DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ulnanVti** · 06-09-2012, 07:35 AM

A rather different view regarding the proposed Formula 1 event in Austin than what makes it way into the world of race fora: Texas as a model for gutting government programs. One need not agree with the viewpoint that Johnston takes, but it is a point of view that rarely gets much of a mention in places such as this, where such mundane issues are easily dismissed or simply ignored.

I am familiar with the point of view expressed in the link. However, based on this, every state and country in the world should stop sponsoring high profile sports events such as Olympics or football cups in order to fund its education and social programs.

Overall, the article seems like a biased and misleading piece. The author can't conceal his left-ward bias despite trying to employ elaborate arguments. A lot of strange analogies are in there. For example, he seems to be unhappy that the track construction can costs as much as $22 million per mile and then mentions that building rural roads in a southern state costs no more than $6 million per mile. Excuse me, but how many miles long is a Formula 1 track? 1-2 miles? So this is built at the cost of only about 8 miles of rural roads or less? I would say the that that's not a bad trade-off at all in order to bring a world class sports event here. Strangely, Bernie Ecclestone is referred to as a "British Monopolist" and the event fee as a "monopoly fee". Say what? This is really perplexing. Is this time to call FTC and complain to them about "Formula 1" monopoly? While at it, we could also complain about IndyCar, NASCAR, and NBA monopolies and their monopoly fees.

06-09-2012, 07:35 AM	#20
ulnanVti Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 564 Senior Member	A rather different view regarding the proposed Formula 1 event in Austin than what makes it way into the world of race fora: Texas as a model for gutting government programs. One need not agree with the viewpoint that Johnston takes, but it is a point of view that rarely gets much of a mention in places such as this, where such mundane issues are easily dismissed or simply ignored. I am familiar with the point of view expressed in the link. However, based on this, every state and country in the world should stop sponsoring high profile sports events such as Olympics or football cups in order to fund its education and social programs. Overall, the article seems like a biased and misleading piece. The author can't conceal his left-ward bias despite trying to employ elaborate arguments. A lot of strange analogies are in there. For example, he seems to be unhappy that the track construction can costs as much as $22 million per mile and then mentions that building rural roads in a southern state costs no more than $6 million per mile. Excuse me, but how many miles long is a Formula 1 track? 1-2 miles? So this is built at the cost of only about 8 miles of rural roads or less? I would say the that that's not a bad trade-off at all in order to bring a world class sports event here. Strangely, Bernie Ecclestone is referred to as a "British Monopolist" and the event fee as a "monopoly fee". Say what? This is really perplexing. Is this time to call FTC and complain to them about "Formula 1" monopoly? While at it, we could also complain about IndyCar, NASCAR, and NBA monopolies and their monopoly fees.
	Quote