HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Sports & Outdoor Recreation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2017, 8:55 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
Yes, the Mexican peso is one of the worst performing currencies in the past two years and will likely continue to devalue. This country is such a shithole, I'm really looking forward to seeing it all crash down. The US needs to build the wall as soon as possible!
Wow tell us how you really feel!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 12:55 AM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
Mexico City will get a team before they give Vancouver another shot.
Jebby, I also suspect that the NBA players might be reluctant to live/play in Mexico (solo or with their families) given the serious threat of kidnapping/murder etc. (given their personal wealth/attractiveness as American targets) by violent drug cartels looking to diversify their operations/boost revenue intake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 3:34 AM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
Jebby, I also suspect that the NBA players might be reluctant to live/play in Mexico (solo or with their families) given the serious threat of kidnapping/murder etc. (given their personal wealth/attractiveness as American targets) by violent drug cartels looking to diversify their operations/boost revenue intake.
You've never been to Mexico City, right?
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 4:03 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Vancouver/[Winnipeg]
Posts: 4,011
I got way too excited when I heard the news today. I don't care how far down on the list we are, at least we're on it. I'd love to have a cheer of our own to cheer for. The Raptors are awesome, but it's just not the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 4:25 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 3,812
Las Vegas is the new "it" city for pro sports, and Seattle is 1st in line. I think the only hope VanCity has is relocation.

Maybe it would work this time around. The city is quite a bit larger than it was in 95 when the Grizz first came here. In fact, Vancouver has the same population base as Denver and Tampa (using U.S. measuring standard) which have 4 and 3 major league teams. Ownership would likely remain local this time around too. The only problem is getting these guys to play here and not sabotage the team like they did last time around. These guys are shallow and are all about image, and Vancouver just doesn't provide near enough coolness factor for them. There would be a lot of losing seasons...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2017, 6:13 PM
Vancity's Avatar
Vancity Vancity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Richmond, BC
Posts: 1,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
I got way too excited when I heard the news today. I don't care how far down on the list we are, at least we're on it. I'd love to have a cheer of our own to cheer for. The Raptors are awesome, but it's just not the same.
I know the feeling! I was excited about it as well

I'm not sure why we're not higher on the list. Louisville and Mexico City before Vancouver, seriously? What if Seattle can't figure out their stadium issues?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2017, 6:16 PM
Vancity's Avatar
Vancity Vancity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Richmond, BC
Posts: 1,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Las Vegas is the new "it" city for pro sports, and Seattle is 1st in line. I think the only hope VanCity has is relocation.

Maybe it would work this time around. The city is quite a bit larger than it was in 95 when the Grizz first came here. In fact, Vancouver has the same population base as Denver and Tampa (using U.S. measuring standard) which have 4 and 3 major league teams. Ownership would likely remain local this time around too. The only problem is getting these guys to play here and not sabotage the team like they did last time around. These guys are shallow and are all about image, and Vancouver just doesn't provide near enough coolness factor for them. There would be a lot of losing seasons...
Yeah. That's always the risk, right?

I think it'll work. There's a growing passion for having our own team. Raptors are great, but they are Toronto's team, not Vancouver's. I'd be on board for ST's for sure if the NBA came back to town. It's true that the NBA is about image and most of the players there are pretty shallow, but there is a much diverse pool of players too who are international players, and not just americans. Draft those guys The Steve Nash's of the world, and the Nowitzki's of the world.

Anyways, hope to hear more news on this as the year progresses. I wonder if Aquilini's are talking with the commish - Adam Silver, but going about it in a very quiet way (kind of how Winnipeg did it with Atlanta with their relocation, eventually got a team there).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2017, 9:17 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
Yes, the Mexican peso is one of the worst performing currencies in the past two years and will likely continue to devalue. This country is such a shithole, I'm really looking forward to seeing it all crash down. The US needs to build the wall as soon as possible!
Not the worst. Brazilian real is the worst ;-) What Mexico needed was a socialist coup in the 80's to reset. Like Brazil there is too much inequality left over from the Spanish days and this messed up almost cast like culture. Having said that I can be sure you would not support that because your family left to Canada almost certainly because of a fear of a socialist coup...But hey I am no fan of communism but it made my birth country one of the safest, most equal and free countries on this planet today and I am a little proud of that.

Back on topic. With Trump in power now I think NBA to Mexico City will be on hold for a bit until the economic ramifications for Mexico are fully known. Lots of unknowns right now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2017, 9:20 PM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
You've never been to Mexico City, right?
LOL...Jebby...that's a question posed to be comical,..right? I have not only visited Mexico City many times but also before you were born! To give you an idea of how old I am if my parents were alive they'd be around 100 years old.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2017, 10:32 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
What Mexico needed was a socialist coup in the 80's to reset.
No, what Mexico needs is real liberalization of it's market and the end of the state monopolies in oil. It needs more protections of private property and enforcement of contracts. It needs more accountability in public finances. It needs to dismantle the barriers that prevent competition and more competitive tax code.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
Like Brazil there is too much inequality left over from the Spanish days and this messed up almost cast like culture.
Yes, I agree. The inequality is due to the centralization of power and cartelization of the economy for centuries which goes back to the colonial days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
Having said that I can be sure you would not support that because your family left to Canada almost certainly because of a fear of a socialist coup...
lol, nope. I left Canada because I found better opportunities elsewhere.
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2017, 2:11 AM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
No, what Mexico needs is real liberalization of it's market and the end of the state monopolies in oil. It needs more protections of private property and enforcement of contracts. It needs more accountability in public finances. It needs to dismantle the barriers that prevent competition and more competitive tax code.


