American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Tres3;439651]Only in America!! Donald Sterling made a racist remark to his mistress, was fined 2. 5 million, created outrage, and laughs all the way to the bank when a Steve Balmer led group bids 2. 0 billion for the Clippers. Meanwhile, black basketball players who are richer than most of us, but not very rich when compared to Sterling, Balmer, et al feel vindicated. They forget that the buyer was another rich white guy. Only in America can a rich white guy be "punished" by being forced to sell a franchise for a huge profit, and it is all perfectly legal.

What Mr. Sterling did was reprehensible in this age, but I still envy him.

Tres3. [/QUOTE]You missed the big picture, there's nothing to be envious for here. To Sterling, Ballmer and all these other affluent middle age/old men, this is about power which is so much more important than money. Sterling is already a billionaire, another billion won't do much for him especially at his age. But being one of the few people in the world to own a professional sports team is a lot more important than money to him and people like him. Its the power, the prestige of being able to say you own one of these teams and well ..to be the life of the party showing it off to others. The LA Clippers is not worth 2 billion. Ballmer offered that pay that ridiculous amount of money to eliminate his competitors and because to him, owing the team is more important than money after all he is worth about 20 billion so he was willing to over-pay for the privilege of saying he owns a team. He's been trying to buy a team for several years and has to be beside himself with glee for getting his early Christmas toy.

Sterling is suing the NBA but if he could, he would pay 3 billion to get that team back. Much like in politics, this is about power not money which is why in the end Sterling loses and his punishment is losing his his prized possession while and the NBA and the lawyers as always are the big winners.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439651]What Mr. Sterling did was reprehensible in this age, but I still envy him. Tres3. [/QUOTE]You think he is more happy than you are!

[QUOTE=RevBS;439690]You think he is more happy than you are![/QUOTE]I do not think Mr. Sterling is happier than I am, but I know I would be even happier if I had that money.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439688]You missed the big picture, there's nothing to be envious for here. To Sterling, Ballmer and all these other affluent middle age/old men, this is about power which is so much more important than money. Sterling is already a billionaire, another billion won't do much for him especially at his age. But being one of the few people in the world to own a professional sports team is a lot more important than money to him and people like him. Its the power, the prestige of being able to say you own one of these teams and well . to be the life of the party showing it off to others. The LA Clippers is not worth 2 billion. Ballmer offered that pay that ridiculous amount of money to eliminate his competitors and because to him, owing the team is more important than money after all he is worth about 20 billion so he was willing to over-pay for the privilege of saying he owns a team. He's been trying to buy a team for several years and has to be beside himself with glee for getting his early Christmas toy.

Sterling is suing the NBA but if he could, he would pay 3 billion to get that team back. Much like in politics, this is about power not money which is why in the end Sterling loses and his punishment is losing his his prized possession while and the NBA and the lawyers as always are the big winners. [/QUOTE]Au Contraire-The big picture for me and most of the other citizens of the USA is the money, and what it will buy. Why do you think lotteries are so popular? They sell a chance to make a lot of money. They do not sell a chance for power. Some franchise owners buy a franchise, whether it is a sports team, car dealership or McDonalds as an investment, not for the power. They have a certain amount of power, but that is a secondary consideration. The investment comes first. Why do you think two other groups dropped out of the bidding? The numbers simply did not add up. I like to draw attention to Red Mcombs and the Minnesota Vikings. If you do not know who Red McCombs is, you have proven my point.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439693]I do not think Mr. Sterling is happier than I am, but I know I would be even happier if I had that money.

Tres3. [/QUOTE]Maybe not you, but many people confuse conveniences with happiness. Money helps. Like being able to take a taxi over a bus, having a steak over a hamburger, etc. Of course, there is threshold of basic needs that need to be met, and that can differ on an individual basis. Then there is that virus call Upward Mobility that can afflict people until they die. When enough is never enough. I have enough good clothes until I die, yet I find myself reaching for my credit card when something catches my fancy. Why? I ask myself. For consultation, please call Jamie Dimon.

For a good hilarious frivolous read, Crazy Rich Asians by Kevin Kwan, will take you into this world of unrestrained indulgence.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439694]Au Contraire-The big picture for me and most of the other citizens of the USA is the money, and what it will buy. Why do you think lotteries are so popular? They sell a chance to make a lot of money. They do not sell a chance for power. Some franchise owners buy a franchise, whether it is a sports team, car dealership or McDonalds as an investment, not for the power. They have a certain amount of power, but that is a secondary consideration. The investment comes first. Why do you think two other groups dropped out of the bidding? The numbers simply did not add up. I like to draw attention to Red Mcombs and the Minnesota Vikings. If you do not know who Red McCombs is, you have proven my point.

Tres3. [/QUOTE]People buying lotteries are not billionaires and of course those people are buying tickets in hope of striking it rich because they are not, that is a poor comparison you made. Sterling, Ballmer and his peers are already rich. They have money to buy everything they want and need so another billion to someone who has 20 moves them very little. Ballmer overpaid for a product, not because he saw an investment opportunity but because of power, prestige and the conquest so he is willing to lose money to get what he wants. That is not an investment that he will rely on to support his family, he already has that. Your car dealership / McDonalds example is also off the mark as the people making those investments are not billionaires, they want to be. Very few people get to purchase professional sport teams but the ones who do are loaded with dough, they are not middle of the road citizens who need the profits from the team to survive. Billionaires cannot be compared with the common man when it comes to investments and purchases. They can afford to lose money and can and do make some purchases regardless of the ROI. People who purchase sports teams do so more to run the team as a hobby, its not their primary investment.

