Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

ruggedjackal46 said:Well, it’s going to fail because twelve clubs in a league today just can't generate enough revenue to sustain a professional setup. Not that it's exactly a tragedy—professional soccer isn't exactly a top-tier social priority—but I don't give a damn if we start applying that same logic to healthcare, water, or education. Those things can't exactly pay for themselves either, can they?

But look, we aren't even talking about healthcare, utilities, or schools here... that’s just what you guys bring up whenever we mention companies like ExxonMobil or all those other state-run entities and how much the government meddles in every single corner of the economy, stuff like Walmart, shipyards, and all that nonsense.

Are you seriously not seeing that?

ruggedjackal46 said:Alright, here I go again—this is the tenth time I've asked you this. Why exactly is dismantling statism the answer? I’m not even asking why statism is bad; I’m asking why tearing it down is somehow "good." Every time we use a simple analogy to explain things, you guys just jump in to prove that my pipe is leaking. Fine, great. But then, without offering any actual arguments, you suggest the solution is to just throw the whole pipe away. How on earth does that actually solve anything?

Why is it the solution? Honestly, I can't even give you a straight answer because it's perfectly normal to you (and about 95% of Americans) to expect the government—meaning the politicians—to run everything. It's like trying to explain to a merchant why abolishing slavery is the answer, or telling a serf that ending feudalism is the way to go. I realize I'm just tilting at windmills here. We've ended up just like Greece, and there's no saving us. In this country, things like free markets, the rule of law, individualism, and those other "Western" ideas just don't seem to take root, do they?

ruggedjackal46 said:Well, if we’re going to talk about this hypothetical system, we might as well discuss the hypothetical scenarios too. I'm curious how you all envision the transition to full privatization of American soccer. I'm just looking for your thoughts—it's not a trap, so why the sudden attitude?

Me, getting worked up? 🤣

Man, you're out here theorizing about stuff when there's already actual empirical evidence sitting right in front of us based on decades of real-world experience, so there isn't really anything "hypothetical" about any of this.

Paul Sanders5 said:Look, the government actually has enough cash to fund the stuff that keeps this country running smoothly. They’re sitting on a mountain of money.

Instead of dumping $33 per person—and I'm just making that number up—into the pockets of Amtrak, they should be pouring it into healthcare, schools, the police, or firefighters. Honestly, just give it to whoever makes the country actually function. I’m not out here begging for a tax cut just so I can pocket an extra few bucks; if that money goes toward essential services, fine by me. But spending it on railroads, massive fuel subsidies, or pro athletes? Give me a break. Let them automate the toll booths on the interstate instead of having some guy sitting there collecting pennies all shift, and so on and so forth.

But since we all know they aren't going to fix any of that, they might as well just leave $33 to me. I'll drink it, eat it, smoke it, whatever. It's mine, and I'll do what I want with it.

Listen, my friend, let’s get one thing straight: that isn't your money—it belongs to all of us! 🧐

How on earth is someone like Stipe—who was essentially handed his position by his dad, Luka—supposed to maintain his lifestyle at a bottomless money pit like Amtrak if the government isn't busy lining his pockets? $33How exactly is Stipe’s little boy going to manage? 🙂

brightpilot6 said:Yes, trust. That’s really the crux of it. Social capital in America has been systematically eroded for our generation, and I fear the next one—and the one after that—won't even realize something like this ever existed. You can see the decay everywhere, from voter apathy at the polls to the way we conduct our day-to-day business interactions.

The dismantling of the concept of community in favor of forced individualism is also a fascinating phenomenon, regardless of the reality we live in. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to call it an agenda.

Someone liked this 🐔

brightpilot6 said:I truly cannot fathom how you fail to see that it is. It is, of course, liberalization in its American form.

That is, unless I am fundamentally misinterpreting your definition of liberalization—which I tend to view as shifting everything possible into the realm of private interest, paired with a minimal state and a strengthened individualistic mindset.

What happens when we allow private interests to run rampant in a society that lacks true democratic consciousness, one without robust institutions or enough competing factions to establish any semblance of rules through their own internal friction? Sports, and specifically soccer, provides us with the perfect illustration of that outcome.

Implementing such an idea in America would result in nothing more than the further enrichment of a tiny handful of wealthy individuals and the continued impoverishment of everyone else. Absolutely nothing changes. Politics would maintain its grip, perhaps slightly less through state-owned enterprises and slightly more through regulatory, judicial, and legislative bodies. That same group of people who call themselves the elite would simply continue doing whatever they please, just as they do now.

You seem to be living under the illusion that improvement will descend from the top down, and that it might arrive anytime soon.

In football, just like in the rest of the country, it's all about crony capitalism.
Talking about liberalization while thinking about the system we currently have is a mistake from the very beginning.

Charles Chase4 said:I'm not going to get bogged down in the fine print right now; the core argument is already in bold.

It would fall to someone who actually has to earn that authority through their own merit and market skills, rather than relying on nepotism or handing out a ceremonial turkey to some big shot in a political party who clawed their way to power by campaigning on historical grievances.

Look, we aren't going to magically transform into Japan overnight where this first scenario provides an absolute guarantee, but it feels like a significantly better option to me.

Or, to put it quite simply: when I'm applying for a job at a company, I'd much prefer my employment to be decided by a boss who evaluates whether I'll actually be useful and profitable, rather than some political hack looking to see what color my party registration card is—assuming I even had one, which is usually a prerequisite just to get an interview.

The eternal issue in America is that nobody ever builds massive wealth purely through talent in a fair market. I mean, credit where credit is due to the young Tesla visionary, but let’s be real: his entrepreneurial success wouldn't exist without the massive initial capital provided by an older Tesla figure.

Then there's the bigger question: why do we act like "market skills" are somehow more virtuous than "ballot box skills"? At the end of the day, both involve the same group of people making the calls—the only difference is one group is dropping cash while the other is dropping votes.

ruggedjackal46 said:The eternal issue in America is that nobody ever builds massive wealth purely through talent in a fair market. I mean, credit where credit is due to the young Tesla visionary, but let’s be real: his entrepreneurial success wouldn't exist without the massive initial capital provided by an older Tesla figure.

Then there's the bigger question: why do we act like "market skills" are somehow more virtuous than "ballot box skills"? At the end of the day, both involve the same group of people making the calls—the only difference is one group is dropping cash while the other is dropping votes.

Wtf 🤣

Are you seriously suggesting that voting is just another way of exercising market power? 😲

Paul Sanders5 said:Look, the government actually has enough cash to fund the stuff that keeps this country running smoothly. They’re sitting on a mountain of money.

Instead of dumping $33 per person—and I'm just making that number up—into the pockets of Amtrak, they should be pouring it into healthcare, schools, the police, or firefighters. Honestly, just give it to whoever makes the country actually function. I’m not out here begging for a tax cut just so I can pocket an extra few bucks; if that money goes toward essential services, fine by me. But spending it on railroads, massive fuel subsidies, or pro athletes? Give me a break. Let them automate the toll booths on the interstate instead of having some guy sitting there collecting pennies all shift, and so on and so forth.

But since we all know they aren't going to fix any of that, they might as well just leave $33 to me. I'll drink it, eat it, smoke it, whatever. It's mine, and I'll do what I want with it.

I’m with you on that one. Completely.

restlesssurfer97 said:But look, we aren't even talking about healthcare, utilities, or schools here... that’s just what you guys bring up whenever we mention companies like ExxonMobil or all those other state-run entities and how much the government meddles in every single corner of the economy, stuff like Walmart, shipyards, and all that nonsense.

Are you seriously not seeing that?

So, if we’re actually going to sit here and talk about privatizing everything, let’s be honest and look at the full scope—we’re talking healthcare, water utilities, the entire education system. Or is the plan really just to privatize those specific companies you guys have already decided are corrupt? Is that how this works?

