Slashdot Mirror
The Ethics Cloud Over Ballmer's $2 Billion B-Ball Buy
theodp (442580) writes '"It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism," writes Rick Cohen, who argues that Donald Sterling and the NBA owners are being unjustly enriched by Sterling's racism, which led to the $2 billion sale of the L.A. Clippers to ex-Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, a record-high sum for an NBA team. "Indeed, the only losers in the Sterling affair are the players," adds the NY Times. "What held promise as a possible D-Day in the N.B.A., a day when N.B.A. owners stood up to be counted and voted Donald Sterling out of the league, instead turned into a great day for the status quo." Forbes contributor Robert Wood speculates that if he plays his cards right, Sterling's windfall could be tax-free.'
Ethics? Ethics in the corporate world is what gets you the most cash. The corporate assholes live in a scruple-free culture.
Is it that he's being paid a market price for his team? How could it have been otherwise?
Here's Slashdot cheering the thought police. The man was baited into saying something in a private phone call. Where are our privacy champions now? What a bunch of frauds. We cheer Snowden because the media tells us to, but then champion spying on someone because the media tells us to.
What an incredibly stupid thing to post on Slashdot. the ONLY link to technology is Ballmer's name.
that no matter what, ** SOMEONE ** is gonna bitch about ** SOMETHING ** no matter what happened. Can't please all the people all the time.
Sterling never did anything illegal, he was just an old biggoted man. There exists no punishment society can inflict on him beyond personal actions like boycotting or just not liking him... So what gives? Why do people think that he can be robbed of an asset for being a biggot?
He has first amendment protections to be as big of a douchebag as he wants. His privacy was violated by his mistress and he was doing nothing illegal. The NBA has no grounds to force him out or deny him profit from the sale of an asset he shouldn't be forced to sell.
I'm pretty sick and tired of this crusade against capitalism all over the world, where anyone who makes a lot of money is either evil, unethical, or oppressive to his employees.
And I'm sick of how statistically speaking, anyone who makes a lot of money is either evil, unethical, or oppressive to his employees.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, what was he supposed to do? Give the team away? They kicked him out of the league. The only way to get him out of the league is to force him to sell the team. The team is, apparently, worth $2 billion. Thus...
I think he's a racist asshole as much as the next guy but, seriously, what did anyone expect? He wasn't going to give the team away, that's for damn sure.
Seriously? Are you saying if you say the wrong thing, horrible as it may be, you should lose all your assets? 2 billion dollars worth? I'm fine with him having to sell his franchise as there are franchise rules he had to abide by, but they can't just take his money from him because he said something mean.
We ought to outlaw selfishness. Everyone should always work towards the common good.
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
More like "Ignore my checkbox to Disable Advertising". I'm still seeing banners at the top of the content and at the top of the right column.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
'"It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism," ... Well, lets think, you could run a child prostitution ring, child slavery, people trafficking, run a pharmacutical firm/country that denies poorer people medicine or be a banker. Not hard to imagine at all. (not sure what the rest of the summary was about as I did not read it.
For the hundredth time, vulcan, we're not joining any goddamn federation of planets!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
> I'm pretty sick and tired
Have a lie down. And then see a doctor. And try and think of a reason other than sympathy towards your sorry plight for others to be interested in your opinions.
nt.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Sure. In your dystopic society where people can only think what you want them to think that is how things work. Fortunately in the real world things are not that bad, yet...
Not any more than you are, my friend, but it is easier to see the bad side of others whilst ignoring your own. I am pretty sure you wouldn't be able to satisfy the standards you want to enforce to the people you envy.
bear in mind this man is guilty of nothing more than saying something politically incorrect within the privacy of his own house.
What happened here? 1984 much?
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Crony capitalism only exists when there is a big government to buy. Even more, the bigger and stronger the government is the "cronier" capitalism becomes. The only real way to fight crony capitalism is by decreasing government size and scope.
How big of a court case would you like to have on your hands?
Ah, no. Unless there is a plan to divy up $2B that I don't know about.
I come here for the love
...that Sterling would be laughing all the way to the bank on this one, I'm happy for him.
The First Amendment may not apply to corporations (when it should apply to all that do business within the US), too bad he didn't get even more than 2 billion for the team...
No, he should have never been forced to sell the team at all.
Will someone please think of the poor millionaire ball players? It's just not fair!
The two rules for success are:
1) Never tell them everything you know.
Looks like spending $425k on lobbying to defeat the WA State income tax may have helped Ballmer save nearly $200 million on this $2B deal: Income Tax Quashed, Ballmer To Cash In Billions
He spent 2.2 Billion just to have the opportunity to throw chairs in public again?
There are many things you can buy for 2.2 Billion. This is one of them.
Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist. He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.
On the other hand if you increase government powers, those same employees can be "screwed over" without any chance to defend themselves under the threat of force. And even worse this force can be bought by those rich guys.
So if you want to prevent damage from being done you should defend that governments should be as small as possible and that violence and coercion, which are the tools of any government, should be kept at a minimum.
