HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Best Hockey Analyst - Bob McKenzie

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-21-2004, 05:56 PM
  #101
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 14,287
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
The league ran pretty well when there were only six teams. So yeah, I have no problem with that.

Becuase I don't care if Edmonton lives or dies doesn't mean the owners do. Edmonton's owners care if Edmonton lives or dies, no one else does.
So only Illitch cares if Detroit folds?

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 06:02 PM
  #102
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,610
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
If the NHL's ideal solution to this was to cut salries by 80% why haven't they gone for that? And if that was their ideal solution, why? Why wouldn't they go for 99.9999999999%? That would be truly ideal.

I'm sure a cap would provide the players with more than generous salaries. I've never argued against the cap because I thought the players would get screwed. I argue against it because my team will be screwed, thus I will have less enjoyment.

NHLPA: "why don't you want to negotiate a fair luxury tax?"
NHL: "we don't want to"

it works both ways here, people.
NHL won't be negotiating because it weakens the last/best impasse rule. The players wouln't accept it anyway. The players have the ball in their court, they can make offers without it being a tactical mistake, in fact its a PR blessing for them. Time for them to show us their lowest acceptable point.


Last edited by me2: 09-21-2004 at 06:06 PM.
me2 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 06:12 PM
  #103
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
So only Illitch cares if Detroit folds?
Man, dont bother arguing with that guy. He's a sad selfish person who cares only about his team. Save your discussions for people who actually care about hockey.

Cawz is online now  
Old
09-21-2004, 06:24 PM
  #104
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 15,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
The league ran pretty well when there were only six teams. So yeah, I have no problem with that.

Becuase I don't care if Edmonton lives or dies doesn't mean the owners do. Edmonton's owners care if Edmonton lives or dies, no one else does.
I'm sure it did...35 years ago. Times have changed a bit though, yes?

If nobody else cares if Edmonton lives or dies, why did the NHL even bother with the Canadian dollar subsidy?

Small market Canadiana is still around...sorry if we're such an inconvenience. :lol

Digger12 is online now  
Old
09-21-2004, 06:47 PM
  #105
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12

If nobody else cares if Edmonton lives or dies, why did the NHL even bother with the Canadian dollar subsidy?
Because it was almost as much as the Canadian TV contract subsidized them? Apparently, as it turns out, it seems Edmonton, because of the much larger Canadian national TV contract, has been subsidizing the American teams by more than they have been sending back through this supposed equalization program.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 08:09 PM
  #106
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
Man, dont bother arguing with that guy. He's a sad selfish person who cares only about his team. Save your discussions for people who actually care about hockey.
And I'm sure all the other fans are real worried what Detroit is going to look like under a cap. Please. The reason all the small market fans wants a cap is becuase they have this deluded notion it will create parity, enabling thier otherwise incapable teams to compete.

I'm selfish for endorsing a luxury tax compromise that will save the season? If I was selfish, I'd want the season to be canceled because then half the league would be crippled when they came back. Half the teams are in markets where they don't support hockey now. Why does anybdoy think they'll support it after a year or two away?

All I've done for 2 weeks is give realistic examples on how a salary cap will continue the same problems all the small market teams ***** about now, and no one has come up with an realsitic argument that it won't. All I hear is that its unfair now (maybe it is, but if we're endorsing the owners for thinking like capitalists in the lockout, its hypocritical to salm the players for the same thing) or that its equally unfair for everyone under a cap (again totally false-you can never equalize talent).

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 08:18 PM
  #107
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
I'm sure it did...35 years ago. Times have changed a bit though, yes?

If nobody else cares if Edmonton lives or dies, why did the NHL even bother with the Canadian dollar subsidy?

Small market Canadiana is still around...sorry if we're such an inconvenience. :lol
I consider big market Canada an inconvenience too.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 09:17 PM
  #108
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
And I'm sure all the other fans are real worried what Detroit is going to look like under a cap. Please. The reason all the small market fans wants a cap is becuase they have this deluded notion it will create parity, enabling thier otherwise incapable teams to compete.

I'm selfish for endorsing a luxury tax compromise that will save the season? If I was selfish, I'd want the season to be canceled because then half the league would be crippled when they came back. Half the teams are in markets where they don't support hockey now. Why does anybdoy think they'll support it after a year or two away?

