Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Better than tossing a billion dollars of debt onto your kids.
Taxes that appear 'safe' are always costing someone and will lead to less economic activity.
Nice selective quote there, Joe. Did you happen to read the sentence directly behind the one you cut and pasted? You know, the one that completed the thought experiment and added critical nuance to his argument?
The linked article is consistent with Mike Ozanian's political views, but the outrage shown by the liberals here is more than a little "selective" in nature.
It's funny how spending tax money on sports stadiums is the only use of tax money that BBTF's lefties don't like.
So I take it that, since you reflexively disagree with anything that smacks of a liberal POV, you agree with using tax dollars this way?
On the list of things on which taxpayer money is being spent unwisely and/or inefficiently, sports facilities don't crack the top 100.
And you're saying this because you're a baseball agent and indirectly benefit from subsidized stadiums.
Oddly enough, one major use of federal stimulus money in Arlington TX was to improve road and bridge infrastructure around the then-new (local-taxpayer-supported) Cowboys Stadium. (And the work really was done.) I reckon this means the stadium district in Arlington is something we can all be happy about :)
On the list of things on which taxpayer money is being spent unwisely and/or inefficiently, sports facilities don't crack the top 100.
I live in DC and I think it's quite apparent now that the investment in the new Nationals Stadium is proving to be worth it for the district. The area immediately around the new stadium has drawn enormous amounts of investment dollars and has totally revitalized what was a moribund area in the southeast. This redevelopment/renewal has even trickled over into the southwest area several blocks away near the river, where building is scheduled to start later this year, and new retailing, hotels/restaurants, and high-end urban dwellings are planned. It's now pleasant to live here, and things look like they are going to get better still.
And if DC invested in a shopping mall, it would have been far cheaper and generated more economic activity.
The idea that government spending "stimulates" activity is no duh. The idea that it does so efficiently is ludicrous.
According to D.C. Mayor Williams at the time, this was "but for" money, money that would not be available but for the construction of Nationals Park.
And when the private sector won't spend it's almost always b/c the gov't has effed up its more basic responsibilities.
The economy would be in much, much better shape today if we had used that $1T stimulus to break-up and recapitalize the "too-big-to-fail" banks into smaller, well capitalized lenders; after wiping out the equity holders, and forcing the long-term debt holders to take a haircut on face amount in exchange for equity in the new entities, of course.
Part of the problem with the Marlins Stadium project is that the financing was so foolish. The U.S. government can borrow currently at negative real interest rates. It's clear that the rates Miami-Dade were getting were far more usurious, which completely changes the context.
It's clear that the rates Miami-Dade were getting were far more usurious, which completely changes the context.
The tourists taxes that target hotels and restaurants raise the cost of going to these establishments which costs the city jobs all so a billionaire can get a cheap ballpark and employ a handful of people.
So if the tourist taxes were eliminated, room rates would go down? That seems dubious.
Are you kidding? Without the additional taxes, the rates wouldn't be that high in the first place.
If the tax rates weren't as high the demand for the supply of rooms would be greater leading to more rooms and more jobs. Seems like pretty simple supply and demand.
The "cheaper" part is assuredly correct, but the latter part seems dubious. I doubt there's anyone in D.C. who's holding onto his or her money because of a lack of stores at which to spend it.
Any economist will tell you that the economic multiplier attached to government spending varies widely depending on circumstances. Sometimes it is less than 1. Sometimes it really is more than 1.
Private-sector spending might be more efficient, but there are times where the private sector simply doesn't spend, such as was the situation over the last 4 years or so.
Part of the problem with the Marlins Stadium project is that the financing was so foolish. The U.S. government can borrow currently at negative real interest rates. It's clear that the rates Miami-Dade were getting were far more usurious, which completely changes the context. Circumstances are everything; there is no set rule that applies in every situation. Life is complicated.
Did the Red Sox lower their ticket prices as soon as they traded Gonzalez and Crawford?
Again, this assumes that no hotel tax = lower room rates, but that's not necessarily true, as we've seen with everything from MLB ticket prices to (expired) airline surcharges.
The fundamental fallacy in the anti-liberal screed introduced here in post #2 (gosh, we got 1 honest post before the talking points!?)
is that conservatives haven't and don't spend more than liberals. It's been proven (you know, how the rate of growth in federal spending under Reagan and Bush has far outstripped the others over the past 30 years). It's just a question of taxing or borrowing. All the rest is red herring as far as the eye can see.
We had the massive gov't action, and all it did was bail out bank shareholders and executives, and provide political cronies with tasty contracts.
The $1T is gone now. If the gov't had used the $1T to recapitalize banks, they would have had a ton of equity in the banks that could be sold (at a likely profit) when the banks were stable.
But yea, the entire concept of a "mutiplier" is just another keynsiastic economic concept lacking any logical base, just like Krugmans assertion that the economy can be "stimulated" merely by having people dig holes in the desert and fill them back in.
1) If investors invest their own monies, they'll make far better and smarter decisions than politicians and bureaucrats spending other peoples monies.
It's almost as dumb as a stadium to build more malls with the public money, but if you do at least you are providing full time jobs every day of the year.
Did you just compare a monopoly to a competitive business? The Sox have a fixed suppy of tickets regardless of what they spend on the field. Hotels can be built, and can be demolished or converted to other uses.
To give you a hint about how truly competitive markets work, if room rates in DC decline, more people will rent rooms in DC. More new hotels will be built to take advantage of the greater demand and lower costs.
