progressiveman1

That might be part of it. The main part is that some small market areas just can't support a MLB team(i.e. generate enough revenue) and the larger revenue clubs can outbid them on most players. What do you mean "die"? It can be estimated beforehand how much revenue a team will generate based on population, income of the people, and common sense.

Actually you would end up with around 22(there's 30 now). I'm basing this on team payrolls each year and how often they make the postseason. If you look, you'll see that the top 2/3 teams on the payroll list, division winners are usually spread out almost evenly. The teams in the bottom 1/3 are flooded with crappy teams and they rarely make it to the postseason(except Oakland and Twins). What proof do you have that the NFL has better parity than MLB?

I assume he means that the best teams would draw more attendance and better tv ratings when playing against tougher competition, as opposed to playing a crappy team. It's similar to when the Yankees play at a crappy teams ballpark- attendance rises dramatically.

Specifically, it's to help the bottom 1/3 or so teams of the payroll list. And if you look at the results of those teams since the revenue sharing system began in MLB in 1997, you'll see that almost none of them made it to the postseason(exceptions being Oakland A's and Minnesota Twins, who had no problem competing even before the R.S. system). Right after the R.S. system was created in 1997, the Yankees made it to the World Series 6 of 8 years. There are streaks like this that can't and shouldn't be avoided because it's due to great scouting, great management, dedication from the owner, etc., and plenty of teams that haven't had the highest payrolls get streaks like this too. With a R.S. system in place, I don't think it would generate enough revenue to compensate the owners who have to pay for it. The owners who pay for R.S. must end up losing a lot of money from it. A better solution to competitive imbalance is to eliminate a select few teams who generate little revenue and are consistently losing. I'm not sure if those teams are making a profit though. So if anything needs to be done, taking away some of the small market teams should be considered.

Dark Water, Based on your comments, I would say you are against revenue sharing in MLB? Is this true? What about a payroll cap?

Yeah, but I don't think there's much benefit to the higher revenue teams to give their money to the less valuable teams. First, they would have to give away millions of dollars from their profits which otherwise could have been spent on improving their own team. Also, assuming a revenue sharing system worked like its intended purpose, they would have more competitors in reach of beating them in their division race or in the playoffs, and teams collect money when they win in the playoffs. Maybe one benefit from enriching the less valuable teams could be attracting a few more fans to games, and that could generate a little more revenue for higher revenue team's home games(which they would only collect a portion of though). I'm not sure if that would outweigh the losses. There's definitely a strong correlation between the two. As I said earlier, having a small payroll doesn't necessarily mean you're doomed for failure, but the chances of winning seem to increase as you spend more money. The bottom third on the team payroll list are usually the teams with the worst records in the league, with exceptions such as Oakland and Minnesota. Of course there are exceptions on both ends of the list, like with the NY Mets earlier in this decade when they had one of the highest payrolls each year but consistently finished at or near the bottom of their division. They are one of the best teams now with one of the highest payrolls still, but it goes to show that it takes more than money to win because you still need to know how to spend it.

Since I just started studying this topic a couple of days ago, I should have mentioned that I'm not reluctant to change my viewpoint on the issue, and in fact have come to a different conclusion already. I'll probably end up adding on to this later, due to popular demand in this forum. At first glance, revenue sharing seems like a logical solution to competitive imbalance in baseball. The small market teams have a much tougher time generating revenues and inevitably spend a smaller amount on their team, not being able to afford or attract higher salary players. The problem is bigger market clubs can generate more revenues, right? Right. The solution is stealing their money to allow small market clubs to compete, right? Wrong. This is an incorrect solution because it is assuming that any owner who chooses to create a team in MLB is entitled to success. The mistake that is being made, however, is assigning the fault on the wrong party. It is each owner's own fault for not being more successful, whether it's for his choice to create a team in a small market area, for hiring the wrong people, not spending enough, etc. He is allowed to make these choices, but he should not be rewarded for failure. If an owner decides to create a team in a small market area, he should accept the risks involved. Of those risks, generating less revenue than other teams is a major risk. If the owner doesn't think he will be able to make a profit or compete in the league given these circumstances, then he should choose not to create a team. And although there are more risks to be taken for a small market owner, that doesn't mean he is doomed for failure. For example, the Oakland Athletics and Minnesota Twins are small market clubs, and yet they usually finish at or near the top of their divisions. This is due to good management and spending their money wisely, even if it is significantly less than some teams. With all that said, I think it's clear that my viewpoint is against revenue sharing in MLB. I never discussed if I thought a revenue sharing system could possibly create its desired result of a consistent balance of competition throughout the league because I find it unimportant and unnecessary to write here. I've explained why even a "successful" revenue sharing system shouldn't be implemented, and I hope MLB eliminates their current revenue sharing system all together.