All I've done for 2 weeks is give realistic examples on how a salary cap will continue the same problems all the small market teams ***** about now, and no one has come up with an realsitic argument that it won't. All I hear is that its unfair now (maybe it is, but if we're endorsing the owners for thinking like capitalists in the lockout, its hypocritical to salm the players for the same thing) or that its equally unfair for everyone under a cap (again totally false-you can never equalize talent).
No youre selfish because if comments like:

"I've never argued against the cap because I thought the players would get screwed. I argue against it because my team will be screwed, thus I will have less enjoyment."

Everyone else here loves hockey. You just love your team. But hey, thats youre opinion. I guess if youre team sucked, like in the 80's, you wouldnt care about the Wings or the NHL then.

And I think its funny how some people on here argue tooth n nail about what the NHL would be like with a cap, like they actually know what they are talking about. Any armchair GM that talks about whats going to happen needs to play less East Side Manager.

You dont know what a salary cap will do. You dont know what a luxury tax will do. You dont know what the status quo will do. Youre delusional if you think you do know.

All we know is what has happened, and that something needs to be fixed. So go ahead and take cheap shots at Canada and give "realistic examples" for another 2 weeks. I dont think anyone takes you seriously anyways after your comments a couple pages ago.

Cawz is online now  
Old
09-22-2004, 05:06 AM
  #109
Sammy*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
All I've done for 2 weeks is give realistic examples on how a salary cap will continue the same problems all the small market teams ***** about now, and no one has come up with an realsitic argument that it won't. All I hear is that its unfair now (maybe it is, but if we're endorsing the owners for thinking like capitalists in the lockout, its hypocritical to salm the players for the same thing) or that its equally unfair for everyone under a cap (again totally false-you can never equalize talent).
No, all you have shown for 2 weeks is your complete & utter ignorance on :
1) what a salary cap is,
2) what a luxury tax is
3)what is communisim
4) what is socialisim
5)the difference between a franchisor & Wal Mart
6) the fact the NFL is socialist
7) that in the long run,its in everybodies interest to have all franchises healthy
8) ......... etc

Sammy* is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 06:31 AM
  #110
Westlander
Blitzkrieg to bottom
 
Westlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 457
vCash: 500
I don't think any of us believe that the motives of the owners are selfless. It is very possible though, that what's in the best interests of the owners is what is also in the best interests of the league as a whole. I also doubt anyone is thinking that a salary cap will will make the NHL perfect in terms of parity for small market teams. The NYs, Detroits, and Phillys of the league will still be at an advantage, but in theory, the small markets would have a fighting chance.

I find it ironic that most of the posters who are so concerned with 'communism' are taking the side of the players. If you're all so gung-ho for free market economics, then why should the owners even have to deal with the players union to begin with?
Since the other three major pro sports in North America all have some mechanism to keep salaries in check (communism ), that would mean that of the four, the NHL should theoretically have the best system in place. Yet the league has been losing a ton of money. Anyone can see something has got to change, and if the solution is considered communistic by some, so be it. The NHL wouldn't be the first.

Westlander is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 08:22 AM
  #111
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westlander
If you're all so gung-ho for free market economics, then why should the owners even have to deal with the players union to begin with?
See: http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.p...0&page=1&pp=15

"No union, no CBA means no entry draft, no standard player contract, and every player is a free agent from day one."

Also, it's illegal to impose anything (like a cap) that imposes limitations on wages without the consent from those whom it's imposed on.

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 08:26 AM
  #112
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 115,064
vCash: 1045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
McKenzie: "The easy answer for me is the NFL has a cap, the NBA has a cap, why shouldn't the NHL have a cap? The players would say 'because we don't want one.' Is that a good enough reason?

"I am sure there is some system with a cap that could work."


I agree, not a very good reason why the NHL shouldn't enforce "cost certainty."

McKenzie Rulez!!

Bob is way off here. There is a systen where a cap could work, but you can't say "Well, the NFL and NBA have caps" Well the NBA's cap is a joke and there's going to be another lockout, and the NFL has insane player movement without guarenteed contracts.

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 08:45 AM
  #113
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
No, all you have shown for 2 weeks is your complete & utter ignorance on :

1) what a salary cap is,
2) what a luxury tax is
3) what is communisim
4) what is socialisim
5)the difference between a franchisor & Wal Mart
6) the fact the NFL is socialist
7) that in the long run,its in everybodies interest to have all franchises healthy
8) ......... etc
Please bestow upon us banal, unwashed fools your limitless wisdom, sagacious one.

