| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 286.1 | | CAM::WAY | and keep me steadfast | Wed Aug 28 1996 16:12 | 1 |
| So for this drivel we need a new note?
|
| 286.2 | | OLD1S::CADZILLA2 | Are you a Turtle? | Wed Aug 28 1996 16:21 | 1 |
| Kill it before it multiply's
|
| 286.3 | Why do I bother with this guy? | BSS::NEUZIL | | Wed Aug 28 1996 16:23 | 10 |
|
George, you threw in Gov't intervension as an intricate part of your
definition of macroeconomics. Gov't controls (or intervension) can
happen under either. And I agree with 'Saw, no new note needed. I'm
done with this one.
Kevin
|
| 286.4 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Wed Aug 28 1996 22:00 | 32 |
| RE <<< Note 286.3 by BSS::NEUZIL >>>
>And I agree with 'Saw, no new note needed. >I'm done with this one.
I had pretty much stopped debating this but when you chose to fire up the
debate again I moved it here so that Raven fans could talk football in their
note. I don't see why the moderators would be against that. If they are against
the topic in general then you are just as much to blame as I am so stop playing
the innocent with those "here's the last point why do you make me do this"
type arguments.
> George, you threw in Gov't intervension as an intricate part of your
> definition of macroeconomics. Gov't controls (or intervension) can
> happen under either.
No, you quoted me out of context. If you go back and look at what we were
originally debating is was not the definition of economic terms, it was the
reasons why cities pay out money to buy teams away from other cities.
The reason for discussing those terms was that Tommy claimed that there was
no free market and he gave 3 reasons. Two had nothing to do with the city/team
relationship. The 3rd was that because this is a government subsidy it is not
a free market.
That point sounds to me like an argument of macro economics where people
are debating the economic impact of government spending. My point is that
the city of Baltimore is more of an individual as described by your definition
of micro economics regardless whether the spending is publicly funded. The
market competing for teams is better described by micro economics with the
cities as individuals hence it behaves like a free market.
George
|
| 286.5 | | CAM::WAY | and keep me steadfast | Thu Aug 29 1996 12:18 | 11 |
| > I had pretty much stopped debating this but when you chose to fire up the
>debate again I moved it here so that Raven fans could talk football in their
George never met a debate he didn't like, or one he could refuse.
He suffers from Last Word Syndrome.....
'Saw
|
| 286.6 | Subsequent acts in war moral, act of war was not | MKOTS3::BREEN | | Fri Aug 30 1996 15:16 | 10 |
| This is all about Baltimore Groaner, set it back to nowrite later if
you choose.
Baltimore could take the defense that a state of war existed between
them and the nfl and all it's cities at the point of the theft of the
Colts. Their theft was similar to the bombing of Tokyo which had its
link to Pearl Harbor.
By taking a team from the nfl they forced the nfl to sue for peace.
Their act they could argue was as moral as any act of war.
|
| 286.7 | | ROCK::GRONOWSKI | | Fri Aug 30 1996 16:46 | 3 |
|
That note is about Baltimore football, i can give a crap about the
politics of how the team got there or why.
|