Revenue-sharing distributes a percentage of revenues from the teams that make the most and transfers that money to the teams that make the least. The reasoning for this program is to eliminate competitive imbalance and shrink the spending gap between the rich and poor teams. Since a lot of a teams' revenues are based solely on location there seems to be some justification for revenue-sharing, but only if it spreads the wealth in a proper way. In order for MLB to see the desired goals, the R.S. program needs to encourage(if not make it mandatory) spending from low revenue clubs that comes out of their own pockets if they wish to receive any handouts. With the current system in MLB, a few owners of the poor teams are taking advantage of the handouts in a bad way. Their team payrolls are not increasing despite taking in huge profits, meaning they see no incentive in trying to improve their on-field performance because they know the worse they are, the more money they receive. Sadly, their lack of success and determination is what's making them richer. This does not mean I disapprove of a revenue-sharing program in MLB, only that I'm suggesting a modification of the current one. A hypothetical idea that I came up with recently requires a low revenue club to spend over a certain threshold relating to their own revenue, and past the threshold they will receive a degree of money from the R.S. system. The higher they spend over the threshold, the more money they receive. The poor teams should be able to afford doing so because they can actually end up buying players at a large discount, in relation to how much money came out of their own pockets. With this R.S. program, it ensures that the owners are improving their team before and while they are receiving handouts.

Since there are no replies, I will take that to mean there are no disagreements with anything that I said.

First, I should establish that I think a union in Major League Baseball is necessary. Unlike most business markets, MLB is pretty much a monopoly, and throughout history prior to the union the owners of the ballclubs have treated the players unfairly just because they knew the players had nowhere else to go to make money with baseball. It wasn't until the MLBPA formed in 1966 that eliminated certain unfair rules and treatment such as the reserve clause, collusion, and lack of benefits(no payment for medical bills or for pension). Now that I briefly covered that, and feel free to comment on any of it, that I can now get to my question. In 1996, the MLBPA- baseball union- created an orginization called the Players Trust, which, as stated on the MLBPA's website, "helps support the players' individual charitable activities and augments them with a core group of community outreach programs"... "is funded through contributions from all MLBPA members, a percentage of licensing revenue and special events." What does that program have to do with a union? A union, even acknowledged by the MLBPA, is a collective bargaining agent- essentially, it is to ensure fair treatment from their bosses. The Players Trust seems to contradict the purpose of the union and forces other members, even ones who aren't involved whatsoever with charities, to lose money. It seems to me that the MLBPA is stepping over its boundary on this one.

A short clip of People's Court. Watch the guy in the hat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtTbYKqt46I Here's the closing interview with the mustache guy on People's Court: Might as well throw this one in, Jose Canseco's fielding skills. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MmPFMPl-f4

What problems did it cause you during that time, before reading Peikoff's essay? What's that?

Yeah, that is how most people use the term. However, mostly none of those people believe that a person can gain or justify knowledge automatically without the use of their mind. So they ultimately agree with the same things as the person who thinks a posteriori is the only way for humans to justify knowledge, except for the use of the concept. Why did Peikoff think it was so important to write a 30 page essay on the issue? People misuse terms all the time, why make such a big deal out of this one?

I think you are describing the concept "truth". I am agreeing with the general definition that valid means: "well grounded in logic or truth or having legal force; "a valid inference"; "a valid argument"; "a valid contract"; "a valid license"".

Wouldnt an Objectivist practice the skill to improve interpersonal communication so it doesnt have that weakness?

To learn. He brings up arguments that I dont know the answers to.

He's not my friend. He does not think they are valid or invalid. He thinks validity only applies to thought, such as arguments. I dont agree with him.

Can you explain that more in-depth? Why does Kant think there is a noumenal world?

Senses can be sources of knowledge to justify validity, but reality dictates what is valid itself.

Right. Kant regards the latter to be less moral because he isnt acting on duty to universal laws, but instead acted on his inclination. I assume he thought people couldnt think clearly if they had any emotional attachment to a choice.

Shouldnt the standard of validity be reality? Reality is what determines validity and our mind is what justifies validity.

(cont. from last paragraph above) That would stalemate business progress, but since Kant doesnt specify(from what I've seen) who the beneficiary should be or what consequences amount from using his formulation, then his philosophy(at best) is incomplete, in terms of why make decisions based on his formulation.

I want to get the basics down first. Kant considered a "universal law" to be an act that every person would be able to do. His examples: "in situations in which I am thirsty and there is water available, I will drink it," or "in situations in which I need money and know I can't pay it back, I will falsely promise to pay it back." The first example could be a universal law because its harmless, but the second example could not be a universal law because the institution of promising would disappear, and eventually no promises would be made. Why is his formulation on "universal laws" a negative thing? It seems like his intent was for everyone to benefit. However, it doesnt quite make sense to me when figuring more personal actions, like what career you would pursue. How could being a lawyer, doctor, or any job be a universal law? It wouldnt be possible for everyone to have the same job since supply would by far outweigh demand. However, it would make more sense that nobody having a job would be a universal law.

Okay, I see why concepts can be considered valid or invalid. I dont think senses should be considered valid or invalid. The senses can be used to justify what is valid, but the senses themselves shouldnt be valid or invalid. And do you think validity only applies to thought and arguments, or can it be applied to other things as well?

So you're saying no knowledge is independent of experience because you need experience with lesser abstractions in order to justify more complex abstractions?