should there be one?

i just heard that bloomberg is considering selling off the names/titles of bridges to corporations to bring in revenue to NY ($$from the sale)...

so instead of u taking the manhattan or the brooklyn bridge into BK, you might be getting on the chase manhattan bridge or the best buy brooklyn bridge in the near future...

now..i dont know how everybody feels on this issue, which is why im posting, but there just seems something inherently wrong with this. and i guess my gripe is that its just an extension of the things that have become all too familiar nowadays, especially with corporations like lockheed, haliburton, et al... all lined up and have begun or will begin to achieve unheard of profits from government policies...

my question...where do they draw the line?

if a corporation wants to flip the bill for something like that, i say let them. its better than raising taxes to increase revenue.

is there a point where you draw the line? Like fairly historic/significant landmarks and the like? Do we really want the Kraft Cheese Statue of Liberty?

decide the fate of corporations like kraft and lockheed in a free market. that is the single greatest advantage capitalism has over any other economic system. if people dont want a kraft cheese statue then its ultimately up to the people. dont buy shit you dont agree with rather than make up laws enforced by an oppressive government.

You forgot an essential part of your argument.

The people (with money).

boycotting stuff doesnt require money. if your poor, then get a job. if you cant get a job, apply for unemployment. if you cant get a job after 10 months or whatever, then you deserve no say in the direction of the nation.

Do you know anything about how aerospace defense contractors operate?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The white man has all the freedom. He's got everything on his side. He's the one that will say,
niggers, Puerto Ricans, minorities, don't you write on our wall. It's graffiti. It's against the law.
Then he'll find a mountain and put his face on it. Oh, he's a bitch." - Paul Mooney

Maybe I misunderstand, so if I don't like the Walt Disney Statue of Liberty. I have to stop watching the movies, (I hate those movies btw, I just wanted to say that name) but what if they don't change the name? or change it to Buena Vista Entertainment Statue of Liberty? Or another subsidiary?
Doesn't that seem fascist? like a company owns your job,neighborhood,city,state, country, landmarks, copyrights for you to use the name in a post such as this????
Isn't prvatizing our treasures degrading to our existance The United States Constitution is sponsered by Time Life. or The Philly Liberty Bell is sponsered by Liberty Mutual???
Then if McDonalds buys the gateway Arch, they could put another one up and it be The Gateway to the West Golden Arches.
Or am I being overdramatic???

ROTFLMWAO!!!!!!!

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

then they wouldn't need the money.
there is something wrong when only 7% of tax dollars come from coporate income taxes

<---RIP Otha Turner(1910?-2003), blues legend, the last great African-American fife player in America. http://www.othaturner.com




"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." - guess who...contributing to the embetterment of America since 2000




"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any." -Alice Walker


"War, reach out and touch it" -Bob Marley

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

>there is something wrong when only 7% of tax dollars come
>from coporate income taxes

no there isnt.

doesn't trickle, friend.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

you dont know shit about the economy

I have a degree in economics.

Herb.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! bitchslap!

that's great

that some of our largest corporations make substantial profits from the government, have their headquarters(P.O. Box) located out of the country, and then buy off the same politicians, through political action comittees, that reward those contracts, not to mention that fact that some of the ppl that run this country are ex-CEOs and board members of such corporations

look man, i'm all for economic freedoms but you have to realize that corporations exist to make profits

you can't have complete economic and personal freedom, the corporations will always try to make a profit, and profit comes at the expense of personal freedom






<---RIP Otha Turner(1910?-2003), blues legend, the last great African-American fife player in America. http://www.othaturner.com




"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." - guess who...contributing to the embetterment of America since 2000




"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any." -Alice Walker


"War, reach out and touch it" -Bob Marley

because the stockholders have already paid for the tax on the stocks they own

but that's not what we're talking about. There's a lot of tax incentives in place for corporations to stay in business. The net effect is a lessening of the tax burden on business operations and a shift onto private citizens.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

>but that's not what we're talking about. There's a lot of
>tax incentives in place for corporations to stay in
>business. The net effect is a lessening of the tax burden
>on business operations and a shift onto private citizens.

right, because as a government you want your countries businesses to stay in business so you have someone to tax to pay for stupid social programs and a very large military.

>right, because as a government you want your countries
>businesses to stay in business so you have someone to tax to
>pay for stupid social programs and a very large military.