Yes, I agree. The inequality is due to the centralization of power and cartelization of the economy for centuries which goes back to the colonial days.
Didn't liberalization/limited government/a lack of government regulation etc. help cause the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the near collapse of the American banking system in 08? Further isn't the U.S. relatively decentralized in government although we continue to see the private sector rationalize business operations via increasing levels of monopoly acquisitions and mergers to boost market control and attendant profits (further fueling growing income inequality/system debt)?

Do you think that deregulation in business will necessarily/automatically engender greater prosperity for the average working Mexican (without some government legal oversight to ensure such)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2017, 2:58 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,976
I'm surprised anyone in Vancouver would want Aquilini involved with another franchise. His meddling is imo the greatest thing wrong with the Canucks. A guy that thinks bringing Evander Kane would help the team... I can only imagine what a team of NBA players under his influence would look like.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2017, 5:31 AM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
Didn't liberalization/limited government/a lack of government regulation etc. help cause the Wall Street Crash of 1929
No. It was caused by direct government action through the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies under the leadership of Benjamin Strong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
and the near collapse of the American banking system in 08?
Again, completely caused by government action, from the Fed's artificially low interest rates, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteeing mortgages, the Community Reinvestment Act and affirmative action in lending, the "pro-ownership" tax code, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
Further isn't the U.S. relatively decentralized in government although we continue to see the private sector rationalize business operations via increasing levels of monopoly acquisitions and mergers to boost market control and attendant profits (further fueling growing income inequality/system debt)?
The US is not decentralized when it comes to regulation of the banking industry, for example.

And monopolies do not exist in a free market. They are an artificial creation by the state, either through monopoly charters or through the imposition of barriers to new entrants into an economic sector.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
Do you think that deregulation in business will necessarily/automatically engender greater prosperity for the average working Mexican (without some government legal oversight to ensure such)?
Absolutely. Properity comes from the private sector, not from the state. Everything the state has it must take from those who produce.
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2017, 6:19 AM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
No. It was caused by direct government action through the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies under the leadership of Benjamin Strong.


Again, completely caused by government action, from the Fed's artificially low interest rates, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteeing mortgages, the Community Reinvestment Act and affirmative action in lending, the "pro-ownership" tax code, etc.



The US is not decentralized when it comes to regulation of the banking industry, for example.

And monopolies do not exist in a free market. They are an artificial creation by the state, either through monopoly charters or through the imposition of barriers to new entrants into an economic sector.


Absolutely. Properity comes from the private sector, not from the state. Everything the state has it must take from those who produce.
Jebby, I hear you saying that you studied at LSE. Did they teach you the myth that there ever was a totally "free market' in world history (where/when)??...or that free markets can actually exist (without government regulation at some point)?

Further, where did you learn that the "state"/government never/doesn't produce wealth? So LAX or the Ports Authority of New York/New Jersey which are all government enterprises don't generate wealth/GDP at the city/state levels? Really!? In Los Angeles light/water and power are produced/sold CHEAPLY to most of the city's residents by the city government (re: LADWP).

Where did you learn that monopolies are always created by the state/government? Maybe that might be the case in corrupt Mexico but not here. If that were true why would the U.S. government pass the Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890 to curtail the creation of business monopolies (which were/are the natural outgrowth of UNREGULATED MARKETS AS EXISTED DURING THE GILDED AGE OF AMERICA'S ROBBER BARONS)????

By the way, in case you missed that part of your economic history lesson the Gilded Age of the late 19th century America was characterized by little or no government taxes or regulations,..thus precipitating horrendous levels of income disparity and poverty.

Last edited by Caliplanner1; Jan 25, 2017 at 6:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2017, 6:10 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
Jebby, I hear you saying that you studied at LSE. Did they teach you the myth that there ever was a totally "free market' in world history (where/when)??...
Have I ever said we've ever had a totally free market completely free of any state interference. Taxation in and of itself is an interference in the "free market" but I'm not completely against taxation to fund the basic roles of government, such as the guaranteeing and protection of property rights, contract enforcement and arbitration in civil courts, for example.