I am pretty sure you wouldn't be able to satisfy the standards you want to enforce to the people you envy.
I absolutely would, if a handful of greedy fucks hadn't made that impossible for their own profit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism," writes Rick Cohen
I find the whole thing hilarious, all the old man said was "I don't want to be around or associated with blacks" to a woman who is on video as saying
"Blacks are stupid and crazy"
http://nypost.com/2014/06/01/s...
Then the media circus is queued and he is "forced" to sell the team, winds up getting 2 billion tax free.
Racism never entered into it, if a person says "I don't want to be around those kinds of people" it isn't "racism" it's a personal preference.
My suggestion is that things went exactly the way Sterling wanted them to, and it's hilarious, the other option is that he was played to get the team out from under him.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
People like you are dangerous, I know you can't see it, but you're far worse than Sterling.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
The signatures on the letter reads like a who's who of ISP industry presidents and CEOs, including AT&T's Randall Stephenson, Cox Communications' Patrick Esser, NCTA president (and former FCC commissioner) Michael Powell, Verizon's Lowell McAdam, and Comcast's Brian Roberts.
Case closed, we all know they know what's best for us, right?
There is a war going on for your mind.
Donald Sterling _is_ a piece of shit racist bigot. He has long had a history of being one prior to this whole situation. People who follow the NBA closely have known this for years. It's only now that this video has come out and gone viral that anyone feels like doing anything about it.
Jealous of his success? Where are you pulling this from? If I were jealous of his success wouldn't I be just as jealous of Ballmer? Or anyone else with money? And thus, wouldn't I agree with the article that seems to be on a crusade against people with money?
Scorta futuere amo!
Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.
[citation needed]
On the other hand if you increase government powers
It's not the other hand. It's the same hand, because business runs government.
So if you want to prevent damage from being done you should defend that governments should be as small as possible
Corporations are running government, so your solution is less government, so that corporations can run everything without government.
My solution is less centralized government, so that people have control over their own destinies, but so that they still have control.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Would you care to explain yourself further? I'm an open minded person and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. But you have to actually tell me why you disagree with me if you think I should see your perspective.
Scorta futuere amo!
Crony capitalism only exists when there is a big government to buy.
That is a staggeringly though not shockingly stupid thing [for you] to say. Collusion can exist in the absence of any government.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I know slashdot loves to hate on the rich and all, but lets have some facts here.
This entire gripe seems to be based on the premise that he's filed as an "S Corporation" and therefor "It's not taxed! OMG!"
Well, that's not accurate.
From Wikipedia:
In general, S corporations do not pay any federal income taxes. Instead, the corporation's income or losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns.
He'll be paying taxes. It's just a matter of how and when.
Then there's the argument that he may win $1billion from the NBA during a lawsuit. Well good. This is the united states. He should be able to say what he wants no matter how stupid and offensive it is, then we should be able to boycott his business. The NBA may or may not have been right in what they did, I've no knowledge of the particulars of their contract. But that is exactly what this is, a contractual dispute.
But they have to compete with the Lakers for eyeballs. The Clippers happen to be at a high point and the Lakers at a low point--that's the only reason why anyone in LA has been remotely interested in the Clippers lately. I honestly don't expect their value in LA to last that much longer once this era of the team is over. Maybe they'll wait until that time to move the team, but I expect it to happen sooner or later.
Scorta futuere amo!
Wow .. I wish I could be a loser to the tune of a million or two a year.
What a great opportunity to take something said in private, blow it all out of proportion, just to make a social statement. I hope I never become rich and famous and have to worry about someone illegally taping a private conversation and making it public so everyone can throw a hissy-fit. As long as I'm just a regular person, my special friends won't have an opportunity to blackmail me for something so ridiculous.
It is NOT illegal to be a racist. It is NOT illegal to have private racist thoughts. It is illegal to discriminate.
One can attack actions, but it is Orwellian to attack private comments. Everyone on here that whines about privacy should be shouting at the treetops against this invasion of privacy.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
I just RTFA. Even though some of the techniques the author speculates go beyond questionable into the realm of "no fucking way could he get away with that" (claiming a forced sale, claiming a loss), NONE of them actually eliminates taxes on his gain. They change the amount; they shuffle the timing around; but again NONE of them results in a "tax-free" windfall.
He merely liquidated assets he already owned that were worth that much.
"Section 1033 of the tax code allows you to defer taxes when your property is taken involuntarily, like eminent domain. Mr. Sterling can argue the Clippers sale was forced on him by the NBA."
So who wants to bet Donald Tokowitz and his accountants planned this from the start?
The point is, corporations cannot run everything without government. there is no monopoly in existence that survived for any significant amount of time without government protection for example.
And if you want citations just check the countries at the top of economic freedom ranking of the heritage foundation and those at the bottom, then compare it to the standards of living of the average people in those same countries. The freer the economy the better the quality of life of the common person.
