The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by lucky760.

This logic is flawed.

If the individual players under perform, it effects their salary. If the coaches and managers don't do well, it effects their salary. If the owners don't do well....they don't make as much money.

Not to mention all the prestige that comes from working hard to perform well.

Relate that to socialism.

I don't think any functional implementation of socialism would completely remove the 'individual effort = individual reward' model.

It sounds like a good model for sports leagues among other things.

There's nothing flawed about the logic, you're just making a new argument.

Specifically, you're saying that you think if they moved this from team-scale redistribution of wealth to an individual level, something unspecified and awful will happen.

So let's not do that, let's follow the NFL model. What would we call our economic system if we flattened out the incomes of every company in America?

>> ^deedub81:

This logic is flawed.
If the individual players under perform, it effects their salary. If the coaches and managers don't do well, it effects their salary. If the owners don't do well....they don't make as much money.
Not to mention all the prestige that comes from working hard to perform well.
Relate that to socialism.

Corporations are not Governments. They know how to spend money. Government does not know how to do anything but waste money. Your head is still up you ass.

I see nothing got through bob's bubble again.

Tell us more about how Obama is a kenyan muslim who hates white people and wants to gut the military.


...and take your guns.

You mean except some really obvious things developed originally by the government such as the Internet, dams such as TVA and the Hoover Dam, the national highway system, all the technology that came out of military projects, all the technology that came out of NASA...

I could keep going, but why bother. It's not like more would persuade you any...

>> ^bobknight33:

Corporations are not Governments. They know how to spend money. Government does not know how to do anything but waste money. Your head is still up you ass.

While I generally like Obama and Maher, this is a completely flawed analogy. Business isn't sport, business isn't supposed to give everyone an equal chance of winning the big prize every year and business isn't interested in making compelling TV (hence The Apprentice having little relation to actual business life). I'm not against socialism or for socialism - besides, Obama is right-wing compared to virtually the entire rest of the world - just saying that the NFL can't be compared to real life.

Apples and oranges. Chalk and cheese. Meat and two veg. Or something.

Business isn't sport???????????

Where the hell have you been? Sports is all about business.

>> ^bobknight33:

Corporations are not Governments. They know how to spend money. Government does not know how to do anything but waste money. Your head is still up you ass.


Your head is up your ass if you think corporations are any better with money than governments. They just screw things up differently.

>> ^bobknight33:

Corporations are not Governments. They know how to spend money. Government does not know how to do anything but waste money. Your head is still up you ass.


Did you know Los Angeles used to have one of the best public transit systems in North America?

Do you know why they don't have a good public transit system anymore?

I'll tell you. The city decided to privatize. They sold the transit system to GM, who promptly shut down the subways and screwed up the buses so people would have to DRIVE to work, hopefully in GM cars.

Millions of taxpayer dollars flushed for corporate greed. They're not wasteful? HA!

9 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I had to do a little research on the subject.

The flaw I see with the analogy is that - in this particular case - all teams essentially work "for" the NFL as a group and therefore receive equal shares. Since NFL revenue is primarily derived from broadcasting and licensing to the major networks, no team can be singled out as either an under-producer or over-producer. (Whether a team wins or loses, it does not effect the overall income for the organization.)

So it doesn't really reflect on the socialism question in any particular way, since there was never any wealth to redistribute. The teams get payed equally, because they contribute equally. Individually, of course, players are judged based on their own performance and payed accordingly.

Not that I don't approve of the message here, but it doesn't really work.