A Libertarian Governor?

[Tmy]

I don't mean to de-rail the thread, but why can't owners of teams build stadiums. Why is it always up to the city?

Its not just in sports.

Look into most good sized local business project. Youll find that the govt has given all sorts of incentives and breaks for company X to build a plant in there fair burg.


A team can create wealth. All of a sudden you have a bunch of millioire players working and paying taxes in your state.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by shanek [/i]


Originally posted by Rouser2
No new wealth is created by fans attending a hockey game,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Yes, it is; like attending a movie, people get a few hours of entertainment out of the deal. That is a form of wealth, as it increases their quality of life.


But that few hours of entertainment is exchanged for the wealth of dollars that did not appear from out of nothing. Thus, no new wealth is created, only traded. If those dollars were not spent in trade for a hockey game they would have been spent, or better, invested some place else. And government sponsored sports palaces only give a visible illusion of benefit. The negative conseqeuces of such theft of wealth via taxation, are diffuse and invisible.

-- Rouser

 

[Tmy]

Yourlooking at wealth as if its a zero sum game.

I buy a tcicjet cause I think its worth more than the $10 its costing me. (otherwise I wouldnt have done so.) THe theater thinks they are getting a deal for the show /$10 trade. In the end we both think we made out (unless its an Adam Sandler movie )

Its win win. We created wealth for us both.

If you dont think sports can improve the economy then try getting a good seat at a New England bar when the Sox are playing in the World Series.

 

[Tony]

A team can create wealth. All of a sudden you have a bunch of millioire players working and paying taxes in your state.

Taxes don't create wealth, they hinder wealth creation.

 

[Tmy]

Taxes don't create wealth, they hinder wealth creation.

Not really. You gotta spend money to make money.

For example if those taxes improve the infrastructer making it easier and cheaper for businesses to ship goods then those businesses gain.

 

[Tony]

For example if those taxes improve the infrastructer making it easier and cheaper for businesses to ship goods then those businesses gain.

Give me an example of this happening.

 

[Tmy]

Give me an example of this happening.

Ok. UPS is a successful package delivery company. THey pay taxes. Taxes are usedto build/maintain/plow the roads and interstate highway system. These roads are used by UPS to deliver their packages which is how they make money. UPS does not have to build its own roads or plow roads in order to get their trucks around.

 

[patnray]

And what if he was inspired to run initially because he knew the state wouldn't otherwise have given the surplus back to the taxpayers?

Why is it that when the government has a "surplus" it is "the people's money" and must be "returned" to them, but when the government has a deficit it is not "the people's deficit" that they must "return" to the state?

 

[shanek]

But that few hours of entertainment is exchanged for the wealth of dollars that did not appear from out of nothing.

What does that have to do with anything?

Thus, no new wealth is created, only traded.

This conclusion does not follow from your above premise.

And government sponsored sports palaces only give a visible illusion of benefit. The negative conseqeuces of such theft of wealth via taxation, are diffuse and invisible.

Now this I will agree with. I was referring to people voluntarily purchasing hockey tickets. (Charlotte's hockey team isn't government-subsidized, so I'm basing my perception on that.)

 

[shanek]

Not really. You gotta spend money to make money

But not all forms of spending money make money. And if there's money to be made, a private company would step in and do it, no government necessary.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: A Libertarian Governor?

Why is it that when the government has a "surplus" it is "the people's money" and must be "returned" to them, but when the government has a deficit it is not "the people's deficit" that they must "return" to the state?

It is. It's just that people won't have to pay it back for years (with interest), so they act like it's free money.