Dream on, anonymous coward. There is NO WAY IN HELL that any of the current or prospective franchise owners would ever agree under any circumstances to any clause like that. Do you think they would ever subject themselves to the possibility of losing their capital gains on the whim of public opinion's judgment of something they said in private? Besides, even if they did (which they wouldn't) that would be the mother of all court battles to determine if the contract term applied. And it would NEVER be invoked again.
Sure it can, but it cannot corner any market for long without the power of coercion government adds. I defy you to find monopolies that resisted for more than a few years without government protection, in the form of barriers, subsidies or regulations.
Capitalist don't "endager" the public, you would on the other hand if you could carry on with your ideas, because the only way to accomplish what you want is through force and coercion and the results are as shown time and again catastrophic.
thought that Ballmer reeked of Ethics?
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Obviously the old creep issued some really nasty remarks and the NBA really doesn't need owners that degrade the climate of the sport. Conversely we very well have an elderly man who is more or less in the throes of dementia. Questions such as how does the Americans With Disabilities Act pertain to unfortunate or ugly remarks by an afflicted person may be relevant. Beyond that is the glaring issue of forcing his wife to sell as well. After all, she is an individual, and deserves the full protection of the law just as we all do. The NBA took the position that she must sell due to the fact that she is married to the creep. And even above all of those issues is an even more troublesome issue of allowing any party other than the judiciary to assign punishments. Suppose you are running a business and discover that you have a racist as an employee although he is rather quiet about his beliefs. Can you fire him with impunity? Keep in mind that racism is sometimes perceived where it does not exist or the group in question may not be popular. For example if you employ someone from Palestine and fire him he will find a lot less recourse in the American justice system than if you fired a Jewish person. Also many businesses use false pretenses when discharging an employee. Can society afford to get involved in all of this sort of thing?
Keep using excuses to justify your ugly ugly envy. You are likely much much richer than 99% of the people in this planet, and I sincerely doubt you are donating 99% of your income to the poor people in Africa.
The point is, corporations cannot run everything without government.
By the time the corporations are running things, it's called governance.
Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.
[citation needed]
And if you want citations just check the countries at the top of economic freedom ranking of the heritage foundation and those at the bottom, then compare it to the standards of living of the average people in those same countries. The freer the economy the better the quality of life of the common person.
How is that a citation for the people at the top not harming anyone? Try, try, try to stay on topic. Or else we'll have to assume that you're just avoiding answering the question because you have no good answer.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I defy you to find monopolies that resisted for more than a few years without government protection, in the form of barriers, subsidies or regulations.
Yes, that's how monopolies work. But if there were no governments, the megacorporations (or of old, the companies) would simply grow until they themselves were governments. Indeed, they did act as governments in their own areas of influence.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
i'm for bigger government. we've tried the smaller government thing, it's where we started. Then we moved beyond child labor, sweat-shops, company towns and robber-barons. Unfettered capitalism was the time of carnegie... it was not a good look on us.
Keep using excuses to justify your ugly ugly envy.
I don't envy people for being soulless pieces of shit who are completely detached from caring for their fellow humans because they got theirs.
You are likely much much richer than 99% of the people in this planet,
True.
and I sincerely doubt you are donating 99% of your income to the poor people in Africa.
Ah yes, I refer to this as the "Why doesn't Warren Buffet just pay more taxes, then?" argument. Admittedly, it's not a very wieldy name. However, it does underscore the limited amount of thinking you've put into this issue. No matter how much money I can spend to try to make the world a better place, some people with a lot more money than me a) could do a whole lot more without even noticing, but aren't and b) will do more to harm those people without even noticing than I can ever do throughout my life. So yeah, I could be doing more, but to suggest that my failure to give more is cause to be silent about those whose failure to limit their excess is just fucking stupid.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Mobile Safari gets banners at the top and obnoxious floaters at the bottom. On iPhone the floater often goes off the side and doesn't zoom right, making the dumb "hide" button hard/impossible to get at.
It's better than Beta, but not much.
the feminists were out w/torches & pitchforks b/c the show made a sex scene between Jamie & Cersei more "rapey" than same incident was in the book. someone wrote "there is NOTHING worse than rape!" to which I replied "the woman at the beginning of that episode who was hunted, shot in leg w/arrow, mauled by dogs & left to bleed out in woods might beg to differ..."
Oh but there are deregulated areas. And in those areas you won't find monopolies. At least not monopolies that last more than a few years.
No they would not because they are competing with each other and with all the rest of the market. It is actually gets a lot harder to grow when you get larger. Companies get harder and harder to manage, get inefficient and eventually collapse. Look at GM, Banks or anywhere for reference. Governments are the only force that keeps protecting and sustaining corporations when they fail.
But Sterling got rich as a personal injury lawyer, and then mega-rich as a slum lord. He's the one man in America *everybody* can despise. Ballmer has actually found a situation where he can step in and people will heave a sign of relief.
Well played, sir. Well played.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Again excuses. You do nothing and rationalize that it is because you don't make a difference in the larger picture, but you could do in a smaller picture and there are a LOT of people like you. You, my friend, by your own standards is an hypocrite and a soulless piece of shit who is completely detached from caring for your fellow humans.