I, however, think that strict enforcement of property rights is a more effective tool to achieve many of the policies you probably advocate in favor of. For example in the case of pollution control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
or that free markets can actually exist (without government regulation at some point)?
I'm not an an-cap so I don't believe that is desirable or feasible. Although you don't necessarily need the state for regulations to exist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
Further, where did you learn that the "state"/government never/doesn't produce wealth? So LAX or the Ports Authority of New York/New Jersey which are all government enterprises don't generate wealth/GDP at the city/state levels? Really!? In Los Angeles light/water and power are produced/sold CHEAPLY to most of the city's residents by the city government (re: LADWP).
Everything the state has it takes from private citizens. It does not create anything on it's own. Even when it takes from the productive sector to build, for example, a port it is not the creator of wealth. Those that use the facilities to engage in commerce create the wealth and prosperity. And if we take into account the opportunity cost and the inevitable inefficient use of resources by government agents (due to the lack of profit motive) it is always a net destruction of wealth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
Where did you learn that monopolies are always created by the state/government? Maybe that might be the case in corrupt Mexico but not here. If that were true why would the U.S. government pass the Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890 to curtail the creation of business monopolies (which were/are the natural outgrowth of UNREGULATED MARKETS AS EXISTED DURING THE GILDED AGE OF AMERICA'S ROBBER BARONS)????
The Sherman Anti Trust Act merely aids inefficient businesses at the expense of more innovative ones. It was passed by special interests and harms consumers and the economy.

This is a really good article that looks at the causes and consequences of the Sherman Act: https://mises.org/library/truth-about-sherman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
By the way, in case you missed that part of your economic history lesson the Gilded Age of the late 19th century America was characterized by little or no government taxes or regulations,..thus precipitating horrendous levels of income disparity and poverty.
The Gilded Age was the largest expansion of the American economy, it raised millions of people out of poverty and created a massive middle class of consumers. I know you're a leftist and obsessed with "income disparity" but it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Take this example:

Quote:
Jones makes $10,000 a year, while Smith earns $20,000. Assuming no inflation, a year later Jones is earning $15,000 and Smith makes $30,000.

It is clear that both Jones and Smith are better off than they had been before, although in absolute terms Smith has earned a greater increase in income than has Jones. According to the "inequality" economists, only Smith is better off. In fact, according to their logic, Jones is actually worse off after he has increased his income because the income spread between Smith and him has grown. No matter that both men are better off. Economists have declared, instead, that inequality has become greater.
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2017, 6:37 PM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is offline
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,010
^lol. To assume no inflation if this happens on a macro scale is ludicrous. And in your scenario, if expenses rise the same rate as wages, Jones is actually in a worse position.
__________________
i have no idea what's going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2017, 6:53 PM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
Have I ever said we've ever had a totally free market completely free of any state interference. Taxation in and of itself is an interference in the "free market" but I'm not completely against taxation to fund the basic roles of government, such as the guaranteeing and protection of property rights, contract enforcement and arbitration in civil courts, for example.

I, however, think that strict enforcement of property rights is a more effective tool to achieve many of the policies you probably advocate in favor of. For example in the case of pollution control.

I'm not an an-cap so I don't believe that is desirable or feasible. Although you don't necessarily need the state for regulations to exist.

Everything the state has it takes from private citizens. It does not create anything on it's own. Even when it takes from the productive sector to build, for example, a port it is not the creator of wealth. Those that use the facilities to engage in commerce create the wealth and prosperity. And if we take into account the opportunity cost and the inevitable inefficient use of resources by government agents (due to the lack of profit motive) it is always a net destruction of wealth.

The Sherman Anti Trust Act merely aids inefficient businesses at the expense of more innovative ones. It was passed by special interests and harms consumers and the economy.

This is a really good article that looks at the causes and consequences of the Sherman Act: https://mises.org/library/truth-about-sherman

The Gilded Age was the largest expansion of the American economy, it raised millions of people out of poverty and created a massive middle class of consumers. I know you're a leftist and obsessed with "income disparity" but it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Take this example:
You are essentially echoing the self centered ancient Greek-Roman perspective; one that emphasizes the rights of (wealthy) individuals over the collective rights of the majority "tribe"/nation-state etc.. What you seem not to realize though is that the individual also takes from the state/society (often times much more so than he gives back to the state--as seen in the wealthy class).

Thus, if anyone thinks (as an example) that Mexico's richest man, Carlos Slim is wealthy all on his own without the collective help of the state/and society (re: the ordinary worker and consumer) then such views are delusional.

Government, the largest/single employer of human and natural resources IN EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, serves to gird the prosperity of the smaller/weaker private sector.

Finally, I'm not sure where you've studied that the gilded age served to pull millions out of poverty but it (re: the gilded age) did push millions into poverty/urban ghettos as the so called robber barons became filthy rich leading to the subsequent dawn of the Progressive Era (a time when the educated/small middle class) pushed back in earnest against the corruption wreaked by the small cadre of wealthy upper class business elites (e.g. Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie etc.) and lower class (rich) inner city gangsters (like William "Boss" Tweed of New York's Tammany Hall etc.) towards promoting greater social and economic EQUITY.

Some scholars/historians even define Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal socialism (during the Great Depression which saw the collapse of free market capitalism) as the tail end of the Progressive Era.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Sports & Outdoor Recreation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:19 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.