Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Bill Maher: What makes NFL football so great: Socialism

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,086
    Post Thanks / Like

    Bill Maher: What makes NFL football so great: Socialism

    Whatcha think?

    [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-football-sociali_b_815673.html[/url]

    Here are his words...

    [QUOTE]New Rule: With the Super Bowl only a week away, Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That's right, for all the F-15 flyovers and flag waving, football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams... just like President Obama wants to do with his secret army of ACORN volunteers. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of 100,000. Yet this sleepy little town on the banks of the ****-if-I-know River has just as much of a chance of making it to the Super Bowl as the New York Jets - who next year need to just shut the hell up and play.

    Now, me personally, I haven't watched a Super Bowl since 2004, when Janet Jackson's nipple popped out during half time, and that split-second glimpse of an unrestrained black titty burned my eyes and offended me as a Christian. But I get it - who doesn't love the spectacle of juiced-up millionaires giving each other brain damage on a giant flat-screen TV with a picture so realistic it feels like Ben Roethlisberger is in your living room, grabbing your sister?

    It's no surprise that some 100 million Americans will watch the Super Bowl next week - that's 40 million more than go to church on Christmas - suck on that, Jesus! It's also 85 million more than watched the last game of the World Series, and in that is an economic lesson for America. Because football is built on an economic model of fairness and opportunity, and baseball is built on a model where the rich almost always win and the poor usually have no chance. The World Series is like Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. You have to be a rich ***** just to play. The Super Bowl is like Tila Tequila. Anyone can get in.

    Or to put it another way, football is more like the Democratic philosophy. Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism or competition, but they'd like it if some kids didn't have to go to a crummy school in a rotten neighborhood while others get to go to a great school and their Dad gets them into Harvard. Because when that happens "achieving the American dream" is easy for some, and just a fantasy for others.

    That's why the NFL runs itself in a way that would fit nicely on Glenn Beck's chalkboard - they literally share the wealth, through salary caps and revenue sharing - TV is their biggest source of revenue, and they put all of it in a big commie pot and split it 32 ways. Because they don't want anyone to fall too far behind. That's why the team that wins the Super Bowl picks last in the next draft. Or what the Republicans would call "punishing success."

    Baseball, on the other hand, is exactly like the Republicans, and I don't just mean it's incredibly boring. I mean their economic theory is every man for himself. The small market Pittsburgh Steelers go to the Super Bowl more than anybody - but the Pittsburgh Pirates? Levi Johnston has sperm that will not grow up and live long enough to see the Pirates in a World Series. Their payroll is about $40 million, and the Yankees is $206 million. They have about as much chance at getting in the playoffs as a poor black teenager from Newark has of becoming the CEO of Halliburton. That's why people stop going to Pirate games in May, because if you're not in the game, you become indifferent to the fate of the game, and maybe even get bitter - that's what's happening to the middle class in America. It's also how Marie Antoinette lost her head.

    So, you kind of have to laugh - the same angry white males who hate Obama because he's "redistributing wealth" just love football, a sport that succeeds economically because it does exactly that. To them, the NFL is as American as hot dogs, Chevrolet, apple pie, and a second, giant helping of apple pie. But then again, they think they're macho because their sport is football, when honestly - is there anything gayer than wearing another man's shirt?

    [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,256
    Post Thanks / Like
    Like most hardcore libs, totally gay.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Apples and oranges. Yes the NFL uses socialism but it is a small contained group intent on keeping all others from getting a toe hold. All 32 teams also try to do their best and contribute to the whole.

    If you were comparing the NFL to a small community then yes socialism can work. If you look at a small town there is often a community spirit where everyone pitches in and volunteers for the greater good but as communities grow you will find more and more people taking from the community.

    Forced socialism on the government level in the form of gross taxation and redistribution breeds sloth, inefficency and corruption.

    Socialism has been tried in several countries and they always end up being dictatorships where no one wants to do any work and the dictator takes a big share and everyone else fights for a loaf of bread.



    Also when it comes down to it the NFL is successful because of its entertainment value, period. The NHL has a hard cap, it isn't popular or successful. The NBA is semi-socialist with a soft cap and they are no where near the NFL's success. Picking the one entity that is successful and attributing its success soley to revenue sharing is ludicrous. In addition even socialism is having trouble keeping teams like the Bills and Jaguars afloat.

    Finally, even in the financial semi-socialist system that is the NFL there have been teams that use their intelligence and resources to succeed more often than others. Thankfully the Jets are becomming one of the more consistently good teams but the Bengals, Bills, Jags fans might not see revenue sharing as the be all end all that Mahr seems to think it is.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,256
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4153040]Apples and oranges. Yes the NFL uses socialism but it is a small contained group intent on keeping all others from getting a toe hold. All 32 teams also try to do their best and contribute to the whole.

    If you were comparing the NFL to a small community then yes socialism can work. If you look at a small town there is often a community spirit where everyone pitches in and volunteers for the greater good but as communities grow you will find more and more people taking from the community.