Oh and nobody said anything about no governments. Governments have 3 very good motives to exist and should focus on those 3 things only:
- Provide physical security to people by preventing violence from being committed by people (police and criminal justice);
- Serve as arbitrator in disputes (civil justice)
- protect the country from external threats (military)
And I'm sick of how statistically speaking, anyone who makes a lot of money is either evil, unethical, or oppressive to his employees.
There are two kinds of statistics --- the kind you look up, and the kind you make up.
[Archie Goodwin, in Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe novel Death of a Doxy (1966), Statistics]
Let's not forget that Sterling has been a Grade A fuckwad for decades before this. He has been sued multiple times for his racist housing discrimination practices. He lost one case outright. The terms of the other were confidential, but he had to pay millions in attorney fees, so let's guess how that one ended.
http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
That's just the tip of his douchebag iceberg. He should have been run out long ago, but the league is a bunch of cowards. Fortunately, the players forced their hands by pretty much promising that no one would play for him again after this season.
but why should I do all the work?
Not sure if this joke was intentional or not...
thanks for the info.... def puts perspective on it. So it's sort of a straw / camel's back kind of thing, huh?
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
It should, perhaps, be noted that corporations are a creation of government.
Before government created corporations (properly Limited Liability Corporations), a stockholder in a business (you, for instance, if you have a 401K) would be legally liable for anything that business did, and could be assessed a fraction (proportional to your share of the ownership) of any legal ruling against the business.
The LLC (aka coroporation) was invented to remove that particular problem (among other things), which encouraged more people to invest in business....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Rich people are not "harming" anybody.
They are. At any given instant in time, there is a finite amount of wealth in existence. Possession of said wealth necessarily prevents others from possessing it. For example, if there are $X in existence at this very moment, and I possess all $X, then it is necessarily the case that you have $0. Note that this has nothing to do with the fact that the amount of wealth in existence is not constant, nor with the fact that the economy is not a zero sum game, so please don't go off on those tangents.
Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Gee, thanks. Jobs. Just what we wanted. No, it's not money that we want, it's jobs. How generous.</sarcasm>
Really, it's self-evident that people don't want jobs, so providing them with jobs isn't the opposite of harming them. Once rich people start providing people with money, not jobs, you'll be correct to use this argument. Until then, it will remain the case that the rich continue to exploit the poor.
He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.
Yes, go elsewhere, to another rich person that will screw them over. Great idea. Unless you can show me a rich person that hires people and pays them what they're actually worth, not extracting any profit from the arrangement whatsoever, I don't think your suggestion is realistic. Being free to pick who assrapes you isn't my idea of freedom.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Again excuses.
You'd tell a drowning man to pull himself up by his own bootstraps. You must be a libertarian.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It should, perhaps, be noted that corporations are a creation of government.
Yes, that's what differentiates them from companies, which were actually made up of people.
The LLC (aka coroporation) was invented to remove that particular problem (among other things), which encouraged more people to invest in business....
Healthy inflation encourages people to invest in business. The LLC is there not to promote investment, but to avoid responsibility.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
'"It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism," writes Rick Cohen
I guess Rick Cohen has never been to or heard of a donkey show.
All the monopolies that exist are in heavy regulated areas. Actually there are not heavy regulated areas where there is anything more competitive than oligopolies. See telecommunications for reference.
Now in areas where the regulation is minimum, lax, largely ignored or even non existent as in some countries, like for example cloth selling there are no monopolies and not even oligopolies and none can form.
As regulation increases in any area smaller business start to close and oligopolies and eventually monopolies start to form. The process is always the same.
Oh, but people do it all the time. There are several community managed broadband ISPs in Germany, for example. As an activity becomes more and more lucrative, which is what happens when a monopoly forms, there is plenty of incentive for competing and overcoming such barriers. Especially considering a large part of these barriers consist in costs directly and indirectly caused by government regulation.
They are. At any given instant in time, there is a finite amount of wealth in existence.
And a very large portion of this wealth wouldn't exist if the system didn't allow for rich people to exist in the first place, and so your whole theory of zero sum game goes down the drain.
If you prefer to live in a state that requires two-party consent to record, be my guest.
Just don't ever complain if a police officer ever takes away your camera as they're beating you senseless. (In other words, when an injustice is being committed, you cannot expect the unjust to permit their acts to be made public. One-party consent states doesn't have this issue.)
The NBA is a private association with it's own governing charter. It's a billionaires club. If all of the other members of the club hate you because you have a LONG HISTORY of being a total racist, cheapskate, and litigious dick, it is within their right to throw you out. Additionally, his wife had him declared incompetent, so legality is even less of an issue. As for the "baiting", even if we ignore his long history of bad behavior, he insulted Magic Johnson - one of the greatest players of all time, and the guy who's statue he walks by every time he enters the Staples Center - IN HIS APOLOGY. Yes, he said he was a bad influence him for HAVING HIV. Yes he said he could be "doing more" for the community - the guy who opened hundreds of new businesses in black neighborhoods across LA. Oh, and that apology took him a week, and in the meantime, he said he should have just "paid her off". Also, BOTH teams (including his own) were going to refuse to play (in the playoffs) if the commissioner didn't act. NO ONE liked him, not even those who worked for him. If you want to talk about freedom, how about the freedom to not have to deal with this jerk? I believe they always had the legal authority to kick him out, but his history of litigious dickishness would have cost them billions in legal fees and bad PR. Carpe Diem. And Ballmer (not famous for his likability) will be a HUGE upgrade.
