A One Percenter Who Gets It

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It looks like the city receives $38,681 a year from the park.

The economics of Oriole Park

Eighteen years after Oriole Park at Camden Yards opened in Baltimore to universal praise — and seasons of sold-out games — baseball fans continue to visit the brick-and-steel park that is often credited with rejuvenating ballpark design.

So is it a success? That depends on who’s defining success.

Former state Sen. Julian L. “Jack” Lapides, a Baltimore Democrat, is one of the Marylanders who from the start opposed using taxpayers’ money to build the stadium. He calls the deal with the Orioles “lousy.”

But Herb Belgrad, who was chairman of the Maryland Stadium Authority when the stadium was built, notes that its purpose was never to create revenue for the state.

“This was not a fiscal project,” Belgrad said. “It was to benefit the citizens.”

a reply to: greencmp

So, when you add up:

- increased property valuations in the surrounding area, and the property taxes that flow from that
- the increased sales taxes in the area from not only direct sales in the ball park, but also from restaurants and shops in the area
- not sure if there are any beverage taxes in Maryland, but suspect that there likely are. Good lord, the amount of beverage that flows in and around the park, because the park is there
- how many folks driving in for events at the park stay in a hotel? If i go see the Cowboys in Dallas i stay in a hotel in Uptown Dallas somewhere close by. I presume the same happens in Baltimore. Does the city and state not collect lodging/hotel occupancy taxes? I would be that if you check the gameday calendar during football season against hotel room rates on kayak, you will see that the local hotels are invoking "blackout rates" for dates around home baseball games. If not...that is very unusual

all of that only comes down to $38k a year in tax revenue? If so...then the problem isn't the ball park, its the taxing policies.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Essentially you seem to be saying that increased property value equals increased tax revenue and that that is desirable. I disagree, I do not believe that increased taxes and tax revenue is desirable.

Most people have limited resources so an increase in their property taxes can be catastrophic. Indeed, in order to survive the tax increase, property owners would necessarily be forced to sell or raise their rents which is certainly not desirable by anybody's measurement except the municipality's bureaucracy.

The only beneficiaries of the park seem to be businesses of considerable size.

The only potential argument left appears to be that Camden Yards was so bad before that this is better.

I'm more than a little disappointed that this thread has become more about the benefits and legitimacy of publicly financed sports stadium (it's a legitimate discussion, but not the intent of this thread) rather than the Truth of the quote in the OP.

Rather than debate whether the statement quoted has merit, members have deflected to a perceived hypocrisy by the person making the statement. That's fair enough to mention but has no bearing on whether the statement has merit or not. I find multiple hypocrysies in the guy that stares back at me in the mirror. Despite how many libertarian leanings I have, this demand for ideological purity on all issues from hardcore libertarians is what keeps me from identifying as one or for voting for one as anything other than a protest vote against the two headed beast of American politics.

In short what I'd like this thread to be about is the statement in the OP. Have the actions of American business and political elite (from both parties) over the past 40 years led to the disenfranchisement and impoverishment of a large segment of the US population; and has that led to a more militarized police and survaillance state that has diminished the Constitutional rights of all? Have the actions of these elites that have caused a lack of opportunity for large segments of society to earn a living and better themselves?

a reply to: jefwane

Right so, nuff said in the weeds of the specifics anyway.

Though, it is all relevant to the subject matter.

a reply to: greencmp

In an economy that is entirely based on a trickle down theory...that is the best you can get: that businesses recieve the major boon. It is no accident that they also recieve the biggest increase in property value and taxation as well, as areas around stadiums tend to be zoned commercial.


a reply to: jefwane

Indeed it has.

Just above this, in my reply, i am talking about the trickle down theory that our economy runs on. And the obvious failures that has left.

On the very face of it, its wrong. To use an analogy...in trickle down, this is our nation all stacked up neatly based on socioeconomic status:



The top row gets fed some nice, high quality corn. But only the top row is being fed. All those rows beneath...they just have to eat what trickles down. You can imagine that the occasional piece of corn may trickle down a couple of rows...but most of what is trickling down is decidedly not food.