    Forced socialism on the government level in the form of gross taxation and redistribution breeds sloth, inefficency and corruption.

    Socialism has been tried in several countries and they always end up being dictatorships where no one wants to do any work and the dictator takes a big share and everyone else fights for a loaf of bread.



    Also when it comes down to it the NFL is successful because of its entertainment value, period. The NHL has a hard cap, it isn't popular or successful. The NBA is semi-socialist with a soft cap and they are no where near the NFL's success. Picking the one entity that is successful and attributing its success soley to revenue sharing is ludicrous. In addition even socialism is having trouble keeping teams like the Bills and Jaguars afloat.

    Finally, even in the financial semi-socialist system that is the NFL there have been teams that use their intelligence and resources to succeed more often than others. Thankfully the Jets are becomming one of the more consistently good teams but the Bengals, Bills, Jags fans might not see revenue sharing as the be all end all that Mahr seems to think it is.[/QUOTE]

    Maybe the NFL should be thought of as a single corporation with many offices. The socialism analogy works if the NFL revenue shares with MLB. :rolleyes:

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=quantum;4153047]Maybe the NFL should be thought of as a single corporation with many offices. The socialism analogy works if the NFL revenue shares with MLB. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Very true.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    maybe this is nitpicking but the NFL isn't socialism... it's communism. and they are not the same.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,649
    Post Thanks / Like
    Germany succeeds as a socialist country too but does that mean everyone should do it? Ask Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland how socialism is working out for them.

    China seems to be growing fast. Maybe we should copy their model?? You know the one where the government is all powerful and deems a particular class of people (the rural folks) as essentially forced laborers that get paid 1/4 of what urbanites make for the same work often occuring in the same factory?? Oh wait we tried that barbarianism hundreds of years ago. It was called slavery. Not something to strive for.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    The NFL is not a league of 32 independent businesses selling their teams.

    It is a single unit selling the game of football.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,445
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4153173]Germany succeeds as a socialist country too but does that mean everyone should do it?[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/278272_460s.jpg[/IMG]

  10. #10
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Munich, GER
    Posts
    504
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4153173]Germany succeeds as a socialist country too but does that mean everyone should do it? Ask Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland how socialism is working out for them.
    [/QUOTE]
    Oh, I live in a socialist country? That is news to me, last time I checked there was still a free market going on, but hey, good to know.





    Douche

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,380
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]football is our most successful sport because the [U]NFL takes money [/U]from the rich teams and gives it to the[U] poor [/U]teams[/QUOTE]


    This where he lost me. First, there are no "poor" teams in the NFL. Second, the NFL does not "take" any money from one team and give it to another. The NFL has shared Revenue's.

    If you take crazy Bill's model and truly apply it, his flawed logic is clearly revealed. Let's say every city in America with a surrounding population greater than 100,000 people gets to put a team in the NFL, and a tax is applied to the teams that make money to give it to the teams in small cities that lose money year in and year out. How do you think that would do?

  12. #12
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Raug;4153832]Oh, I live in a socialist country? That is news to me, last time I checked there was still a free market going on, but hey, good to know.





    Douche[/QUOTE]

    LOL, don't take it personally. From what I can understand anyone who doesn't live in the US is living in a socialist country.

    Makes you wonder what would've happened if the USSR had actually won the cold war doesn't it?

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=quantum;4153047]Maybe the NFL should be thought of as a single corporation with many offices. The socialism analogy works if the NFL revenue shares with MLB.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. The NFL is (as others have said) actually more of a Communist Collective than anything else, bound together as a league because they have to be, their product is worth nothing outside of the collective.

    It's the same argument I use in discussing MLB and why they too should have an NFL system of Revenue Sharing/Communism. The Yankees, for all their history, are worth nothing outside of MLB. Best of luck filling Yankees Stadium playing against the Harlem Globesocks, whilst the new MLB New York Franchise plays across town. The league is the draw, the product, not a single team (no matter how popular).

    Put differently, if the NFL decided to merge, and make Godell the CEO, with each "owner" a primary shareholder of the league and a VP of a "division", i.e. a team, almost nothing would change outside the legal side. The product on the field would be exactly the same.

    I am an ardent Communist when it comes to my sports leagues, as competition (sport) should not be influences by money, but by quality, of owner decisions, GM decisions, and players play on the field. Not by one team paying 200 mil and their division rival paying 10 mil in salaries.

    With that said, sports leagues (where there are no "poor" to speak of in terms of owners or players) are not the economy or market as a whole. If there were 100,000 NFL teams, and 90,000 lost money and were badly managed, the comparison would be more apt.

    [quote]Germany is Socialist[/quote]

    No, Germany is a Social Market Economy, more of a hybrid system (like own own) that leans frther towards Socialism (in taxation and welfare policy) than our own does, but still retains much free market activity (it just gets taxed a lot higher).