And a very large portion of this wealth wouldn't exist if the system didn't allow for rich people to exist in the first place
Citation needed. If you believe that inequitable stratification of wealth helps expand an economy, that's fine. However, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. I have seen no evidence of such a claim, so I'm afraid I won't be accepting it at face value. Personally, I don't think that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, Charles Koch, David Koch, Christy Walton, Jim Walton, Alice Walton, Sam Walton, and Michael Bloomberg were in any way instrumental in improving the economic situation in this country or growing the pie for all of us. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.
and so your whole theory of zero sum game goes down the drain.
*sigh*
You just couldn't do it, could you?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Oh it is easy to show you. Check any system where the government prevents people from getting rich, like for example USSR, China before the last decades when they opened to the free market, North Korea, Cuba, etc, and see the amount of wealth generated by these countries even with the incredible amount of resources some of them have.
Now compare that to the wealth generated by the countries at the top of the World Heritage Foundation list of economic freedom.
Upthread somebody mentioned that the league legally owns the team and the franchise owners are more like operators. That didn't sound right, so I did some research. This tidbit from a news article makes it sound like that is the case:
The ownership hearing had been scheduled for next Tuesday after the NBA charged Sterling with damaging the league with his racist comments that were recorded and released. A three-quarters vote of owners to support the charge would have terminated the Sterlings' ownership, and the league would have sold the team.
If the contract you signed allows the league to terminate your ownership you should not be whining about your $2 billion windfall. To stop the league from doing this, Sterling's wife (acting as a legal representative of the Sterling family trust) sold the team to Ballmer. The sale was entered into voluntarily, and even if it wasn't it sounds like the league has the ability to just confiscate the team.
Enigma
i for one, would like to live in a country of laws... not public opinion. he settled matters in court without admitting guilt. just because everybody knows something, doesn't mean it's the truth nor does it mean we should act on it. laws are there to protect the minority from the majority, aka tyranny of the masses.
Indeed. The US has the largest GDP, while ranking 10th in economic freedom. China is second largest, while ranked 136th in economic freedom. Japan is third largest, while ranked 24th in economic freedom. I'd run the math to see if there's any correlation between GDP and economic freedom, but on first glance it really doesn't look likely.
But maybe I should be looking at GDP per capita, right? So let's see. Qatar has the highest GDP per capita, but ranks 27th in economic freedom. Luxembourg is second in GDP per capita, but ranks 15th in economic freedom. Singapore is third in GDP per capita, and ranks 2nd in economic freedom. So far, Singapore is the only data point we've seen that's consistent with your hypothesis. Again, glancing over the whole list, there's no obvious correlation between economic freedom and GDP per capita.
That being said, none of this has anything to do with what I said. I wasn't talking about economic freedom, I was talking about stratification of wealth. Those are two entirely orthogonal issues. Consequently, you still haven't demonstrated that uniform distribution of wealth is bad, or that inequitable stratification of wealth is good.
Citations:
Index of Economic Freedom
Countries by GDP
Countries by GDP per capita
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist. He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.
Except that riches come by taking from everyone else, including the poor. Rich is only relative and it is only when the disparity between the rich and poor is so absurdly large that it can only harm society in general. That is where we are now. The rich would need to donate 90% of their opulence to the public good in order to get the US back on its feet, and that ain't happening any time soon. Think of a spider sucking its prey dry.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
The Heritage Foundation? Duuuuuuuude. It's a conservative think tank funded by rich men like the Coors heir and the Koch brothers.
You are listening to rich men tell you why you should appreciate rich men.
I say a lot of shit in the privacy of my own house, but I still manage to go without calling someone a nigger or a kike or a spic. If anything, it shows that the front we put on in public isn't necessarily "being ourselves" and frankly, many people are just shitty people.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Remember racism is not illegal. Discrimination based on race in the workplace is.
Thoughtcrime is currently not illegal, but they (the media + the powers that be) are trying their damned hardest to make it so.
Remember that guy, Harvard University President or something, he was caught saying "maybe we shouldn't be so obsessed with pushing more women into math/science, after all women on average show less aptitude in those fields". He was vilified in the media as being worse than the Devil and Hitler combined. He was fired like the next day. All for saying what pretty much every average Joe knows already.
I swear, I'm all for high tech and scientific research, except when it comes to mental technology. Because if they ever make a thought detector, you just KNOW they're gonna use it to sniff out people with impure thoughts and round them up. They're trying to do it right now even though they don't have a mental detector.
Rich people are not "harming" anybody.
If you take a broad view, sure, just being rich doesn't inherently harm anyone.
