Muda69

NCAA Okays Paying Student Athletes, Republican Senator Immediately Wants to Tax Their Scholarships: https://reason.com/2019/10/30/ncaa-okays-paying-student-athletes-republican-senator-richard-burr-north-carolina-immediately-wants-to-tax-their-scholarships/ Typical that a government bureaucrat would demand a piece of the pie.

In this case irrelevant. Perhaps you need to revisit the definition of the word 'socialism'. Government should not be in the utility business, period. https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/privatizing-federal-electricity-infrastructure

Yet another remnant of FDR's socialism. It should have privatized years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/think-about-privatizing-the-tva/2013/04/25/3b6bbf34-a860-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html

*sigh* https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-electricity-grid-works Not under Dante's socialist system. He would be be content with DC power generated by coal fired plants. After all, you run everything at cost, for public benefit.

So where is the incentives to improve your product/service, if you always operate at cost?

Ahh. Interesting. Thank you.

Where does Boone Grove play it's home football games? I don't know much about the place so I looked it up on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boone+Grove+High+School/@41.3958962,-87.1694752,1431m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x881193fed4126f33:0xb7498bb4399ae601!2sPorter+County,+IN!3b1!8m2!3d41.5248577!4d-87.1023746!3m4!1s0x88118df4c9d027bf:0xf95e62acc1838505!8m2!3d41.3962682!4d-87.1658599 See what looks to be a practice field, but no competition field with seating? Could be an old image though......

Yep, a socialist like Dante's utopia, if only they could somehow do "socialism better". Whatever the heck that means.

You must be joking. Exactly how would that make them more efficient and more open to market forces?

What about the children who see this?

Thank you for your support.

Using that logic it would seem that schools which don't have an Endzone camera have effectively been winless since their invention/availability in the market. Is this really true?

a) All of my kids are now too old for youth or high school football. Does that mean I should no longer attend high school football games? b) ? Please explain.

Nothing should be free from continuous improvement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen

Sorry you choose to give up.

I disagree. As paying patrons to IHSAA sponsored events we certainly have the business to voice our opinions on how to improve the product.

https://mises.org/wire/pges-failures-show-dangers-government-imposed-utility-monopolies So we’ve solved the most immediate puzzle: The reason PG&E can get away with such outrageous mismanagement and shoddy customer service, is that the California government literally guarantees them their business. It is illegal for another company to try to entice PG&E’s disgruntled customers to switch their patronage. ... Any adult American reading my article surely can agree—regardless of your politics—that I am speaking the truth. To repeat, you simply do not see private companies in (relatively) open markets operating the way PG&E and other “public utilities” do. So the mismanagement and shoddy service of PG&E can’t possibly be the fault merely of corporate greed and neglect. Rather, the difference is due to the institutional structure and incentives that the government sets up. As McGillis explained in the block quotation above, a regulated public utility is typically given a monopoly for a certain region. It’s not allowed to charge “whatever the market will bear,” but instead must have its retail prices approved by government regulators. After showing the regulators the official cost of providing the service—whether electricity, natural gas, land phone lines, water, etc.—the utility is then allowed to charge enough to cover its costs and earn a reasonable rate of return for the investors. The problem with this approach should be all too obvious, in light of PG&E’s debacle and the similar episodes we see all the time with other government-regulated monopolies—the residential drinking water crisis in Flint, MI comes to mind. Once a company is guaranteed its customers, with competition expressly outlawed, there is little reason for it to maintain quality. Furthermore, because the retail price to the final consumer is regulated, whenever the quantity demanded exceeds the supply, the only solution is to artificially restrict the ability of customers to use the product. In a normal, relatively unregulated market, the price rapidly adjusts to balance the quantity demanded and supplied. In extreme situations—such as the immediate aftermath of a hurricane—this can lead to “outrageous” prices for bottled water and batteries, but such “price gouging” is exactly what we want to ration the available supply and motivate outsiders to bring in new supplies. The Conceptual Flaw With Mainstream Models of Regulation The textbook rationale for regulating certain services—such as residential electricity and water—is that they constitute “natural monopolies.” The idea is that a certain level of infrastructure spending is necessary to even have the ability to offer these services to a particular region, and so in an unregulated open market you would either have unnecessary duplication—with a given street having numerous pipes and power lines from different companies—or you would have one company that had captured the market and could charge outrageously high prices for such essentials. In order to combat these undesirable outcomes, the model of a publicly regulated monopolist with cost-plus pricing was developed. Yet as I’ve argued above, there is something terribly wrong with this approach. It simply takes it as a given that a regulated monopoly will provide the same quality of service as one facing open competition, which we see in practice is simply not true. Furthermore, as those in the Austrian tradition of economics stress, there is no such thing as an objectively given “cost of production.” Firms need to discover cheaper methods of producing electricity, water, etc., and we would expect them to look more diligently when they have profits as a reward. In other words, once your firm is allowed to charge its “cost” plus a markup for profit, you have no reason to weed out inefficiencies—the regulators will simply make you cut your retail price. Conclusion The PG&E debacle showcases the flaws of government-regulated monopolies. This is not an isolated incident, but is typical of the entire model. Yes, there are practical reasons that free and open competition might not work as smoothly with services requiring large infrastructure spending, but these complications pale in comparison to the dangers of having government outlaw competition. If we see the benefits of competition in trivial goods like soda and cereal, we should all the more so insist on competition for essentials like electricity and drinking water. Agreed. Government-backed utility monopolies need to go away, and they need to compete in a free and open market.

https://reason.com/2019/10/29/anti-vaping-propaganda-in-schools-undermines-critical-thinking-and-spreads-dangerous-misinformation/ Of course that isn't the lesson the government schools are trying to teach. Their lesson is that government and the information it approves is good and never, ever lies.

No idea. I never got to see the AD's secret list. Did you?

Finebaum: Notre Dame should buy out Kelly, hire Urban Meyer: http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=27955957 Sounds like a legitimate goal, right Notre Dame fans and alumni?

One year of high school football can cause damage to the brain, according to new study: https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2019/01/study-one-year-of-high-school-football-can-cause-brain-damage-even-without-diagnosed-concussions Study: Concussion rates in high school football games rising: https://www.aappublications.org/news/2019/10/15/concussion101519 New Findings on Concussion in Football’s Youngest Players: https://pulse.seattlechildrens.org/new-findings-on-concussion-in-footballs-youngest-players/ Youth football changes nerve fibers in brain: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181129084711.htm Playing football young may mean earlier cognitive, emotional problems: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/30/health/youth-football-cte-study/index.html MED Researchers: Youth Football Linked to Earlier Brain Problems: http://www.bu.edu/articles/2018/youth-football-linked-to-earlier-brain-problems/ Who to believe, who to believe.....................

Actually it's not, but you go on thinking that it is. Wouldn't want to challenge your superior, big city, opinions/truths.