    From wiki:

    [QUOTE]The social market economy (German: Soziale Marktwirtschaft) is the main economic model used in West Germany after World War II. It is based on the economic philosophy of Ordoliberalism from the Freiburg School. The economic-political instruments were implementated first by Ludwig Erhard, Minister of Economics under Konrad Adenauer's chancellorship (from 1949 to 1963) and Alfred Müller-Armack, head of the policy department of the economic ministry.

    The social market economy seeks a middle path between socialism and laissez-faire economic liberalism (i.e. a mixed economy), combining private enterprise with government regulation to establish fair competition, maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, social welfare, and public services, by using state intervention.[1] The term "social" was chosen rather than "socialist" to distinguish the social market economy from a system in which the state directed economic activity and/or owned the means of production,[2] which are usually privately-owned in the social market model.

    In a social market economy, collective bargaining is often done on a national level not between one corporation and one union, but national employers' organizations and national trade unions.

    Important figures in the development of the concept include Walter Eucken, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, Franz Böhm, Franz Oppenheimer, and Alfred Müller-Armack, who originally coined the term Soziale Marktwirtschaft.[3][/QUOTE]

    TLDR: The State of Germany does not own the means of production (socialism), but they do very heavily regulate almost all aspects of production, and perform widespread wealth redistribution and social welfare via the tax code.
    Last edited by Warfish; 09-22-2011 at 10:23 AM.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'd also like to weigh in the fact that Bill Maher is not only one of America's unfunniest "comedians", but also one of the dumbest human beings on the planet.

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4154017]I'd also like to weigh in the fact that Bill Maher is not only one of America's unfunniest "comedians", but also one of the dumbest human beings on the planet.[/QUOTE]

    I disagree. He can be VERY funny. His standup isn;t the best, he's no Carlin, not even a Tosh, but it's a fun enough watch. If I agreed with his politics, I'd probably find him ever more funny. He''s the left's Dennsi Miller, although I do prefer Dennis Miller myself (but the again, I agree more with Miller politically than Maher).

    If he wasn't funny or marketable, he wouldn't be on TV.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4154028]I disagree. He can be VERY funny. His standup isn;t the best, he's no Carlin, not even a Tosh, but it's a fun enough watch. If I agreed with his politics, I'd probably find him ever more funny. He''s the left's Dennsi Miller, although I do prefer Dennis Miller myself (but the again, I agree more with Miller politically than Maher).

    If he wasn't funny or marketable, he wouldn't be on TV.[/QUOTE]

    I didn't say he wasn't marketable. I said he was unfunny and unintelligent. He is [I]extremely[/I] marketable to leftist dopes, which is why he has a small but passionate following. Lots of idiots in this country are marketable (see Kim Kardasian, Paris Hilton, Ashton Kutcher, Rachel Maddow).

    They all have something in common - they have not a shred of talent, yet they appeal to a mindless subset of our population. I view Maher the same way. Like you said, there are plenty of comedians on TV much funnier than this guy. And plenty of comedians not on TV also funnier. In fact, I know dozens of people in my life funnier than this guy. Their unwillingness to act the ignorant fool really is the only reasonhe has that job over them.

    Being on TV says very little about a person IMO.

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,380
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=The Turk;4153884]LOL, don't take it personally. From what I can understand anyone who doesn't live in the US is living in a socialist country.

    Makes you wonder what would've happened if the USSR had actually won the cold war doesn't it?[/QUOTE]

    Gheezz we really need a wall on the border here at JI.:)

  18. #18
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;4154411]Gheezz we really need a wall on the border here at JI.:)[/QUOTE]

    :D

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,779
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4154028]I disagree. He can be VERY funny. His standup isn;t the best, he's no Carlin, not even a Tosh, but it's a fun enough watch. If I agreed with his politics, I'd probably find him ever more funny. He''s the left's Dennsi Miller, although I do prefer Dennis Miller myself (but the again, I agree more with Miller politically than Maher).

    If he wasn't funny or marketable, he wouldn't be on TV.[/QUOTE]

    Miller can be funny but he is so smug I wanna slap him bald-headed.

    Maher is funny but he is often wrong on facts (bad prep) and doesn't allow his guests to finish their thoughts. Those two things annoy the sh!t out of me.

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,779
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4154046]I didn't say he wasn't marketable. I said he was unfunny and unintelligent. He is [I]extremely[/I] marketable to leftist dopes, which is why he has a small but passionate following. Lots of idiots in this country are marketable (see Kim Kardasian, Paris Hilton, Ashton Kutcher, Rachel Maddow).

    They all have something in common - they have not a shred of talent, yet they appeal to a mindless subset of our population. I view Maher the same way. Like you said, there are plenty of comedians on TV much funnier than this guy. And plenty of comedians not on TV also funnier. In fact, I know dozens of people in my life funnier than this guy. Their unwillingness to act the ignorant fool really is the only reasonhe has that job over them.

    Being on TV says very little about a person IMO.[/QUOTE]




    Rachel Maddow was a Rhodes Scholar and Bill Maher went to Cornell.
    Last edited by Buster; 09-23-2011 at 02:50 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us