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 08:58 AM
  #114
joechip
Registered User
 
joechip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to joechip
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
In the end, the person not happy with the transaction is the loser.

I'm not the one being confused over communisim and captialism. I simply pointed out that the owners are using this lockout for purely capitalistic purposes, and I agree there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is that the players are bashed for the same reason. On top of that, the capitalistic owners want to install a communistic system. Its a double standard. If its OK by the cap supporters for the owners to operate under capitalism in one aspect, why is it worng to operate thier entire business under the same model? In capitalism, if you don't have enough capital to compete, you go out of business. So if the Canadian teams don't have enough money to compete, tough. If Detroit doesn't, tough. Thats the way it goes.

What some people here who support a cap belevie is that a cap will equalize everything, but that's simply not true. Now, under true communisim, everything is 100% equal. A loaf of bread and a ton of steel are equal in value. I supply you with bread because you supply me with steel. There is no "fetishism of commodities". In capitalism, we assign values arbitralily. They are not based on an item's usefulness. So under this utopian cap, Dany Heatly is equal to Boyd Deveraux. Otherwise, everything can't be 100% equal, thus some teams will continue to have an advantage. That advantage is then taken away because a cap limits how many players any one team can keep. Those teams which have the advantages are always going to be rebuilding, which is the cap supporter's beef with the current system. Its all a big cycle.

A cap does not gaurantee you success. All it does is gaurantee any success you may have is short lived.
A person unhappy with his transaction was not unhappy at that time, hindsight is always 20-20, and the nature of hunam action is not 'what I should have done with my money' but 'what should I DO with my money.' The differences lies right there and it is at that margin where all decisions are made.

Also, I disagree with your statement that 'In capitalism, we assign values arbitralily. They are not based on an item's usefulness.' That is absolutely backwards, and affects your analysis in the end. We assign our value to things based on their usefulness at the moment of the transaction. Prices for goods are a result of past human action and what information they have about the future. A price of a particular item is intrinsically linked to its current usefulness, which is why Bobby Holik got 9 mil/yr from the Rangers.

I'm not arguing for or against a cap, BTW. As a free-marketeer, my inclinations are for an open system and not a salary cap. In my mind, price floors and price ceilings are a recipe for economic disaster, because they ALWAYS create shortages, either through underproduction (price floors) or hoarding (price ceilings).

The way to look at a salary cap, though, is not as a price ceiling but as a Budget, and the NHL is the entity who is setting the budget. As revenues increase so will the Budget for salaries. Spend that budget how each team sees fit, but the Budget is the final arbiter.

Ta,

joechip is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 10:00 AM
  #115
Sammy*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitual_hab
Please bestow upon us banal, unwashed fools your limitless wisdom, sagacious one.
Well, if you cant read the guys posts, I wont spell it out for you.

Sammy* is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 11:41 AM
  #116
joechip
Registered User
 
joechip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to joechip
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitual_hab
Interesting. How about that socialist/anarcho-syndicalist "experiment" that is the Mondragon association of some two hundred cooperative enterprises in Spain?
It's a model for worker-ownership in the industrial sector where factories manufacturing durable goods, intermediate goods, capital equipment, and electronic and high technology products, schools, and farms are "owned" and managed by over 20,000 owner-workers.
H_H,

I have no idea about this situation, if you'd like to PM me with some links to how it works and why, I'd be happy to investigate it further. My first inclination is to say that if the system is a voluntary one then "Rock On!, I'm glad it works for them." And, as such, is inherently 'capitalisitc,' by the actual definition of that term. If somehow it's enforced by labor laws or some other such thing, then my inclination is to say, "there is probably a better way."
A little term-defining is in order:
Socialism as an 'organizational' model is one predicated on enforcement of the model. As a system the desires of the individual are supplanted by an enforced 'collective' good. Enforcement implies a a mechanism thereof, i.e. a ruling class of Enforcers. Voluntary systems can look like socialism (people acting collectively), but if 'enforcement doesn't come through coersion (or the point of a gun) that is still capitalistic. Where "Socialists" (read most of Human History) have gone wrong in the past is in defining what they want as "Right!" and therefore, disagreement with that is "Wrong!," and down that slippery slope we go.

The voluntary process, Capitalism (Not the State-sanctioned Corporatism practiced in the US, previously known as Fascism), may lead to uncomfortable or 'alien-looking' conclusions but, IMO, I would rather that, and the attendant responsibilities that comes with it, than being told what to do by someone who has no clue how to run their own life, no less mine.