This is an odd assertion, particularly since you could substitute 'a whole lot of military spending' over the last x years for digging and filling holes. Much of the spending on armaments is no different than building various ships, tanks, and guns, towing them to the middle of the ocean, and letting them sink. Or rust in the desert. Your pick.
You can't expect to say things like this and be taken seriously.
Funny stuff on private investment at
The Nationals probably offer more good full-time jobs than even the best shopping malls.
The most highly paid employees of the Nats don't have to live in the area half the year, and can spend most of their income and pay taxes on it in other states. Almost all of their scouts and coaches work elsewhere. Please tell us how many full time, year round good paying jobs the Nats have at the stadium.
What is this 1T you mention? TARP was around 450b and has been repaid...
I just counted 205 staffers who are likely to be both full-time and based in D.C., and I'm guessing that list isn't comprehensive.
Add in 25 players who make an average of $3.4 million and spend 6-7 months or more in D.C., and I'm guessing the Nationals' payroll dwarfs that of the best shopping mall in the D.C. area.
LOL, so now partners, scouts and "Florida Operations" employees are based in DC?
And "you guess" the list isn't comprehensive? So now you want to collect Peanut vendors who work less than 81 days a year, while ignoring that from my list there is a thousand+ full time lower level workers reporting to the hundreds of managers at a mall?
You can stop guessing. It's been researched, and unbiased economists (ie. the ones not paid by teams) have found that a single Nordstrom generates more economic value than an MLB franchise.
TARP is on track to lose $24B, so not totally repaid. TARP was a massive bailout of poor investment decisions, i.e. a subsidy of reckless investors so they could keep their companies and equity instead of being forced to refinance or reorganize in bankruptcy. Then execs at the bailed out banks paid themselves billions in bonuses made possible only by the TARP handouts.
LOL. One minute the anti-stadium people are arguing that a sports team is in competition with all other forms of entertainment in an area, and that such sports teams simply cannibalize other entertainment spending. The next minute, that same sports team is a monopoly with an iron grip on its fans' dollars.
Ludicrous. MLB's 30 teams generated over $7.5 billion in revenue last year; Nordstrom's 230 stores generated $8.5 billion
No idea how you're missing that this entirely proves my point--PRIVATE investment all but destroyed the world's economy. Government stepped in and for a very small fraction of the total, saved the day. How is that not an incredibly strong argument for the efficiency of government over private enterprise?
But if your town suddenly decides to eliminate a 10% surtax on hotel rooms, and your town has a dozen hotels. If 11 hold firm and try to trap the windfall, their plan is foiled by a single hotel slashing it's rates and increasing it's profits by minimizing it's vacancies. Once one lowers prices the rest of the dominos fall. If all 12 meet in secret and agree to hold the line, they can't stop the canny local businessman from building a new hotel on that empty lot to take advantage of the now much higher profits the hotel business offers in your town, and he'll likely undercut their rates to build his business, forcing the dominos down anyways.
Almost all of Nordstom's stores revenues were local.
Little MLB revenue is. TV money is over half of their revenues. Owners, players, GMs, scouts, the highest paid employees rarely live in the town.
Well, no, you couldn't. TARP has been fully repaid. That you don't know that tells us you're not looking at the evidence, then coming to judgment, but rather coming to judgment then throwing stuff out there that you want to believe supports it, but in fact doesn't.
The WSJ article was, of course, only the tip of the iceberg. The idea that people routinely invest their own money wisely is frankly absurd (no offense, truly. I've seen far, far too many preposterous choices to believe you're correct here). Most people are clueless when it comes to economic choices. Private enterprise is also extraordinarily wasteful. Think of all the failed companies that go into making one successful one. Think of the dozen failed restaurants standing behind every restaurant that lasts a decade. Voters rarely tolerate that level of inefficiency in government; at least, not for long. There's oversight in government spending that doesn't exist for private investment, and so on.
If the hotel tax is 10 percent, the most the rates can be cut is 10 percent without cutting further into the previous profit margin. Ten percent hardly constitutes "slashing" prices, and it's not the type of margin that sends developers scurrying to build additional hotels.
Little MLB revenue is local? GMs don't live in the team's city?
As for Nordstrom, they sell products that are made elsewhere and then send most of the profits back to Seattle. The guy who manages the Nationals' clubhouse almost assuredly makes more money than any Nordstrom store manager in the country, and probably more than any Nordstrom regional manager. (And he probably ranks no better than 50th on the Nationals' hierarchy.)
Do you really think hotels make even a 10% profit margin? Last I looked Marriott was under 5%. Dropping another 10% to the bottom line at least doubles profits, if not triples them. So yes, it will send developers scurrying.
Mine is in Africa on a safari right now, and rumour is still lives in San Diego.
And all the people above him live elsewhere. Rebut the report. You can guess all you want, but real economists wrote it without being paid to reach a predetermined conclusion. Whether you agree or not, you should get value from reading it, cause you dont' know much about business now, that's for sure.
Add in 25 players who make an average of $3.4 million
what a wonderful benefit that is when compared to the costs
That's the real benefit. Having a professional sports franchise allows a state or local government to tax income of highly paid athletes which is something they wouldn't get to do without the sports franchise. They're essentially turning national television advertising dollars into local taxes. Those ad dollars would otherwise go to reality television shows in Hollywood.
Florida doesn't have income tax.
the right one can make some difference in the livability of a city
Almost all of the "taxpayer money" being spent on this is coming from hotel taxes
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (3 members)
Page rendered in 0.8574 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed