3 ms·

> It’s whether they’re willing to take action that would destroy the companies’ $2.5 billion combined value owned by important investors (and campaign donors) l

> It’s whether they’re willing to take action that would destroy the companies’ $2.5 billion combined value owned by important investors (and campaign donors) like KKR, Comcast, NBC, Major League Baseball and several Silicon Valley VCs. On one hand I want to agree, on the other hand I'd like to see some justification for this statement. $2.5 billion doesn't seem like a really big industry, sure, it's a lot for two companies to be dominating in, but nothing compared to even the smallest durable goods market. It seems like a really small fish that the government wants to protect, rather than some giant that can't be touched. What it reminds me of is Hollywood. I read somewhere that the market cap of the entire movie business is handily outstripped by Disney's toy arm, or something like that, and what gives them outsized influence on policy-making is the symbiotic relationship that so much of our capitalism has with our content industries. Football is like that. Yes, there's a lot of money in advertising and ticket sales and the actual business of football. But the rest of the economic effects that football generates is just huge. The govt is loathe to do anything to endanger football's ability to make money because of all that. It's not that they can't, they just don't want to.

Silhouette 11y ago
That seems like a compelling argument for restricting corporate political donations. If the politicians want to block something that their voters don't want to see blocked, that's the politicians' problem and they can pay for it at the next election. But if they aren't blocking something they should be because of the business connections involved, that's corruption pure and simple. As for the businesses collectively investing a few billion in a new industry, that's why the value of your investment can do down as well as up and why you're supposed to do your homework before you put your money into a new venture. It doesn't always work out, and if you backed a controversial scheme and that was one of those times, that was the risk you took.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  > But if they aren't blocking something they should be because of the business connections involved, that's corruption pure and simple. Well, first off, corruption involves people and not industries. I highly doubt that the two firms dominating the industry are themselves politically connected. Government officials protecting an industry is categorically not corruption, protecting individual firms and giving them a leg up over other firms in the same industry categorically is. Propping up an industry is called subsidization and it's part and parcel of how modern governments manage the economy. Second, whether they should be blocking it or not is not a settled question. Gambling is weird, it can't really be called good or bad, like any vice, in moderation it's fine for people. And it's arguable whether fantasy football is actually gambling. Also we lost the ability to regulate real gambling when the big online poker companies fled the country and set up shop overseas. Seems like there would be nothing keeping this niche from doing that either.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    My point was that if you have public officials making decisions about whether or not to enforce regulations that would potentially cost businesses money because the investors are campaign contributors, as not-so-subtly implied by the quotation from your previous post, then that is clearly corrupt. Those officials should be responsible to the people they represent, not to whichever big businesses give them the most money at election time. I'm not offering any opinion on whether the government in any particular place should take steps to protect any particular industry here.

Silhouette 11y ago

That seems like a compelling argument for restricting corporate political donations. If the politicians want to block something that their voters don't want to see blocked, that's the politicians' problem and they can pay for it at the next election. But if they aren't blocking something they should be because of the business connections involved, that's corruption pure and simple. As for the businesses collectively investing a few billion in a new industry, that's why the value of your investment can do down as well as up and why you're supposed to do your homework before you put your money into a new venture. It doesn't always work out, and if you backed a controversial scheme and that was one of those times, that was the risk you took.

vinceguidry 11y ago
> But if they aren't blocking something they should be because of the business connections involved, that's corruption pure and simple. Well, first off, corruption involves people and not industries. I highly doubt that the two firms dominating the industry are themselves politically connected. Government officials protecting an industry is categorically not corruption, protecting individual firms and giving them a leg up over other firms in the same industry categorically is. Propping up an industry is called subsidization and it's part and parcel of how modern governments manage the economy. Second, whether they should be blocking it or not is not a settled question. Gambling is weird, it can't really be called good or bad, like any vice, in moderation it's fine for people. And it's arguable whether fantasy football is actually gambling. Also we lost the ability to regulate real gambling when the big online poker companies fled the country and set up shop overseas. Seems like there would be nothing keeping this niche from doing that either.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  My point was that if you have public officials making decisions about whether or not to enforce regulations that would potentially cost businesses money because the investors are campaign contributors, as not-so-subtly implied by the quotation from your previous post, then that is clearly corrupt. Those officials should be responsible to the people they represent, not to whichever big businesses give them the most money at election time. I'm not offering any opinion on whether the government in any particular place should take steps to protect any particular industry here.