That is our economy. You either make it to that top row, or you eat the manure of your overlords.

a reply to: jefwane

American business's first duty is to profit. I think it's fair to say that the current economy is creating nothing but debt. A small percentage profits off that debt, shields their income from taxation and shops around for labor at lowest possible cost. There's a huge working poor class. The concern shouldn't be over the small percentage in public programs, they're barely kept alive. Social security pays out $400-$800 per month, ballpark average. How can anyone be expected to stay afloat on that.

Then, even further, the debt accrued by lower income folks is at gouging interest rates, paycheck loans, the like. People choosing between medical procedures and feeding themselves.... It's pretty absurd.

Then you have those who work their butts off to have next to nothing, and many end up living in terrible neighborhoods, which just adds to the stress. Then, society in general, has little to no respect for them, expecting them to rise up somehow when there's no footholds available. Why do folks turn to crime then? I'm assuming it's for survival. Working hard isn't enough anymore. Working hard can basically get you to survive, but with the constant stress of never having enough. Folks born into those situations rarely have much choice or ability to get out of them. Is profit motivated economy oppressive by nature? Perhaps. But it'd require a lot of compassion to solve.

I'm monetarily conservative but I still can't deny that people are living lives that by nature don't allow for the pursuit of happiness, and most of it is debt slavery. Paying to live, paying to go to school, paying to die. The cost of living takes most of the time some have to live.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: greencmp

In an economy that is entirely based on a trickle down theory...that is the best you can get: that businesses recieve the major boon. It is no accident that they also recieve the biggest increase in property value and taxation as well, as areas around stadiums tend to be zoned commercial.


a reply to: jefwane

Indeed it has.

Just above this, in my reply, i am talking about the trickle down theory that our economy runs on. And the obvious failures that has left.

On the very face of it, its wrong. To use an analogy...in trickle down, this is our nation all stacked up neatly based on socioeconomic status:

The top row gets fed some nice, high quality corn. But only the top row is being fed. All those rows beneath...they just have to eat what trickles down. You can imagine that the occasional piece of corn may trickle down a couple of rows...but most of what is trickling down is decidedly not food.

That is our economy. You either make it to that top row, or you eat the manure of your overlords.

I am always surprised by how readily capitalism and free markets receive the blame for the failings of interventionist economic policy. It is a complicated subject but, can be summed up by saying that leaving people alone is the best course of action.

We do not enjoy a "trickle down" economy, we have a severely regulated, redistributive, interventionist monstrosity. You cannot point to our economy as an example of the free market.

Has anyone noticed that the new buzzword from the haters of capital seems to be "human capital"?

Would you rather have money be the currency traded between parties or political favors and slaves?

originally posted by: jefwane

debate whether the statement quoted has merit

Yes it does but, it is also utterly vague and misleading.

I find multiple hypocrysies in the guy that stares back at me in the mirror. Despite how many libertarian leanings I have, this demand for ideological purity on all issues from hardcore libertarians is what keeps me from identifying as one.

I know how you feel, I am barely libertarian enough to refer to myself as such. Nobody could or should be guided by a principal that is not necessarily believed nor fully understood.

In short what I'd like this thread to be about is the statement in the OP. Have the actions of American business and political elite (from both parties) over the past 40 years led to the disenfranchisement and impoverishment of a large segment of the US population.

Yes and he is one of them.

The disenfranchisement and impoverishment of a large segment of the US population has led to a more militarized police and surveillance state that has diminished the Constitutional rights of all?

No, it has been the overzealous national/state/municipality security concerns which have driven the militarization, not economics.

Have the actions of these elites that have caused a lack of opportunity for large segments of society to earn a living and better themselves?