Justin James10 said:Why is it the solution? Honestly, I can't even give you a straight answer because it's perfectly normal to you (and about 95% of Americans) to expect the government—meaning the politicians—to run everything. It's like trying to explain to a merchant why abolishing slavery is the answer, or telling a serf that ending feudalism is the way to go. I realize I'm just tilting at windmills here. We've ended up just like Greece, and there's no saving us. In this country, things like free markets, the rule of law, individualism, and those other "Western" ideas just don't seem to take root, do they?

I can't say I'm exactly shocked that you didn't give me an answer. Honestly, why would I be?

restlesssurfer97 said:Me, getting worked up? 🤣

Man, you're out here theorizing about stuff when there's already actual empirical evidence sitting right in front of us based on decades of real-world experience, so there isn't really anything "hypothetical" about any of this.

Well, if you’re going to be like that, why didn't you just educate me and lay it all out from the start? Is that too much to ask?

restlesssurfer97 said:In football, just like in the rest of the country, it's all about crony capitalism.
Talking about liberalization while thinking about the system we currently have is a mistake from the very beginning.

I think you're missing the point by trying to discuss "liberalization" without accounting for the specific reality of our little corner of the world.

Let's just be honest here—what exactly are we talking about when you use that word, and what does "liberalization" actually mean in your view?

Justin James10 said:Wtf 🤣

Are you seriously suggesting that voting is just another way of exercising market power? 😲

Look, politicians sell themselves through election campaigns just like anyone else. The fact that the biggest winners are usually the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Bridge, or Live Wall—and that the most successful talking points revolve around stuff like historical revisionism, old-school partisans, LGBTQ+ rights, or gender ideology—really tells you everything you need to know about the kind of "market" we’re dealing with here. Why is it that political success is seen as proof that the public is just a mindless herd, yet market success is treated as evidence of some kind of superhuman entrepreneurial genius?

ruggedjackal46 said:I’m with you on that one. Completely.

So, if we’re actually going to sit here and talk about privatizing everything, let’s be honest and look at the full scope—we’re talking healthcare, water utilities, the entire education system. Or is the plan really just to privatize those specific companies you guys have already decided are corrupt? Is that how this works?

I can't say I'm exactly shocked that you didn't give me an answer. Honestly, why would I be?

Well, if you’re going to be like that, why didn't you just educate me and lay it all out from the start? Is that too much to ask?

Man, seriously, ruggedjackal46, what are you even getting at here, like are you trying to tell me that soccer isn't a massive business and that the whole global game basically just survives on government subsidies or something?

And now you're actually expecting me to come up with proof to show you otherwise? You're a real piece of work, 😘

Jacob Morgan said:Someone liked this 🐔

I wouldn't go that far; corporate bureaucracies might actually be a bit too much for her to handle, so she tends to stick to picking fights with enemies that everyone can easily wrap their heads around, wouldn't you agree?

restlesssurfer97 said:Man, seriously, ruggedjackal46, what are you even getting at here, like are you trying to tell me that soccer isn't a massive business and that the whole global game basically just survives on government subsidies or something?

And now you're actually expecting me to come up with proof to show you otherwise? You're a real piece of work, 😘

But we aren't talking about the whole world here; we're talking about the US and American soccer. What does the financial success of Manchester United have to do with the market situation of a local outfit like Inker Zaprešić?

ruggedjackal46 said:I’m with you on that one. Completely.

So, if we’re actually going to sit here and talk about privatizing everything, let’s be honest and look at the full scope—we’re talking healthcare, water utilities, the entire education system. Or is the plan really just to privatize those specific companies you guys have already decided are corrupt? Is that how this works?

I can't say I'm exactly shocked that you didn't give me an answer. Honestly, why would I be?

Well, if you’re going to be like that, why didn't you just educate me and lay it all out from the start? Is that too much to ask?

