Ownners of baseball teams
2004.10.21 2:12

if in ur country there is no professional baseball team,( actually in many countries ) here i tell u who owns a team. usually those whose companies regarded as most influencial in that days have been owned. some twenty years ago, they were railway companies, and it had been lasted till very recently, giants...owned by media giant both in newspaper and tv, lions... owned by railway company also runs department stores, dragons.. regional newspaper media, tigers... railway company, carp...from automobile company to citizen, swallows...from railway company to yoghurt company. hawks...from railway company to supermarket. buffaloes...from railway company to lease company. mariners... confectionary company. fighters... ham and sausage company. blue wave... from railway company to lease company. so i could generally say that four railway companies let go of their baseball teams already. owners of professional baseball teams are a fair reflection of companies which have got very excellent balance sheets at the time they hold teams. and whether which team wins the race, economic trend of the year completely changes. do u realise how deep baseball teams and games have very deep roots on japans society? actually i am not interested in baseball games, but interested in economic trend baseball games bring about. by the way dont u think sports is an advanced form of war? to work is a battle action in times of peace...
Followings are the comments I posted
#Gospel
I don't see any mention either. Probably here he means Gospel Song inspired from the description of the Book of Luke.
#Right
Who bestowed these "rights"? is a correct expression. I guess in 13c, people including peasants are dimly aware of their rights which might be inherent at least at that time. It might be justifiable to be called minimum least necessities to survive at best. From 13c to 17c, the rights of people had been depleted badly, in the middle of the 17c, extreme concentration of all wealth and power to the King could be seen, which means almost all rights were taken away from the people. It was not until the Bill of Rights(1689) was passed that the rights of noble people started being recognised. So those rights were bestowed by Supreme Authority - King. But completely different point of view, those rights were acquired by the hands of people, or rather, won from the King. Inherent notion of rights were already gone long long ago. Rights are there Unless you claim them, the rights are nowhere.
Basic problems which lie between us is you believe in your society inherent rights are something taken for granted while in my society rights must be proclaimed not inherent. ..there's no substancial differences between any society on notion of rights. For example, foundamental human rights are thought to be inherent, though property rights are often nullified unless it were claimed. Americanisation already proceeded to every nook and cranny, its degree is I guess than you imagined. We share the similar notion of rights which just depends on how to take it according to individuals.
You mean, it allows you to use money as a weapon against your neighbors, friends, and relatives.
What Mike Hawk mentioned does not imply so. Money as well as weapons can be used to protect those who behind them and intimedate those who before them. Both being used properly, they themselves never be either good or evil. What he was stating was plainly how economics works, not a matter of morality here.
what I'm saying is, by distinguishing between the two, you automatically divorce your economic decisions from your morality- at best making you a hypocrite, at worst -MH42
Almost all countries, economic systems are so closely connected to their political system, hardly any countries we ever saw during the Cold War that excercised market economy in communist regimes. There's an exception -today's China. Basically what you are claiming is correct, but it is not worthless for us to bear it in our mind that political system does not necessarily reflect particular economic model, sometimes when money matters first, there's no slogan before it.
#Beyond Profit and Loss
The reason why is simple- Good and evil cannot be reduced to a simple profit-loss statment. -MH42
True enough - for those who have got a strong moral value, and I hope I would like to be the kind of person you just stated, but the reality is I am spending money as stingy as possible. I work hard in order to get just above sustainable level of ordinary life. I save money as much as possible, I don't give away money for anyone... As long as people follow economic principle similar to mine as you said- simple profit-loss statement, it is what Marx said - their economy determines everything prior to them.
Certainly your idea is not in the least that of Marx.
#Writings of Marx
It was already more than twenty years ago ...when I was twenty-two or somewhat, -I had been concentrating on reading his works every day and night. It took over a year to complete reading his works including 'The German Ideology', The Poverty of Philosophy', 'The Class Struggle in France', 'The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte', 'The Civil War in France', 'Critique of the Gotha Programme' I read all his philosophical works and historical analysis which were very interesting and worth while but an only work I failed to read was his magnum opus 'Capital', not because of its size, as a matter of fact I read tens of thousands of works other than Marx, it was not the size that deterred me from reading. I was unable to find it interesting after I read about 100 pages of the first volume. Of course it hurt, still has been hurt my pride, when it comes to philosophy, I show second to none comprehension, but as for economics, I am not cut out for it - works not only of Marx but also other than Marx such as Adam Smith, Ricaldo, Keynes and what not... honestly speaking I didn't read any economics works.
Yes and no- Marx overcompensated for the lack of morality with an utter lack of morality in the other direction. His primary solution for people making the wrong decision was to give them no decisions at all.
I spent considerable amount of time and energy in reading and try to understand his excellent works just I mentioned above and I am willing to dedicate my time again to refer to his works again. Let me say two things. First, define Marx and Engeles, it's important. If you read Manifesto you can easily deduce such conclusions above you mentioned, but it is not what he -Marx meant. Second thing, there is a difference in Marxism and communism, great difference. If you read his 6 works above I mentioned, it would be nealy hard for you to arrive at what you pointed out above.
I am fully ready to accept your challenge, waitng...
#A shared morality
- right now I'm tasting a real meaning of this word. Anyway what is important is not what books we read or not. Innevitably our realm of interest was different, so it doesn't matter. What is much more important is what we acquired from our previous reading. It is easy to write something as we think without knowledge endorsed from our previous reading, on the other hand, it is hard to write something valuable with wisdom deduced from our previous reading. In this case we have to be fully responsible for what we wrote. We have to write always pondering about whether what we are referring to is verifiable from generally accepted knowledge.
It's only with a shared morality that we can "reach the top of Mt. Fuji"
Insightful combination of two phrases. In Western country, this might be' All roads lead to Rome', or 'Both white cats and black cats are good as long as they caught mice - Den Chao Ping'. Ends is always prior to means.