Just like poor people are not harming anyone just by being poor.
Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.
That's some classist warfare material right there. The sort of propaganda spread by the slave owners to get their slaves to lick their boots harder.
You could quite equally say that the job is going to exist with or without the leeches feeding off of other people doing actual work.
He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.
Right, as long as the employees have the ability to "go elsewhere". If you've never known a wage-slave with no better options then the dead-end job they're in, then you don't know what you're talking about. If you've never known someone who is going to work every day, not for the job or pay, but because without the medical benefits that are tied to the job they or a loved one are going to die, then you don't really know all the finer details that go into setting up and managing a "free society".
if you want to prevent damage from being done you should...
Place the power not with the government, megacorporations, or rich men, but rather with the people. The moment that power is removed from the masses, the masses get screwed over.
Vote with your wallets. If you don't like this sort of thing, STOP FUNDING IT.
Doesnt matter- Right now its about the hot teams The other team in Los Angeles, the Lakers, recently signed a 20-year TV deal with Time Warner Cable reportedly worth $3 billion, making it the NBA’s richest local television deal in sports. So let’s say the Clippers get a new TV deal worth an extra $50 million per year in revenue and sell at the same EBITDA multiple the Milwaukee Bucks did earlier this year. That would put the valuation – without any factor for growth – at $997.6 million. How most places are getting a $2 billion dollar (or more) valuation for the Clippers: they could get an equity stake in the cable channel. That would allow them to generate a revenue stream on par with what the Lakers have owning the Staples Center and what Washington Wizards’ owner Ted Leonsis has with the Verizon Center. Just like: When it is based on one team it is typically a 50/50 split,” explains Lepore. “The Mets own about 65 percent of SNY, Time Warner owns 27 percent and Comcast 8 percent. The Yankees only own 20 percent of YES where 21st Century Fox owns 80 percent of that network.”
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Toss every single employee of the organization into prison for life. Toss THEIR families out on the street and burn all their houses to the ground. Then pass a Federal law enslaving all white people in America.
Would THAT make amends or should we wage genocide on them as well?
We've traded someone who flings rascist insults to a grown man who flings chairs.
Who said progress wasn't dead?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Oh 27th is very good in a list of 178 countries. Therefore you proved yourself my point.
And one of the natural results of economic freedom is stratification of wealth. They are not orthogonal issues. The only way to prevent people from getting rich is by forcing them not to be, that is hardly freedom.
Oh and answering your previous comment, All those billionaires were actually instrumental in improving US economy and generating wealth. Microsoft alone that wouldn't exist if not for Gates generated hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth, and a good part of it was paid in salaries and shares to its employees which bought goods and service from many many other people.
He lost the difference between what it was worth to him and what he got by selling it. If this was not a loss, then he would have sold it spontaneously, which he obviously didn't.
Don't forget the taxes. If he claims this is a forced sale then he saves $300M on taxes. That could put a dent into that "loss", maybe turn it into a "win".
I don't get all of the talk about how this is a reward. He could have sold the team at any time of his choosing.
The reward comes from the IRS, if he claims this is a forced sale then he saves $300M on taxes.
Nobody is being "enriched by Sterling's racism". The guy owned the team already; he was already rich. Forcing him to sell the team merely turned his capital asset (the franchise) into liquid assets (the money from selling it). What exactly are you proposing, he be stripped of his property for uttering a racist comment? What next, stripping people of their property because they make a derogatory comment about gays/Muslims/Christians/women/vegans/capitalists/socialists/lumberjacks? Seriously, it's time to let Sterling fade into obscurity.
Bigger government was tried as well. it was called the Soviet Union. that's not ideal either.
Sorry Jack . . . CA is an all-party consent state, and therefore the recording itself was illegally obtained. What that bitch did absolutely violated CA law and the real question people should be asking right now is why she isn't in jail yet. You think that wouldn't happen if one of us upstanding citizens decided to record some CA legislature, for example, accepting a bribe? We'd be in the clink faster than Ballmer can throw a chair.
Oh 27th is very good in a list of 178 countries. Therefore you proved yourself my point.
(1, 27), (2, 15), (3, 2) doesn't make for any sort of reasonable correlation, in the mathematical sense. Adding the rest of the countries to the list only makes the correlation worse.
And one of the natural results of economic freedom is stratification of wealth. They are not orthogonal issues. The only way to prevent people from getting rich is by forcing them not to be, that is hardly freedom. \
It really depends on what you mean by economic freedom. By allowing for extreme stratification of wealth, you're denying the masses an equitable share of wealth, thereby limiting the economic freedom of the majority. Somehow, I don't expect the Heritage Foundation to define economic freedom that way. However, they don't seem to explicitly define it at all, instead leaving it to the reader to try to figure out what exactly they're measuring. I would argue that a society like the US, where the majority of the population has to share a tiny minority of the wealth, hardly constitutes freedom.
Oh and answering your previous comment, All those billionaires were actually instrumental in improving US economy and generating wealth. Microsoft alone that wouldn't exist if not for Gates generated hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth, and a good part of it was paid in salaries and shares to its employees which bought goods and service from many many other people.