The more I think about a salary-cap the more I think it is a Budget than a price-ceiling, and in that sense can justify it as long as both sides can agree to it within the context of a level bargaining table, which current U.S. and Canadian labour laws will not allow for.

Ta,

joechip is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 02:47 PM
  #117
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip
A person unhappy with his transaction was not unhappy at that time, hindsight is always 20-20, and the nature of hunam action is not 'what I should have done with my money' but 'what should I DO with my money.' The differences lies right there and it is at that margin where all decisions are made.

Also, I disagree with your statement that 'In capitalism, we assign values arbitralily. They are not based on an item's usefulness.' That is absolutely backwards, and affects your analysis in the end. We assign our value to things based on their usefulness at the moment of the transaction. Prices for goods are a result of past human action and what information they have about the future. A price of a particular item is intrinsically linked to its current usefulness, which is why Bobby Holik got 9 mil/yr from the Rangers.

I'm not arguing for or against a cap, BTW. As a free-marketeer, my inclinations are for an open system and not a salary cap. In my mind, price floors and price ceilings are a recipe for economic disaster, because they ALWAYS create shortages, either through underproduction (price floors) or hoarding (price ceilings).

The way to look at a salary cap, though, is not as a price ceiling but as a Budget, and the NHL is the entity who is setting the budget. As revenues increase so will the Budget for salaries. Spend that budget how each team sees fit, but the Budget is the final arbiter.

Ta,
No values are assigned arbitrailily. Why do you pay the price you pay for anything? Someone decided thats what it costs. Its not realated to an items usefullness. People can get a lot more use out of a pile of 2X4's than they can out of a bar of gold, so why is the gold more valuable? Its what Karl Marx called "fetishism of commodities".

http://newton.uor.edu/FacultyFolder/..._fetishism.htm

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 03:13 PM
  #118
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
No, all you have shown for 2 weeks is your complete & utter ignorance on :
1) what a salary cap is,
A cap is an artifcial way to let otherwise incapable teams compete. It is not a way to ensure success or increase revenue. It is a way to gaurantee mediocrity. This is not an assumption. Look at the NFL. The only team able to win consecutive SuperBowls in over a decade circumvented the cap to do it.

It is also not a way to equalize talent, either on the ice or in management. Talent can never be equalized, thus there will always be inequality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
2) what a luxury tax is
A luxury tax is a system by which those teams unable to generate enough revenue for themselves receive revenue from teams that can. It is also a system in which player salaries will be decreased. It allows teams to build and maintain an elite club. It is also a system that if one side was willing to compromise, a season, and thus the game will be saved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
3)what is communisim

Communisim is a system heaviliy influenced by Karl Marx. In this sytem, workers(in the NHL's case, the players) have all the power. There are no "owners". Its is a system that is impossible to acheive, because the transisition between capitalism and communism can't happen. This transisiton has been tried in such places as the USSR. Everytime it has been tried, it has failed. Additionally, the system requires total 100% cooperation among everyone in a society. Animal nature prevents this cooperation from ever taking place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
4) what is socialisim
Socialism is a less severe form of communism. Instead of economic control in the hands of the proletariat, its in the hands of government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
5)the difference between a franchisor & Wal Mart
In my example, WalMart was a big market team, a small local store was a small market team. i can't help it if people don't bother to read what I write.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
6) the fact the NFL is socialist
I was not aware the NFL was socialist. I am aware that people use the NFL as an argument for having a cap, when infact, the two leagues are incomprable. And the paralells that can be drawn support my argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
7) that in the long run,its in everybodies interest to have all franchises healthy
How healthy are those franchises going to be after a year or two away? If they can't draw make money now, how are they going to do it later? I guess this is the fundamental difference between the two sides. I think the league's biggest problem is lack of revenue for the small market teams. A cap does not solve that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
8) ......... etc
Well you're right, I should of put a period at the end of etc.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 03:20 PM
  #119
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip
H_H,

I have no idea about this situation, if you'd like to PM me with some links to how it works and why, I'd be happy to investigate it further. My first inclination is to say that if the system is a voluntary one then "Rock On!, I'm glad it works for them." And, as such, is inherently 'capitalisitc,' by the actual definition of that term. If somehow it's enforced by labor laws or some other such thing, then my inclination is to say, "there is probably a better way."
A little term-defining is in order:
Socialism as an 'organizational' model is one predicated on enforcement of the model. As a system the desires of the individual are supplanted by an enforced 'collective' good. Enforcement implies a a mechanism thereof, i.e. a ruling class of Enforcers. Voluntary systems can look like socialism (people acting collectively), but if 'enforcement doesn't come through coersion (or the point of a gun) that is still capitalistic. Where "Socialists" (read most of Human History) have gone wrong in the past is in defining what they want as "Right!" and therefore, disagreement with that is "Wrong!," and down that slippery slope we go.