I honestly feel like we aren't even touching on that reality at all.

ruggedjackal46 said:Look, politicians sell themselves through election campaigns just like anyone else. The fact that the biggest winners are usually the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Bridge, or Live Wall—and that the most successful talking points revolve around stuff like historical revisionism, old-school partisans, LGBTQ+ rights, or gender ideology—really tells you everything you need to know about the kind of "market" we’re dealing with here. Why is it that political success is seen as proof that the public is just a mindless herd, yet market success is treated as evidence of some kind of superhuman entrepreneurial genius?

I honestly don't get what you're driving at... Is it the implication that America is successful, or are you actually trying to compare Elon Musk's measurable global achievements to the constant bickering of Americans every four years? What on earth is the point?

ruggedjackal46 said:But we aren't talking about the whole world here; we're talking about the US and American soccer. What does the financial success of Manchester United have to do with the market situation of a local outfit like Inker Zaprešić?

Man, you're totally missing the forest for the trees, because what you're doing is ignoring the whole point of what I've been preaching this entire time, which is basically that we need to stop trying to reinvent the wheel or wait around for some magical new system to drop out of the sky and just look at how Manchester United operates, you know?

ruggedjackal46 said:The eternal issue in America is that nobody ever builds massive wealth purely through talent in a fair market. I mean, credit where credit is due to the young Tesla visionary, but let’s be real: his entrepreneurial success wouldn't exist without the massive initial capital provided by an older Tesla figure.

Then there's the bigger question: why do we act like "market skills" are somehow more virtuous than "ballot box skills"? At the end of the day, both involve the same group of people making the calls—the only difference is one group is dropping cash while the other is dropping votes.

I agree, though I would argue that this cycle remains eternal specifically because the government ensures it stays that way—constantly subsidizing companies that aren't actually capable of surviving on their own.

As for your second point, I’m honestly not sure how to respond; I feel like it’s one of those things that should just be self-evident.🤷

Consider Person A, who launches a tech firm and, ten years later, employs thirty people using revenue generated from clients who actually found their services valuable. Now consider Person B, who holds a press conference to scare an underinformed electorate with tales of foreign threats and old-world radicalism.😁

Who would I rather have deciding whether or not I have a paycheck?🤷

restlesssurfer97 said:See, man, nobody can really argue with what you wrote here, but at the same time, it doesn't do much good because you're talking about theories. They might be 100% correct, but they don't actually offer a roadmap for solutions.
The reality is that the most advanced societies are usually the ones with the most economic freedom. Why bring up water filtration, but stay silent on things like shipyards or the interstate highway system?

So, tell me, how exactly would you handle the mess with the petrochemical plants, the shipyards, or the highways?

Look, there’s no one-size-fits-all fix for these problematic companies. Every single one needs a different play. Honestly, there are plenty of outfits where it makes zero sense for the government to hold any stake at all. Even this current administration—and the last one, for that matter—basically admitted that. In cases where the government's slice is under 20%, they're practically begging to just hand the shares over to someone else. Take pro sports, since we're already looking at the paperwork. You see stuff like that when a local municipality swaps out a tiny 9% stake in a team like the Miami Heat with some private investment group. It's all just numbers on a page.

Look, I’ve never messed with companies like ExxonMobil. Honestly, I don't give a damn about how much product the country actually needs from them, what the government’s stake looks like, or whatever their investment cycle is doing. None of that matters to me. If I started lecturing about the petrochemical industry right now, I’d just be spouting total nonsense and running my mouth like Justin James10, who clearly doesn't have the slightest clue what actual scientific research even looks like.

