NFL fans like socialism

[spacejamz]

With a socialist government there is no agreement. You are told what you have to share and there is no recourse should the government decide to keep pumping more money in a resource that simply chooses not to perform.

There is no motivation to perform in a socialist society. Why should there be if everyone gets treated the same no matter what?

 

[spacejamz]

I know why it works, and there is still a parallel. I don't think it's a very good one for discussion on social policy, but it's definitely there.

With a socialist democracy there is certainly an agreement. You aren't 'told' what to share any more than the Patriots are 'told' what to share. You vote on the sharing provisions as a group.

The NFL can deal with teams/players that hurt the league's bottom line. Teams/players that are not performing as expected are dealt with. Period.

Nothing happens to underachievers in a socialist society. Actually, there wouldn't be any because everyone performs the same. LOL.

 

[spacejamz]

Of course it matters here. Are Microsoft and Apple working towards the same goal?

I am confused by your inability to stay on topic. My original point was the both the league and the teams have a goal of maximizing profit. Hence, my question, does it matter if it is the team's goal or the league's goal in relation to this thread. Your response is that there is a difference. Please explain what a team would do that would increase its profit but not the league's. To meet that goal, every decision made by league or a team is done with mindset to increase profits. Can you provide a scenario where a team's goal to increase profit would conflict with the league's goal of profitability?

Save your straw men for someone else.

You previously stated 'The "bottom line" for government is the public good, and there ways to maximize it just like monetary profit.' How can this be an apples to apples comparison if the NFL/teams and Government/members of society are not both working towards the same goals. In the NFL scenario, every decision made by both the league and the teams are made to increase profits. In the society scenario, individuals do not always make the best choice to increase public good (drop out of out school, teen pregnancy, etc) even though the government attempts to increase public good...

 

[Ninjahedge]

It is a simplified analogy that does not apply across the whole breadth of the organization.

As with most things in life, it illustrates that there are tenets from many different ideologies that, when combined correctly, can prove successful.

Nothing in life has EVER been a true, academic, representation of any political mantra.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I am confused by your inability to stay on topic. My original point was the both the league and the teams have a goal of maximizing profit. Hence, my question, does it matter if it is the team's goal or the league's goal in relation to this thread. Your response is that there is a difference. Please explain what a team would do that would increase its profit but not the league's. To meet that goal, every decision made by league or a team is done with mindset to increase profits. Can you provide a scenario where a team's goal to increase profit would conflict with the league's goal of profitability?

You should look into the draft and why it's set up that way.

You previously stated 'The "bottom line" for government is the public good, and there ways to maximize it just like monetary profit.' How can this be an apples to apples comparison if the NFL/teams and Government/members of society are not both working towards the same goals. In the NFL scenario, every decision made by both the league and the teams are made to increase profits. In the society scenario, individuals do not always make the best choice to increase public good (drop out of out school, teen pregnancy, etc) even though the government attempts to increase public good...

Individuals don't have to maximize their productivity for government to maximize the public good.

 

[spacejamz]

You should look into the draft and why it's set up that way.

Please explain..really...

Individuals don't have to maximize their productivity for government to maximize the public good.

I thought in a socialist society, the ultimate goal is to make the entire society better, so everyone should do their part and have no problem providing maximum effort to reach this goal to the best of their ability. Let me know if any part of this is inaccurate.

It appears in your world, socialism is the government doing all the work while the welfare recipients pop out as many kids as they can while waiting for their WIC cards to arrive.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Tell that to the Steelers and Cowboys who lost consistently for 20+ years before getting the right Coach to tun them around.

Cowboys and Steelers are two of the highest revenue generating teams when it comes to NFL licensed merchandise and television ratings.

 

[actuarial]

There is no motivation to perform in a socialist society. Why should there be if everyone gets treated the same no matter what?

Since when does everyone get treated the same no matter what in a socialist society? Do you consider Canada and Europe socialist? Do you think that's what it's like here?

The NFL can deal with teams/players that hurt the league's bottom line. Teams/players that are not performing as expected are dealt with. Period.

They're talking about the teams. In this case players are things that help the team. In the analogy, they would be money, education, job opportunities etc. Is there a legitimate mechanism to kick out a bad team? If a team consistently sucks, can they kick them out of the league or force contraction?

Nothing happens to underachievers in a socialist society. Actually, there wouldn't be any because everyone performs the same. LOL.

Seriously, what the hell do you think socialism is? Why does everyone perform the same? Do you think underachievers live as good a life as overachievers in a socialist society? Here's a hint: they don't.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Got it...just pick the parts of the NFL that match the socialist agenda and then ignore everything else..

Besides, the NFL's 'socialist' policies are to keep the league competitive to help profitability, not because they feel sorry for the Jacksonville Jaguars or Cleveland Browns.

What is also left out is the disparity of power, wealth and actual labor put by owners vs players. But as you said this is nothing more then a cherry picking argument being put fourth which uses the weak "fairness" fallacy but ignores all other instances of unfair advantages that can be highlighted within the NFL and outside.

I'd be all fine with "socialism" according to Maher's example as long as I get to be an owner and everyone else gets to be a player (meat puppet).

 

[davmat787]

It's not that much of a stretch. You have a central planning agency managing competing firms to prevent market dominance and ensure fair access to resources.

Each team is a franchise of a single organization, the NFL. Its not like each team can play by their own rules (ie: have more players, use contracts outside guidelines set by the NFL, .etc).

I see the NFL and its franchises, aka the teams, as more of a single organization rather than 32 separate companies. Therefore, socialism not found.

Also, doesn't the NFL enjoy an antitrust exemption like Major League Baseball?

 

[Ausm]

Yup, in your world, there are no underachievers and everyone has a pet unicorn. However, in the NFL, players past their prime like T.O. don't their contracts renewed which was my point...

What was your point again?

How do you know what my world is?

 

[Ausm]

Cowboys and Steelers are two of the highest revenue generating teams when it comes to NFL licensed merchandise and television ratings.

That's not what I was pointing out to the person who made an erroneous post.

 

[Atreus21]

In honor of Super Bowl XLVI...

I wonder how many conservatives are diehard NFL fans? I also wonder how they can be so enamoured with a socialist organization? I know its not the real definition of socialism but its the one they use to bash Democrats so I'll go with it.

The league takes money from the big teams to distribute to the bottom. It's highly successful with teams seeing record profits.

NFL is unionized.

Many teams benefit from government help with stadiums and infrastructure.

Bill Maher making this point last year...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb9JMno7g7Y

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell explains the NFL mix of socialism and capitalism...
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/professional/the-nfl-a-study-in-socialism-and-capitalism

That's kind of like saying that a holding company with several subsidiaries is socialism if it ever takes from one successful subsidiary to prop up another one which is ailing.

If conservatives misunderstand the meaning of the word socialism, this post proves that at least one liberal is no different.

Socialism is government or the reigning authority owning the means of production. To the extent that Obama or any president brings more of the private sector under the control of the government, he is moving us in the direction of socialism. That's it.

Secondly, socialism works very well on small scales. Families, for instance, are socialistic, and would be cruel if capitalistic. You don't feed your child commensurate with the amount of yard work or school work they did that day. The biological bond between child and parent, as well as the parent actually knowing what is best for the child, makes socialism work well. But on a large scale, you're talking about adults planning for other adults they don't even know or care about (although they'll certainly make a claim to the contrary).