The voluntary process, Capitalism (Not the State-sanctioned Corporatism practiced in the US, previously known as Fascism), may lead to uncomfortable or 'alien-looking' conclusions but, IMO, I would rather that, and the attendant responsibilities that comes with it, than being told what to do by someone who has no clue how to run their own life, no less mine.

The more I think about a salary-cap the more I think it is a Budget than a price-ceiling, and in that sense can justify it as long as both sides can agree to it within the context of a level bargaining table, which current U.S. and Canadian labour laws will not allow for.

Ta,

I don't have knowledge on the Spainish model, but in Germany(basically socialist) there are laws requiring employees to have some board posistions. I don't know what they call it off hand, I'll have to check some notes.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 03:59 PM
  #120
joechip
Registered User
 
joechip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to joechip
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
No values are assigned arbitrailily. Why do you pay the price you pay for anything? Someone decided thats what it costs. Its not realated to an items usefullness. People can get a lot more use out of a pile of 2X4's than they can out of a bar of gold, so why is the gold more valuable? Its what Karl Marx called "fetishism of commodities".

http://newton.uor.edu/FacultyFolder/..._fetishism.htm
No, actually, Marx was just a bad economist with a chip on his shoulder. I pay the price I pay because I have a higher marginal demand for that item in relation to the money in my pocket at the time I bought them. That's it. If I felt the price was too high and didn't buy them then I obviously had a higher demand for the value represented by my money staying in my pocket as opposed to owning a bunch of wood.

Your analogy of the 2x4's is flawed because you don't understand money. Don't feel bad, most people don't. I didn't for quite a long time and Marx certainly didn't when he and Engels wrote that Manifesto of theirs. Money, in the definition of Ludwig von Mises, is the only commodity the production of which confers no net good (the value good in relation to bad, not a finished 'good').

Gold, for example, is valued because of properties it has that make it a good 'store of value.' It's rarity, fungibility, and density make it attractive to hold as a hedge against future uncertainty, much like a savings account denominated in dollars is.

A pile of 2x4's is only useful if the person has a need for them and is able to make use of them through the application of acquired skills (having built my own house in the recent past I know the difference between having skill with 2x4's and not). The importance of this is that each person's desires/demands for different things is different, for Marx to ascribe psychological shortcomings to this process betrays his lack of understanding on the matter, and his hatred for humanity.

The question you aren't asking is 'Why did the vendor price his product at the level he did?' Because he could, is the answer, of course, and why is that? Because you paid it.

By your own argument, utility should be the only vector by which we judge something worth owning. Why most socialists are seduced by Marx's flawed analysis is that they don't value their time enough. Money is a liquid source of exchangable value, and as such is the mechanism by which individuals express their marginal (the only economically interesting) desires.

So, is the pile of 2x4's worth more than the ounce of gold? Depends on who you talk to and when.

Sorry, bad analogy.... try again.

Ta,

joechip is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 04:31 PM
  #121
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip
No, actually, Marx was just a bad economist with a chip on his shoulder. I pay the price I pay because I have a higher marginal demand for that item in relation to the money in my pocket at the time I bought them. That's it. If I felt the price was too high and didn't buy them then I obviously had a higher demand for the value represented by my money staying in my pocket as opposed to owning a bunch of wood.

Your analogy of the 2x4's is flawed because you don't understand money. Don't feel bad, most people don't. I didn't for quite a long time and Marx certainly didn't when he and Engels wrote that Manifesto of theirs. Money, in the definition of Ludwig von Mises, is the only commodity the production of which confers no net good (the value good in relation to bad, not a finished 'good').

Gold, for example, is valued because of properties it has that make it a good 'store of value.' It's rarity, fungibility, and density make it attractive to hold as a hedge against future uncertainty, much like a savings account denominated in dollars is.