If you don't think this is about power and prestige, look at and read Mark Cuban, Mickey Arison, James Dolan and Mikhail Prokhorov among others. Prokhorov went way over the salary cap to secure a championship but his team loss in the second round. When he was interviewed about it, he shrugged it off and indicated that he may be willing to do it again next year despite having to pay about 80 million in luxury tax to the NBA. Dolan's team is about 32 million over the salary cap and did not even make the playoffs but he still had 12 million more to hire a GM that may or may not work out. Comparing yourself to Sterling and saying you envy him shows you don't get the big picture. There's comes a time in a man's life when money ceases to be the most important element and that is when he has so many billions he'll never be able to lose it in his lifetime. When that happens, other things become more important to him. Sterling and Ballmer are sterling example of this with Sterling's quest of remaining as and for Ballmer being the owner of a professional sports team.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439700] Sterling, Ballmer and his peers are already rich. . Billionaires cannot be compared with the common man when it comes to investments and purchases.
[/QUOTE]Do you begrudge someone getting rich? With very few exceptions, the rich people in the USA started as a "common man" and then became wealthy. That is, and I hope will always be, the American way. You do not have to be a rich sports team owner to behave obnoxiously and with poor taste. If someone who is wealthy wants to throw his money away, he can do so in America. After all, it is his money, not yours or the government's. Wealthy people have possessed some level of power throughout recorded history, not just since the advent of professional sports teams. Contrary to your assertions, not all sports team owners are wealthy, power hungry assholes. Can you name all of the NFL and NBA team owners, not to mention the many other sports team owners?

I am not a poor person, but at least I admit that I would like more and envy, but do not begrudge, those who have more.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439712] the rich people in the USA started as a "common man" and then became wealthy.

Tres3. [/QUOTE]That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.

You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.

The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof.

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439733]That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.

You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.

The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof. [/QUOTE]Well I see you are back US bashing and singing the praises of Europe.

Would you happen to have any of that "tremendous amount of research" laying around to prove your point.

After your latest election where the "right" ran riot it would appear the European immigration issue is front and center again. Not so liberal it seams.

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439733]That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.

You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.

The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof. [/QUOTE]You obviously know very little about American History. I suggest that before you make a further fool of yourself, that you get a rudimentary high school American History book and read it.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439733]That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.
[/QUOTE]Your second sentence is an exact description of England. Not the USA. Crikey! What rubbish!

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439733]That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.

You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.

The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof.[/QUOTE]Apparently you do chose your facts. Read the attached article that states that 69% of people got their wealth through working vs. 6% who got wealthy through inheritance alone. It took me all of a few seconds to find this article. Why don't you show us where you got your information? You owe Tres3 an apology.

[URL]http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth/[/URL]

"Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of "wealthy, and possibly "millionaire" once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by "working. " - See more at: [URL]http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth.[/URL]".

[QUOTE=Dccpa;439747] Read the attached article that states that 69% of people got their wealth through working vs. 6% who got wealthy through inheritance alone. .[/QUOTE]When you add the percentage of inheritors who received the fruits of the labor of someone only a generation removed, the 69% is even larger. Connections and elite schools are a mixed bag. I know many well connected individuals who also went to elite schools who are not wealthy, just as I know many people who went to Community Colleges who are now wealthy.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439688] To Sterling, Ballmer and all these other affluent middle age/old men, this is about power which is so much more important than money. Sterling is already a billionaire, another billion won't do much for him especially at his age. But being one of the few people in the world to own a professional sports team is a lot more important than money to him and people like him. Its the power, the prestige of being able to say you own one of these teams and well ..to be the life of the party showing it off to others. The LA Clippers is not worth 2 billion. Ballmer offered that pay that ridiculous amount of money to eliminate his competitors and because to him, owing the team is more important than money after all he is worth about 20 billion so he was willing to over-pay for the privilege of saying he owns a team. He's been trying to buy a team for several years and has to be beside himself with glee for getting his early Christmas toy.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/05/30/steve_ballmer_buys_los_angeles_clippers_why_the_microsoft_billionaire_was.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=RevBS;439786][URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/05/30/steve_ballmer_buys_los_angeles_clippers_why_the_microsoft_billionaire_was.html[/URL][/QUOTE]Nice! I would accuse them of plagiarizing especially for this portion below, but this sentiment was blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer.



[i] Which is why I sincerely doubt Ballmer is making this purchase based purely on economics. Sports teams might be more profitable than in the past. But they are also a status symbol for the global ultra-richa circle of people that, as you might have heard, has expanded in recent years. A basketball team in L.A. as opposed to Milwaukee is an even gaudier status symbol. In that way, the Clippers are a lot more like a famous Warhol than an oil well. And for Ballmera basketball fan who tried and failed to bring the Sacramento Kings to Seattle (which has been without a team since the Sonics left for Oklahoma City in 2008)the joy of owning his very own team is probably worth far more than whatever the returns on that team could add to his vast personal fortune. His bid might be cursed. But he probably doesnt care.[/i]