Look, regarding the Interstate Highway System—privatizing that would be an absolute train wreck. We’ve already seen how that plays out with certain private sectors in the States. Nobody is going to touch the highways unless the government guarantees them a specific revenue stream. And that’s the trap right there: if traffic dips below that threshold, taxpayers end up footing the bill for some private corporation's bottom line. It's a joke. The move here? You gotta restructure the debt if you can, and then just pay it off. Period. Once that weight is off our shoulders—and honestly, we should be clear of it in a few years—the highway system becomes a profitable entity, which it basically is already (if you don't count the massive interest payments on construction). After that, you just focus on making the whole thing more efficient. Stickers, transponders, vignettes, whatever works. I have no clue what kind of tech or apps will even exist in ten years, but the payment system needs to be seamless, fast, and secure. These roads were built to last fifty years or more, not five. You don't build infrastructure like this just to let it go bust the second things get bumpy.

Look, when it comes to these shipyards, everyone’s playing a completely different game. You can't lump them all together. For starters, the major players like the ones in Mobile or San Diego have already been privatized—think big names like General Dynamics or Huntington Ingalls. I'm assuming you're aware that the government isn't sitting on the majority stake there anymore. Honestly, if you actually understood how the ownership structures work for the rest of the industry, you wouldn't be grouping them all under one umbrella. Suggesting we need to "re-privatize" yards that are already private? That’s just a massive, epic failure to grasp what's actually happening on the ground. Just a bunch of empty buzzwords being thrown around. ☕ Look, regarding that shipyard situation... honestly, they just need to privatize the whole thing with a solid strategic partner. It’s long overdue. I mean, GE is already floating around as a potential buyer, so why wait? Just get it done.

Justin James10 said:How is the government responsible when the legal system fails to function? It isn't, obviously! After all, the government's job should be providing legal certainty, not just focusing on manufacturing fake fertilizer or instant soup packets, right? 👍

So, what you’re saying is you need a massive federal government stepping in to fix all this? 🙂

restlesssurfer97 said:How exactly would you fix any of that?

And honestly, what does the existence of shitty bosses in the private sector even have to do with the topic we're talking about?

Look, if privatization is your magic bullet—and let's be real, it is—then the fact that private owners are full of absolute garbage means your big "fix-it" idea is dead on arrival. That’s the whole point here.

restlesssurfer97 said:Let me lay it out simply for you again, you basically have Option A and Option B.

Option A is a proven, absolute fast track to disaster.

Option B—even though it’s been shown to work in plenty of developed nations—doesn't come with a 100% guarantee of being better, let's put it that way, since I can't sit here and mathematically prove to you that Option B results in progress, even though I’m totally convinced it does and it works in most major democracies.

But you keep picking Option A. And honestly, that’s exactly why we’re stuck in this rut, where we all know things are broken, but nobody is actually ready to change, nobody wants to deal with the shifts, and nobody wants to push through the reforms. So we just stay here and rot.

I assume it’s obvious to you by now that in any functioning society, the government actually carries some weight.

Justin James10 said:Vekjo, I already gave you my take on how a functional rule of law actually works! 😉

You’re completely ignoring the marketing play with Opara. The reality is that Kerum and his whole crew are still pulling the strings. Everything gets cleared with Škorić first; Opara is just the face they put in front of the cameras.

And don't even get me started on the state-owned companies, Vekjo... seriously, all of them. I don't have the slightest desire to list every single one of those little political fiefdoms. Pick whichever one you want. Just to give you an example—look at Kraft Heinz. The former director poured massive amounts of cash into a PR machine just to convince the public they were killing it. In reality? Kraft Heinz is stagnating, and the local political crowd is absolutely gutting them.

Seems like there's no winning this argument, so I'll catch you when Oprah's term is finally up.

brightpilot6 said:I think you're missing the point by trying to discuss "liberalization" without accounting for the specific reality of our little corner of the world.

Let's just be honest here—what exactly are we talking about when you use that word, and what does "liberalization" actually mean in your view?

Man, honestly, I feel like our perspectives are pretty much aligned on most things anyway, so I don't really see the point in sitting here and breaking down my definition of liberalization for you.

You're totally right that we have to look at everything through the lens of how chaotic this country is, but it's also true that the way things are running right now clearly isn't working, and sticking to the status quo is just a fundamentally broken way to handle it.