A pile of 2x4's is only useful if the person has a need for them and is able to make use of them through the application of acquired skills (having built my own house in the recent past I know the difference between having skill with 2x4's and not). The importance of this is that each person's desires/demands for different things is different, for Marx to ascribe psychological shortcomings to this process betrays his lack of understanding on the matter, and his hatred for humanity.

The question you aren't asking is 'Why did the vendor price his product at the level he did?' Because he could, is the answer, of course, and why is that? Because you paid it.

By your own argument, utility should be the only vector by which we judge something worth owning. Why most socialists are seduced by Marx's flawed analysis is that they don't value their time enough. Money is a liquid source of exchangable value, and as such is the mechanism by which individuals express their marginal (the only economically interesting) desires.

So, is the pile of 2x4's worth more than the ounce of gold? Depends on who you talk to and when.

Sorry, bad analogy.... try again.

Ta,

Well, Marx was a philosopher, not an economist. And I don't beleive in what he wrote.

But what you're not understanding is that under communisim, all of the stored value, etc. of gold is meaningless. There is no money. The basis for exchange is a product's usefulness(use value) The process of creation is what gives an object use value. Going back to my other example: I'm a baker, you're a plumber. You come and unclog a drain in my house, and next week I give you a loaf of bread. This is the cooperation and total equality part. Everyone has everything they need provided to them, all they have to do is use their abilities to produce something someone else needs.

in theory, production exists to satisfy immeiate need. once that need is satisfied, the surplus is traded and society is corrupted.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 04:45 PM
  #122
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
I don't have knowledge on the Spainish model, but in Germany(basically socialist) there are laws requiring employees to have some board posistions. I don't know what they call it off hand, I'll have to check some notes.
Its called co-determination.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 07:38 PM
  #123
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
No youre selfish because if comments like:

"I've never argued against the cap because I thought the players would get screwed. I argue against it because my team will be screwed, thus I will have less enjoyment."

Everyone else here loves hockey. You just love your team. But hey, thats youre opinion. I guess if youre team sucked, like in the 80's, you wouldnt care about the Wings or the NHL then.

And when my team sucked in the 70's and 80's I didn't blame Montreal or the Islanders or Edmonton. We had crap ownership, and crap players that we drafted or acquired. It took 14 years for Ilitch and Devellano to build them into a champion.

Now onto my selfishness vs. my enjoyment of the game. Why does anybody here watch hockey? Is it for enjoyment? Do you not have more enjoyment if the team you like wins? Isn't the main reason people want a cap-because thats the only way they think their teams can win? Isn't that selfish? I want my team to be able to continue to build throught he draft and contend for Cups. I don't theink they, or anybody else, can do that under a cap. If someone could show me realistic examples of how they could, I'd be happy to listen.

Isn't it selfish to endorse a lockout, when that same lockout will do more harm to the game than Detroit or the Rangers ever could? Why is this point so hard to understand? Maybe people in Canada don't realize the lack of interest in hockey in the US. The World Cup drew a .4 rating on ESPN. Thats about 600,000 people. How can the game survive canceling a season?

Here's one of my proposals. Tell me how unfair it is, or how selfish I'm being. The league made $2.1 billion last year. Pool all of it, and divide it 30 ways. $70 million per team. No cap, no excuses. You spend more than $70 million, you lose money. Too bad.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 07:46 PM
  #124
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 14,287
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Here's one of my proposals. Tell me how unfair it is, or how selfish I'm being. The league made $2.1 billion last year. Pool all of it, and divide it 30 ways. $70 million per team. No cap, no excuses. You spend more than $70 million, you lose money. Too bad.
The $2.1 billion is revenue, not profit. Splitting it 30 ways leaves teams with pretty much nothing because the players are getting 75% of it.

Why don't the players just agree to taking their fair share - well over 50% according to the NHL.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 08:04 PM
  #125
mmbt
Cheeky Monkey
 
mmbt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 9,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
And when my team sucked in the 70's and 80's I didn't blame Montreal or the Islanders or Edmonton. We had crap ownership, and crap players that we drafted or acquired. It took 14 years for Ilitch and Devellano to build them into a champion.
There's a big difference between a team being unsuccessful because of incompetent management, and a team being unsuccessful because they can't hope to compete financially.

The NFL and NBA, for all their problems, at least give their small markets a fighting chance to be successful if they have smart management. In the NHL, all you can hope to do if you're a small market team is tread water, recycle expensive players for prospects, and maybe get a fluke run once every decade or two.

mmbt is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:06 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.