Okay, so my Game of Thrones thread went over like hamburger in Jell-O. Now I'd like to try something where the political angles are even more obvious: professional wrestling. 'Cause I know we've got some fans in attendance. Ran across this great article: http://deadspin.com/pro-wrestlings-greatest-angle-was-convincing-us-it-does-1619415553 Thus illustrated is one of the weaknesses of capitalism (I suppose republicans think of it as a feature, not a bug): the ability of the people at the top of an industry to ruthlessly exploit labor as they approach monopoly, which the industry naturally seeks for exactly that reason. Concentrating all the power in the hands of a few people leads to inevitable disaster. Like many other industries, the exploitation of the workers is seen as acceptable by many of the people (republicans, I'm guessing) that are aware of it. Doesn't he mean that his workers take risks? Sure, McMahon is willing to get into the ring and I'm sure he's hurt himself pretty bad, but he's not the one risking the crippling injuries, he's just the guy that makes the money when he pays someone else to do it. And for all the Stone Cold Steve Austin fans: The article also touches upon the dangers of deregulation: I love this bit: Also this bit (it's not so much political but I love Bret Hart): Oh yeah, and this: What is it with all the denials? Climate change gets in the way of profits, just deny it. Steroid side-effects get in the way of profits, just deny some more. Is massive, industrial capitalism even remotely capable of coping with reality, or does it have to pretend that pollution is good for you and steroid-abuse is healthy? Thoughts?
I think 1. the original source of that article, some socialist propaganda mag, is not a legit source for anything. 2. Nowhere in your OP do I see that pro wrestling is not subject to our extensive body of antitrust laws just like any other business... until those laws get waived by GOVT in return for graft. 3. Any argument in the vein of OP that does not deal with antitrust applicability to the industry in question is not anywhere near the full story, and likely distorted propaganda.
So the government is guilty of overregulation if it regulates, and it's guilty of not regulating enough if it doesn't regulate. I think you're being kinda circular there in your attempt to make absolutely certain you place no blame whatsoever at the feet of the people making their money off of exploiting workers, i.e., Vince McMahon. Once he's a billionaire CEO he's pretty much got your loyalty, right?
Not exactly what he said. He merely stipulated that a monopoly can only exist if government permits it so to do and there are but two reasons as to why government will permit a monopoly to exist. The first is money and the second is laziness. By the way tell me how the WWE differs from the NFL, MLB, and the NBA.
I think most people live anecdotal lives, thats why they won't respond to this. Most of us work hard and life gives us ups and downs and we roll with them. Its hard to appreciate the hardships of others because most people we personally know that fail create their own failure. The big picture seems irrelevant. I see the way things are going much like you, but people at the end of their careers can only appreciate the reality that they themselves grew up in.
Who said anything about the antitrust laws not being reasonable forms of regulation? I certainly didn't. If McMahon or those other promoters are colluding to fix compensation or other elements of the wrestling business, that's illegal, under federal law since the early 20th century. Capitalism functions fine within those laws, and if they are broken, there are legal remedies available. By excluding the discussion of US law that may restrict and punish these promoters doing wrong in an effort to chastise and indict capitalism and our market system, you and the source commit a gigantic strawman. We DO have protective laws in place, and they ARE enforced. The wrestlers have access to those protective laws. Moreover, they have access to federal labor laws as well, together with ALL the vast body of other federal regulations of the workplace, some legitimate and wise, some not. - - - Updated - - - Perhaps you'd care to actually read the article, which plainly states its actual source. Pffft.