Indeed. Instead of Microsoft, we'd have a healthy ecosystem of competitors improving the US economy and generating wealth. To suggest that only Bill Gates' ruthless and unscrupulous business practices could have generated this wealth is absurd; if anything, his goal of a Microsoft monopoly has likely harmed the economy more than it has helped it. Additionally, it's not clear to what extend Microsoft's success was a result of Gates. Clearly he played an active and meaningful role in the company in its early years, but a vast majority of its revenues came long after that time. Additionally, your reference to wages paid, etc., is meaningless. Other companies pay wages too, and there's nothing that makes Microsoft's use of revenues to pay wages different than any other company's. You've failed to convince me why one Microsoft with one Bill Gates is any better than a thousand miniMicrosofts with a thousand reasonably wealthy CEOs.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
How racist could he really be? Sterling was about to be awarded his second Lifetime Achievement Award by the NAACP. You can't make this shit up.
Oh and nobody said anything about no governments. Governments have 3 very good motives to exist and should focus on those 3 things only:
- Keep the slaves in line (police and criminal justice);
- Serve as arbitrator in disputes between the slave owners (civil justice)
- Protect the slave owners from foreign slave owners (military)
A cynic might point out that the only three things you think the government should do could be easily turned against you. The Coyote said "A libertarian is an anarchist who wants the government to police his slaves". I wonder if you understand what that means.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The important fact is that you can't find countries that have populations with a good income and quality of life and are not near the top of that list. That is the undeniable truth.
By allowing for extreme stratification of wealth, you're denying the masses an equitable share of wealth
That is ridiculous and it becomes abundantly clear when you realize the truth of my last statement. The wealth you are "denying" the masses would even exist in the first place.
Indeed. Instead of Microsoft, we'd have a healthy ecosystem of competitors improving the US economy and generating wealth.
No we wouldn't, in exact the same way other countries do not. Things do not come from thin air. People need to create them. US economical strength comes from all the people that start small companies in the hope of getting rich or at least vastly improve their wealth, and many of them are successful.
Actually there are not heavy regulated areas where there is anything more competitive than oligopolies.
So you would say that there is no real competition between restaurants in most cities? They are fairly heavily regulated to provide for the safety of their customers.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
No, my friend, I would tell him to accept the help anyone willingly decide to give him and would give my help. You, on the other hand, would be one of those that would turn your back on him, let him drown, and write a rant saying that we should force other people with bigger boats to help people drowning.
Oh, you expected to have a linear correlation between the positions in the graphiic and per capita GDP? Please that is silly.
Doesn't have to be linear. I'm fine with any positive correlation. However, there isn't one. I thought your claime was that GDP per capita and economic freedom were correlated. If you're agreeing that they're not, then I guess we're on the same page after all.
The important fact is that you can't find countries that have populations with a good income and quality of life and are not near the top of that list. That is the undeniable truth.
Look, you're the one that tried to divert this to a debate about the value of some kind of undefined "economic freedom". I wasn't talking about economic mobility, or economic opportunity. I was talking strictly about the stratification of wealth. The kind that you don't find in societies with highly progressive forms of taxation. Places like Norway, #4 in terms of GDP per capita. And Sweden, #13. Populations with good income and quality of life (better than here, in fact), that are nowhere near where we are in terms of wealth inequality. That these countries are #31 and #18 on your "economic freedom" list doesn't mean that they let the rich assrape everyone else. That's my point. Feel free to address it, or feel free to keep going off on some economic freedom tangent.
That is ridiculous and it becomes abundantly clear when you realize the truth of my last statement. The wealth you are "denying" the masses would even exist in the first place.
Even if that were the case (and I don't see a convincing argument for that), why would that be any worse? Since I'm not a billionaire, why should I care if billionaires exist? Does their existence help me somehow? Or are they using their extreme wealth to influence politics, shut out competition, and generally exert undue control over my world? If we were to wake up tomorrow with the world's billionaire's missing (along with their wealth), how would we be materially worse off?
No we wouldn't, in exact the same way other countries do not. Things do not come from thin air. People need to create them. US economical strength comes from all the people that start small companies in the hope of getting rich or at least vastly improve their wealth, and many of them are successful.
Successful, sure. Let's look at the great success of Bill Gates. What great contribution to society has he made that warrants his wealth? Was it when he was spreading FUD about the "viral" GPL? Was it the vendor lock-in that he guided Microsoft to pursue? Was it all the permatemp employees that he hired and retained for years without extending health benefits to? Are you suggesting these astounding feats of success couldn't have been performed by anyone else? Are you suggesting that Microsoft and Gates' success didn't come at the expense of the rest of society?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Since I'm not a billionaire, why should I care if billionaires exist?
You shouldn't care at all if they exist. You should care if the system that allows them to exist is the best system in existence to make you prosper though, which happens to be the case.
