It's the investment opportunity of a lifetime

Doesn't the owner of the hockey team "invest" in the local economy if they set up in the government funded sports stadium so that the sports fans can watch the hockey players live?

Of course he does. The problem is that his profit and loss calculations are wrong because a portion of his expenses are being covered by unwilling others.

I have always thought that a good public health care system would cover prostitutes and gin.

?

Of course he does.

Sexist.

You say, "is meaningless." – true, but only from the confines of your axiomatic assumptions.

I say, this decapitation of local ownership has very real consequences in the real/physical economy of a given location. The financial health of the local business owner is of great importance to a community, because the profit tends to be spent locally. Big difference from HD's profits being spent on the Atlanta Falcons.

Ah, but that isn't what is happening, is it? No, the big boxes come in, get massively preferential subsidies in terms of public roads and land, mostly, and then undercut current local businesses by reducing the profit margin. You can live with lower profit margins if you have an extensive (government subsidized) network, because there are only a very few in the ownership position of said networks (think big boxes).
So, the market, before big boxes sold widgets at $1.00 and the big boxes sell at $0.85. The house hold consumer thinks he is getting a better deal, but, in reality, his local economy is being looted. That $0.15 seems insignificant, but when 15 cents of every dollar of $10 million and much more is removed from local exchange, this has a very real effect. Also factor in the increase in local taxes… hey, there is the $0.15!!!!!! It is a slight of hand opperation. The local businesses are undercut, the local taxes go up to pay for big box road exchanges, so there is no net savings.

You can't just look at one business's balance sheet when attempting to sort this out.

Sleight, right, thanks for that.

When you go to the till at the big box, you will indeed pay $0.85 as opposed to $1.00, but it still costs you $1.00 either way. The BB retailers have moved an expense from their books to the public's books, and to cover that the municipality increases your property taxes by $0.15 per dollar transaction. You, personally, do not come out any farther ahead, the local economy is looted of profit that will be spent elsewhere, there are fewer business owners, and distribution is in the hands of organizations that are now, to big to fail.

Not a sensible arrangement.

Ah, but if you rent, the extra property tax will get passed on from your landlord, unless the government isn't distorting still further with rent controls.

Rental prices are not cost-plus. They sure as heck better not be cost-minus!

why was he not charging y to begin with (being a profit maximising capitalist)? He or she. And if the cost is property taxes, the cost goes up for all landlords in the area. He or she may have not been charging more before because of the rents for similar competing properties nearby.

I do not think that businesses can pass all cost increases on to the customer. It's a combination of minimizing costs in all (other) areas and passing on costs while keeping an eye on the competition.

I do not own property in terms of land, building, etc. (ie. real-estate).

You can't have a medium-of-exchange based economy without expenses, so there isn't any theft going on. Looting, yes, which is related to theft like birds and airliners in that are both said to fly. Additionally, if you are finding a shortage in your pocket book, it has very little to do with the profit taken by the local business. You will never get to the root of why you are experiencing a shortfall if you attempt to conceptualize the problem strickly in terms of cost compairison of A vs. B. Shopping for the cheapest price is a reguard action of someone already on track for bankruptcy. The extensive recent history of lobbying, on the part of physical goods producing businesses for policies favourable to offshoring production are of a similar species to your shopping for the cheapest price. In both instances, the causative detrimental factor remains unrecognized.

The path to Prosperity!

It need not follow that in compairing prices, the only alternative action to shopping for the cheapest price is to shop for the highest price. You also have the option of the best price, a value judgement that involves consideration of more than the mathematical results of a given transaction. A best price transaction involves a thorough-going consideration of of a very great number of factors in a given transaction. This would be an extremely cumbersome undertaking if we did not make good use of the vehicle of government policy and regulation to undergird the system in favour of the common good. To the extent that the common good is not a design value in government policy the door is open for looting operations to flourish.

I think I just split my gut laughing. Good one.

I think you're going to need a better definition of "looting" than, "related to theft like birds and airliners in that are both said to fly."

Because an exchange is the opposite of theft.

You look at all the money moving out of the community and call it a loss. All the while, neglecting the goods that are moving in to the community, ie. the gain (the other side of the exchange).

This thread was started because myl was indignant at the proposed bald face government subsidization of the a new arena in QC. I said where is your ire at all of the more subtle forms of subisidy that already surround you. The focus of the conversation has been on how this is a loss to local and national economies. The unstated theme of my posts has been how this process (cause you don't live in a head office) is progressively creaming the gain, often represented as profit, from communities.

Input of value derives from an ever increasing recognition of the physical nature of the universe we live in X the depth of application of human ingenuity = increased capacity to sustain and support life.
Looting of value derives from axiomatic manipulation of mathematical sums X degree of degraded conception of human existance = decreased capacity to sustain and support life.

So, if I am to understand you correctly, our current economic malaise could be remedied by us all paying more for our goods?

You lost me there, myl.

So you are saying that dairy prices are being propped-up?

There are lots of people, industries, businesses that have their prices propped-up in Canada. Are you telling me that the Dairy Farmers of Canada are particularly egregious? I don't doubt it, I just don't know much about it.

"[Supply Chain Management] protects the Canadian dairy sector from world market fluctuations."

What happens when cheaper foreign milk wants to come to Canada?

It's a contentious issue with EU trade negotiations.

No, you are not understanding me correctly. Our current economic malaise stems from failing to take into account the full cost of delivering goods and services because a significant cost, the creation of units of exchange (money) by private means is not a line item in the calculation of costs. The systemic flaw is that money is created to loan, but money to pay back the interest portion of a loan is not simultaniously created. In fact, it is never created, therefore, looting operations arrise in an attempt to do the impossible: pay off all of the debt in the system when there is insufficient money to do so.

That $0.15 seems insignificant, but when 15 cents of every dollar of $10 million and much more is removed from local exchange, this has a very real effect.

I get the extra-tax-cost argument just fine, but this line doesn't wash. How do you figure the cheaper-transaction's permitting the local resident to retain those 15 cents (multiplied over and over) is a "looting" of the local economy? You miss the point that it remains in play in the local exchange for something else.