I had no idea Scott Walker was so popular

[Kuciwalker]

you could just as easily say that the economies of first world countries have many similarities and therefore it's plausable that it wouldn't. neither statement is very convincing taken on its own.

That was the original point, Cockney.

[Kuciwalker]

this isn't true. the wealthy have a huge number of things they can and do spend their money on. even your average billionaire can buy a more ostentatious yacht or sink an enormous sum of money into a premier league football team.

It's really hard to spend a billion dollars on a yacht, and buying a football team is (mostly) investment, not consumption (generally they overpay relative to the financial returns, so some of it is consumption).

[The Mad Monk]

Not to mention that they're in rather limited supply.

[C0ckney]

It's really hard to spend a billion dollars on a yacht, and buying a football team is (mostly) investment, not consumption (generally they overpay relative to the financial returns, so some of it is consumption).

err the point is not to say that something costs exactly $1billion but rather to point out some very expensive things that a billionaire can spend his money on. if you use your imagination a little, i'm sure you can think of some more.

with premier league football, for example, chelsea and manchester city are rich man's playthings. the owners have lost and will likely to continue to lose eye watering sums chasing their dreams. they're not really thinking in terms of investment, which can be seen if you compare their strategies to those of other teams.

[Kuciwalker]

with premier league football, for example, chelsea and manchester city are rich man's playthings. the owners have lost and will likely to continue to lose eye watering sums chasing their dreams. they're not really thinking in terms of investment, which can be seen if you compare their strategies to those of other teams.

I'll admit I'm not familiar with the finances of European soccer teams, but in the US I believe most sports franchises are profitable.

[DinoDoc]

IIRC, they are almost uniformly money pits.

[Kuciwalker]

.

[Imran Siddiqui]

IIRC, they are almost uniformly money pits.

FWIW, American sports teams can be money pits if you have a similar type of owner (ones who will spend whatever they can to win). George Steinbrenner's Yankees tended to lose money a lot until the 2000s and Ted Turner's Braves lost more money than they took in (as can be seen by how much the payroll shrunk when Ted was forced out) & no salary cap.

[The Mad Monk]

Of course, money pit sports franchises are a form of wealth redistribution, right? Right???

[kentonio]

Of course, money pit sports franchises are a form of wealth redistribution, right? Right???

Yeah, distributed from one rich guy to a team of rich guys. It's practically communism.

[The Mad Monk]

I hadn't realized that the grounds crew, consessions workers, maintenance, parking attendants, et al were that well paid.

[The Mad Monk]

Then, of course, there's all the small businesses benefiting form proximity to the stadium.

...and all the money the players are spending.

...and tourist dollars.

[giblets]

Are those the people who actually benefit from the excessive spending? If they blow a lot of money on trying to get the best baseball players in order to win, and would make a profit if they didn't do that, I would think no.

[The Mad Monk]

Yes, they are still the people who benefit. High dollar players bring in the crowds.

[giblets]

Indirectly prompting the non-wealthy public to spend a lot of money in the area through offering rich players even more money doesn't sound like redistribution of wealth to me.