and demand in Kane Hall with 700 other people, so as surprised as it might make you to learn, I really do get your "they're playing so it must be ok" line of thought. it's just that after freshman year, most people add a little more contextual thought to their views. sorry for assuming. it's never a good idea.

rare. form. you. are.

fuck.

Huh? Red herring much?
If you added contextual thought to your views, you would understand competition law and have at least some passing knowledge of NCAA court cases rather than spouting ignorant Bullshit about anti trust exemptions. And would at a minimum have knowledge of economic efficiency and how courts decide these kinds of cases.

And if you have been paying attention, I have brought up other points outside of the supply and demand model.

From a Marquette law review article written by someone presumably a bit smarter than we on this subject. It represents well my general understanding of the subject. It certainly is not what I do for a living. If you understand "competition law", whatever the fuck that is, then bully for you. But this passage supports well what I've written thus far (other than the bit about cocks in your mouth and ass):

For decades, the NCAA has been immune from close scrutiny under the Sherman Act. Courts and commentators uniformly agreed that college sports were more concerned with the twin aspects of amateurism and education than commercialism. Yet it was also recognized the more the NCAA lurched into commercial endeavors, (negotiating association-wide TV or endorsement contracts, for example) or commercial regulation, a clear challenge might be mounted to the NCAA’s general immunity (emphasis added by creepy). Gary Roberts, a law professor at Tulane University, and its faculty representative to the NCAA, commented, “the more you commercialize what you do, the more you make judges think that antitrust laws should apply to you.”

So it is in the name of amateurism and education that the NCAA and its members get to monopolize the opportunity market of high school athletes not ready to become professional at age 18.

Before you overflow your tampon, for the third time, I'm not even saying it's right or wrong. But to deny that there is an artifice in place to limit the choice of the high school athlete is pure folly. Move on from that please.

If the kids don't like the status quo of the NCAA and its member schools (=Monopoly) they are free to not participate.

Did you not know that American capitalism favors monopolies over individuals?

Why do you hate America?