$640.00 to fill the tanks...

The fact that this hotel was built entirely with taxpayer's money, by
the City of Coralville, might surprise you.

You know, after reading your post an hour or so ago, I have gotten more and
more ****ed-off. Since when does a government have the right to tinker in
direct competition with the private sector?

If you really want to read more about this seemingly impossible
competitive scenario, read this, from our local newspaper:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y1EA1249D

I don't understand it. My kids don't understand it. No one I talks to
understands it. Yet, it's happened. And a fair number of small motels
are in grave danger because of it -- including ours.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

If you really want to read more about this seemingly impossible
competitive scenario, read this, from our local newspaper:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y1EA1249D

I don't understand it. My kids don't understand it. No one I talks to
understands it. Yet, it's happened. And a fair number of small motels
are in grave danger because of it -- including ours.

How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.

It's city-owned. This means it's paid for with taxpayer money, and
profits go back to the taxpayer (in the form of lower taxes). Every
citizen is a shareholder of this business. (Skip for a moment the
question of whether they are willing shareholders). Other than the fact
that it's owner is a municipality, this is a business just like any
other business. It is competition just like any other competition. If
you wanted, you could put together fifty million and compete with them.
That is capitalism.

It may appear that the fact that it's city owned would give it an unfair
advantage, inasmuch as the city is also the legislative body entrusted
with making laws, and they could make laws favorable to their own
business, and put other businesses at an unfair disadvantage. But what
is unfair about that? Big (independently owned) businesses do this all
the time - it's called lobbying and buying votes. I don't think for a
minute that WalMart isn't close and tidy with the municipalities in
which it plants itself, getting tax breaks that smaller businesses could
only dream of. They can do this because they are big, and the
municipaliaites want the added commerce that such a big business will
bring (and the added taxes on those other businesses that the added
commerce would bring) Yes, it's an illusion, but it's one that
taxpayers buy into.

I'm sure there is a sense that city-owned is "too close" but lobbying is
"okay capitalism" but I don't really see it that way. I see it as
simply a matter of size, and what 600 pounds buys a gorilla.
Unrestrained capitalism does this. They get the keys to their own cage.
Your city owned hotel just does this more blatantly.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...

How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.



It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
means of production.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the giant
that it is today.

It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
means of production.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the giant
that it is today.

But now that WalMart is big, it goes public, and the people once again
own the means of production (only this time it's a limited set of
people). And, when it gets big enough, it purchases influence in the
government.

Ultimately, if enough influence is purchased, we end up in the same
place, effectively, as what you call communism.

Also, I would say that another useful definition of communism is that
the people own the =only= means of production. This is where it gets
bad. Otherwise, it is just in competition with everything else.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
means of production.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the
giant that it is today.

But now that WalMart is big, it goes public, and the people once again own
the means of production (only this time it's a limited set of people).
And, when it gets big enough, it purchases influence in the government.

Ultimately, if enough influence is purchased, we end up in the same place,
effectively, as what you call communism.

Also, I would say that another useful definition of communism is that the
people own the =only= means of production. This is where it gets bad.
Otherwise, it is just in competition with everything else.



So business are OK unless they are successful? That's a nice thought.

So business are OK unless they are successful? That's a nice thought.

I'm not saying anything is OK or not OK. I'm saying that a business
that is too successful (gets too big) becomes relatively more powerful
than its customers. This has upsides and downsides. Sometimes, the
public benefits by some restraint on the larger companies. Sometimes not.

But "unrestrained capitalsim" is not the unmitigated good that the OP
implied.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
means of production.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the
giant that it is today.

But now that WalMart is big, it goes public, and the people once again
own the means of production (only this time it's a limited set of
people). And, when it gets big enough, it purchases influence in the
government.

Ultimately, if enough influence is purchased, we end up in the same
place, effectively, as what you call communism.

Also, I would say that another useful definition of communism is that the
people own the =only= means of production. This is where it gets bad.
Otherwise, it is just in competition with everything else.



So business are OK unless they are successful? That's a nice thought.

It's called envy, the same problem the Arab/Islamic world operates under.

Michelle

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:48:25 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:


"Jose" wrote in message
. com...

How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.



It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
means of production.

Communism is an economic system, not a governmental system.
Theoretically In Communism the wealth is shared equally among the
people. However Communism (read commune ism) has only been able to
sorta work under a totalitarian system.

City owned convention centers are certainly nothing new. OTOH when
they start getting into business such as hotels and stores which are
in direct competition with businesses they may be running afoul of
state and federal laws. It's going to take someone with more
knowledge of the laws than I have to figure that one out.


On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the giant
that it is today.

Which is a prime example of Capitalism. Unfortunately when companies
get too big there are lots of downsides.

They provided what the public wanted and the small stores couldn't.
The public went for cheap and low price, then they complain about the
chains taking over the market.





Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jose wrote:




How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.

You've got to be kidding.

You've got to be kidding.

Nope. Sufficient political influence is functionally equivalent to
ownership.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.