Yes, by heavily taxing productive citizens, state officials both enrich themselves and their friends as well as dramatically reduce opportunity.

a reply to: greencmp

Amen greencamp. What a scam. What a con job. Getting the public to pay for these coliseums all around the country so that the rich guys can get richer. ooooo it will bring jobs. oooooooooooo it will enhance civic pride. ooooooooo 'our team' deserves the best. Whatta crock.

a reply to: greencmp

I am a pure capitalist pig. First and foremost, cast aside any presumptions about who you are talking to is....i play devils advocate quite a bit But i am a capitalist pig trying to squeeze every penny from my customers so i can get a nice, fat annual performance bonus and the raise that goes with it. 100%, pure, USDA Prime Capitalist Pig...thats me.

I think there are other assumptions that are incorrect also, but ill leave it at that.

RE: our economy....yes, it is highly regulated. And it is a trickle down economy. The economy is spurred by making money available to the top 1%, in the hopes that they will spend it on investment. That is the "conventional wisdom". And rarely is it deviated from.

And to be honest, it makes sense from a cost/benefit standpoint on the surface.

The only common point of reinjection of funds back into the economy through the lower 99% is via tax credits, and even then they are leveraged by the upper 1%, in a more lucrative way.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: greencmp

I am a pure capitalist pig. First and foremost, cast aside any presumptions about who you are talking to is....i play devils advocate quite a bit But i am a capitalist pig trying to squeeze every penny from my customers so i can get a nice, fat annual performance bonus and the raise that goes with it. 100%, pure, USDA Prime Capitalist Pig...thats me.

I think there are other assumptions that are incorrect also, but ill leave it at that.

RE: our economy....yes, it is highly regulated. And it is a trickle down economy. The economy is spurred by making money available to the top 1%, in the hopes that they will spend it on investment. That is the "conventional wisdom". And rarely is it deviated from.

And to be honest, it makes sense from a cost/benefit standpoint on the surface.

The only common point of reinjection of funds back into the economy through the lower 99% is via tax credits, and even then they are leveraged by the upper 1%, in a more lucrative way.

I also enjoy a good hypothetical intellectual throw down so it is not my intention to offend or to presume your unspoken beliefs.

What you are describing is what is called "stimulus" (or as I might call it, state counterfeiting) and is the manifestation of Keynesian interventionist economic theory and the intentional and systematic creation of artificial credit by a central bank. The opposite of "free market" capitalism if it can even be called capitalism without a qualifier.

Everything he said was true. You cry about people wanting 15 bucks an hour for flipping a hamburger but let your government take away Monopoly laws. Maybe they could compete running a small business if those laws were still in place. Greed is real. A loaf of bread is like 4 bucks now. I'm sure this # will take care of itself when they shut off welfare. You'll wish it was still there when they come to your home and take what you have. Is it right? Probably not but please use macro thinking and prepare for it.

He's just humoring the 99%. Words are cheap, in fact they're free. Actions are the only thing that matter, keep your eye on them. You won't see any from him.

There will never, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER be a level global economic, social, or religious ground for the aspiring good hearted people of this world to walk on. Why anyone would realistically consider that a reachable goal is beyond me. There will always be a one percent. There will always be the perception of the one perception even if financial means were not of consequence. Geography alone =from the beginning of time, creates one percenters. Social turmoil has and will always be about survival. We truly are facing the ultimate "global world" society with its ugliest face. Where would you want to live today? In a desert with oil as the only asset or in land that can sustain itself in a "global" economy sustained by the human need to survive? The only ones that will survive this primal need to exist are the people around the world that don't live their real lives in the day to day madness.

A 'one percenter who gets it' is an oxymoron. One cannot be of the '1%' and yet get it, by very definition. How can they 'get it' while being carted around in their limos as people huddle around burning rubbish in drums on the back alleys of the street they're driving?

Sounds like a warm up for something. Politics or a run at some office. You don't make statements like that when you have that kind of doe, unless you have something to gain. The only thing to gain in statements against the PTB is popularity among the classes that suffer the most because of them. There is an angle there. That much I am sure.