Successful, sure. Let's look at the great success of Bill Gates. What great contribution to society has he made that warrants his wealth? Was it when he was spreading FUD about the "viral" GPL? Was it the vendor lock-in that he guided Microsoft to pursue? Was it all the permatemp employees that he hired and retained for years without extending health benefits to? Are you suggesting these astounding feats of success couldn't have been performed by anyone else? Are you suggesting that Microsoft and Gates' success didn't come at the expense of the rest of society?
Even the permatemp employees are better off working for him in the conditions that they did than they would be otherwise and that is exactly why they worked for him. We still live in a free society. Nobody is forced to work for anybody else.
;)
And no I am not suggesting anything. I am blatantly stating that MS success didn't come at the cost of US society. Much on the contrary it came to the benefit of US society and the astounding feats of success like this be maybe achieved by other people, but not many people, and those people would end equally rich. Having an idea and making it work is not as trivial as you think, otherwise you would be a billionaire at this point.
The kind that you don't find in societies with highly progressive forms of taxation. Places like Norway
Oh and that is stupid. Sure you do. People that have high monthly income do pay a higher tax in Norway or Sweden. But neither in Norway nor in any other developed country we have taxes over property and assets. The end result is that really rich people pay far less taxes than poor people there. Because rich people have no income. They never realize profits.
It is the middle class that sustains the welfare state, not the rich. As it is always the case. In Norway it will go for a long time yet because they have oil money to keep going. In Sweden on the other hand taxes over higher income are being constantly lowered as the state struggles to keep its finances stable.
Have any players been banned for life for causing physical harm?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Nope, Javaris Crittenton is currently involved in the legal system for murder. Gilbert Arenas pulled a gun on another player over a dispute in the lockerroom.
There are a number of other examples, but I guess causing actual harm is less bad for the NBA than embarrasing the NBA and its sponsors.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist. He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.
The Rich may cause harm to people in the same way a corrupted government do. By abuse and mis-use of their power. The Rich are not interested at providing employee jobs. They are only interested at making profits, any jobs provided are a side effect. While in theory, employees can go to another company if their employer treat them badly, nowadays coporate merger and monopoly means there are only a very small number of companies in a given industry, making it difficult for employees to change company, unless they abandon their accumulated skills and swtich to work in a different industry. A "free" society cannot be really free if the Rich has vastly more power than the average people.
On the other hand if you increase government powers, those same employees can be "screwed over" without any chance to defend themselves under the threat of force. And even worse this force can be bought by those rich guys.
Without the laws and regulation imposed by a government, the Rich will have no problems finding ways to "screw over" employees. In this case, the Rich does not even have to buy any favour or power from the government, since the government will not be able to stop them when they use their financial power for corecion of the employees. Your own worry that some of the government power can be bought by the Rich, actually shows the danger of not having sufficient checks against the great financial power of the Rich.
So if you want to prevent damage from being done you should defend that governments should be as small as possible and that violence and coercion, which are the tools of any government, should be kept at a minimum.
It is best to keep a balance of power between the Rich and the government. If any one side become too powerful than the others, it would be bad news for the people. Actually, what is needed is a balance of power between the Rich and the average people, but the latter is not sufficient organized or powerful enough to face the Rich alone, so the use of the institution of government is necessary. While a corrupted government is certainly more harmful than the Rich, the democratic form of government is so far the best form of government to prevent corruption, as it allow the public to keep a check on the power of the government.
A cynic might point out that the only three things you think the government should do could be easily turned against you. The Coyote said "A libertarian is an anarchist who wants the government to police his slaves". I wonder if you understand what that means.
Anything, if it is useful, can either be used for a good cause, or be used for an evil cause. For example, a knife can be used for you for cooking, or it can be used against you for causing bodily harm. The important thing to do is not to view knife as evil, but to make sure that knife are only used for good purpose as much as possible.
Sure it can, but it cannot corner any market for long without the power of coercion government adds. I defy you to find monopolies that resisted for more than a few years without government protection, in the form of barriers, subsidies or regulations.
Since this is Slashdot, it is surprising that you does not seem to aware of the monopoly position held by Microsoft on PC operating system. Microsoft's monopoly is certainly not a result of government regulation or control. There are a number of causes of monopoly besides government interference, for example, high barrier to entry, network effect, predatory business practices, etc. Actually, good government regulation is supposed to suppress predatory business practices. A few years ago, an antitrust investigation against Intel (the CPU maker) revealed that, in the past they were giving a number of CPU to Dell effectively free of charge (price zero) if Dell would not buy CPU from AMD. Do you think anyone can stay in or enter the CPU business if such practices is not prohibited by the government?
I would like to add that this example was especially shady, as the number of CPU "sold" by Intel to Dell at price zero, was basically the same as the number of CPU Dell originally planned to buy from AMD.
This is insane. Forcing someone against his will to sell his team *because you don't like words he said in private and which were recorded, probably in violation of the law and almost certainly without his knowledge* and begrudging him (and his innocent wife) his profit isn't enough - you want also for the other owners to forfeit theirs too because of it?
He's a doddering, bigoted anachronism. How is that worse than violent felonies that have been committed by some NBA players? Should they be banned from the NBA?