Comments on: What Were They Thinking? http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/what-were-they-thinking/ Tracking Minnesota Politics Since 2005 Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:41:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: StephenDJ http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/what-were-they-thinking/#comment-47567 StephenDJ Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:23:58 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7225#comment-47567 ttp://www.radiumforums.com/showthread.php?t=29090 Buy VIAGRA only $0.84. CIALIS only $1.45 ttp://www.radiumforums.com/showthread.php?t=29090 Buy VIAGRA only $0.84. CIALIS only $1.45

]]> By: Kerosene Hat http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/what-were-they-thinking/#comment-46931 Kerosene Hat Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:01:53 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7225#comment-46931 The money spent is not added to the economy when it is spent. It would exist just as much sitting in a bank because it can then be lent out. Money can only represent work already done because the only things that can be consumed have already been produced. A football stadium may act as an economic aggregator in that it focuses spending in one area, making it easier to observe which in turn creates the illusion of a benefit. The truth is it simply funnels resources into the hands of the team owners allowing them to take a cut. The designs of the new stadiums are completely focused on capturing revenue inside the parks. They are competitors of local businesses, not draws for them. The new Yankee stadium is killing local business who was told all along that they would see thousands of potential customers every time there was a game so the project. The stadium was designed to funnel people directly from transit hubs, into the park which would provide the fans with everything they need, and then funnel them right back into their cars or trains. No fuss, no muss, and not a drop of money wasted outside the stadium and captured by the team. Remind you of a new ballpark we have downtown now? The same sales pitch will happen here and like it has always been in the past it will be complete BS, every word. The money spent is not added to the economy when it is spent. It would exist just as much sitting in a bank because it can then be lent out. Money can only represent work already done because the only things that can be consumed have already been produced. A football stadium may act as an economic aggregator in that it focuses spending in one area, making it easier to observe which in turn creates the illusion of a benefit.

The truth is it simply funnels resources into the hands of the team owners allowing them to take a cut. The designs of the new stadiums are completely focused on capturing revenue inside the parks. They are competitors of local businesses, not draws for them. The new Yankee stadium is killing local business who was told all along that they would see thousands of potential customers every time there was a game so the project. The stadium was designed to funnel people directly from transit hubs, into the park which would provide the fans with everything they need, and then funnel them right back into their cars or trains. No fuss, no muss, and not a drop of money wasted outside the stadium and captured by the team. Remind you of a new ballpark we have downtown now?

The same sales pitch will happen here and like it has always been in the past it will be complete BS, every word.

]]> By: DantheMan http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/what-were-they-thinking/#comment-46929 DantheMan Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:51:20 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7225#comment-46929 The key assumption that is always made in those impact studies is how much of a shifting effect there is. How the authors treat that one assumption will determine the outcome of th study. If they assume that someone who spends $100 on football would have spent that same $100 on dinner out or a show if football had not been an option, then there is little impact to having a team in town. If they assume that the people who spend $100 on football came from out of town just for that game, or would not have put that money into the economy in another instance, there is a net benefit. The key assumption that is always made in those impact studies is how much of a shifting effect there is. How the authors treat that one assumption will determine the outcome of th study.

If they assume that someone who spends $100 on football would have spent that same $100 on dinner out or a show if football had not been an option, then there is little impact to having a team in town.

If they assume that the people who spend $100 on football came from out of town just for that game, or would not have put that money into the economy in another instance, there is a net benefit.

]]> By: CMan http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/what-were-they-thinking/#comment-46921 CMan Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:36:52 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7225#comment-46921 What's a billion dollars now days? Chicken change! What's a billion dollars now days? Chicken change!

]]> By: DantheMan http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/what-were-they-thinking/#comment-46916 DantheMan Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:31:41 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7225#comment-46916 I do favor taxpayer funding. Voluntary taxpayer funding. Taxpayer funding doesn't have to always be the tired old formula of passing a program and then paying for it through progressive income taxes, or as Milton Friedman put it (I paraphase), one group of people spending the money of another group of people on a program to benefit yet another group of people. A use tax, like Pete suggests below, makes perfect sense. Make those who spend money on entertainment, especially those who spend money on sports, fund this stadium. Make it a targeted tax, and target me! I'm willing to pay it! If I could buy into the stadium with my little piece of equity in an effort to get this done, I would. But that isn't how these things typically work. I do favor taxpayer funding. Voluntary taxpayer funding. Taxpayer funding doesn't have to always be the tired old formula of passing a program and then paying for it through progressive income taxes, or as Milton Friedman put it (I paraphase), one group of people spending the money of another group of people on a program to benefit yet another group of people.

A use tax, like Pete suggests below, makes perfect sense. Make those who spend money on entertainment, especially those who spend money on sports, fund this stadium. Make it a targeted tax, and target me! I'm willing to pay it!

If I could buy into the stadium with my little piece of equity in an effort to get this done, I would. But that isn't how these things typically work.

]]> By: Kathy http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/what-were-they-thinking/#comment-46915 Kathy Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:09:57 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7225#comment-46915 As our country circles the drain, I suppose there's nothing more important than where a bunch of over-grown, over-paid sports celebrities call home. Bread and circuses. As our country circles the drain, I suppose there's nothing more
important than where a bunch of over-grown, over-paid
sports celebrities call home.

Bread and circuses.

]]> By: Pete http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/what-were-they-thinking/#comment-46912 Pete Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:06:03 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7225#comment-46912 Then support user fees. That's the only fair way to publically finance this stuff. I've never understood why Arne, Jesse, and Tim were all so radically opposed to this idea. Then support user fees. That's the only fair way to publically finance this stuff. I've never understood why Arne, Jesse, and Tim were all so radically opposed to this idea.

]]> By: dan http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/what-were-they-thinking/#comment-46909 dan Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:47:01 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7225#comment-46909 That's where you are wrong, because the $1,000 you are willing to contribute is nothing. Unless you favor taxpayer funding, you are indifferent to the team leaving. That's where you are wrong, because the $1,000 you are willing to contribute is nothing. Unless you favor taxpayer funding, you are indifferent to the team leaving.

]]> By: Kerosene Hat http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/what-were-they-thinking/#comment-46906 Kerosene Hat Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:58:49 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7225#comment-46906 I don't think an argument for wasting money now is that we might be presented with the chance to waste even more money later. The fact is that there is no good evidence that these expenditures provide a commensurate return. We would be better off fighting to make these types of projects illegal so the teams are forced to pay their own way regardless of where they locate. I don't think an argument for wasting money now is that we might be presented with the chance to waste even more money later. The fact is that there is no good evidence that these expenditures provide a commensurate return. We would be better off fighting to make these types of projects illegal so the teams are forced to pay their own way regardless of where they locate.

]]> By: DantheMan http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/what-were-they-thinking/#comment-46904 DantheMan Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:40:42 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7225#comment-46904 All I know is that I want the Vikings to stay and I am willing to pay for it. All I know is that I want the Vikings to stay and I am willing to pay for it.

]]>