I don't really see why you think social programs are stupid. Moreover, American companies aren't sharing equally in the tax burden--the value of corporate welfare in America is many times that of public welfare. There's a distinction to be drawn between corporations and small businesses here, too. The corporate welfare I'm talking about goes primarily to large multinationals. The Boeing bailout is a really good example. These kinds of incentives are basically a mechanism to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

>I don't really see why you think social programs are stupid.

social programs run by the government are stupid.

> Moreover, American companies aren't sharing equally in the
>tax burden--the value of corporate welfare in America is
>many times that of public welfare. There's a distinction to
>be drawn between corporations and small businesses here,
>too. The corporate welfare I'm talking about goes primarily
>to large multinationals. The Boeing bailout is a really
>good example. These kinds of incentives are basically a
>mechanism to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

right, i dont see too much wrong with this, aside from some coruption.

>social programs run by the government are stupid.

If you're rich. Providing social programs is a key sector of the government's responsibility. Why else would you want a government? Wealth is in a process of centralization (intense centralization) and without social programs the poor get ground under the bootheel of "progress".

>> Moreover, American companies aren't sharing equally in the
>>tax burden--the value of corporate welfare in America is
>>many times that of public welfare. There's a distinction to
>>be drawn between corporations and small businesses here,
>>too. The corporate welfare I'm talking about goes primarily
>>to large multinationals. The Boeing bailout is a really
>>good example. These kinds of incentives are basically a
>>mechanism to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
>
>right, i dont see too much wrong with this, aside from some
>coruption.

Here's what's wrong. American companies get tax incentives and bailouts (corporate welfare) to set up shop with the rationalization being that it's going to provide jobs to the American population. That isn't happening. Multinationals are moving and outsourcing production, resulting in thousands of American job losses. These multinationals typically get "tax holidays" in the country that's hosting them, meaning they pay no tax in that country either for from one to five years (it can be as many as ten). Overseas production typically takes place in EPZs (export processing zones), destitute areas that, for legal purposes, aren't part of the country. There are almost no environmental or labour regulations aside from those self-imposed by the beneficent corporations. The Third World is forced to lower environmental and labour regulations to attract new corporations in the hope that they'll stay after the "holiday" is over. Not likely.

It's public money for private profits. If the people were reaping the rewards (read:profits) it wouldn't be a problem.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

>If you're rich. Providing social programs is a key sector
>of the government's responsibility. Why else would you want
>a government? Wealth is in a process of centralization
>(intense centralization) and without social programs the
>poor get ground under the bootheel of "progress".

too bad for them. if you cant keep up, then shutup. its a free country, figure out a way to make some money. it isnt that hard.

>Here's what's wrong. American companies get tax incentives
>and bailouts (corporate welfare) to set up shop with the
>rationalization being that it's going to provide jobs to the
>American population. That isn't happening. Multinationals
>are moving and outsourcing production, resulting in
>thousands of American job losses. These multinationals
>typically get "tax holidays" in the country that's hosting
>them, meaning they pay no tax in that country either for
>from one to five years (it can be as many as ten). Overseas
>production typically takes place in EPZs (export processing
>zones), destitute areas that, for legal purposes, aren't
>part of the country. There are almost no environmental or
>labour regulations aside from those self-imposed by the
>beneficent corporations. The Third World is forced to lower
>environmental and labour regulations to attract new
>corporations in the hope that they'll stay after the
>"holiday" is over. Not likely.
>
>It's public money for private profits. If the people were
>reaping the rewards (read:profits) it wouldn't be a problem.

the public still controls the fate of business. and the public still elects its officials. obviously the majority of this country could either care less or has bigger things to worry about. when it becomes a big problem, something will be done.

>too bad for them. if you cant keep up, then shutup. its a
>free country, figure out a way to make some money. it isnt
>that hard.

They COULD keep up if they weren't being held back. You think a poor kid from Watts has the same chances as a rich kid from Beverly Hills? And yes, according to the infant mortality rates in areas like Queensbridge NY, it is that hard.

>when it becomes a big problem, something will be done.

Mmmmmmmmm kaye. Real good approach.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

>They COULD keep up if they weren't being held back. You
>think a poor kid from Watts has the same chances as a rich
>kid from Beverly Hills? And yes, according to the infant
>mortality rates in areas like Queensbridge NY, it is that
>hard.

who is holding them back? its social progress. its slow and painful, but it will eventually come around.

>Mmmmmmmmm kaye. Real good approach.

hah thats what we call democracy. if you dont like it then leave. the majority of people could care less.

>who is holding them back? its social progress. its slow and
>painful, but it will eventually come around.

The system is holding them back. Look, the US government spends twice what Canada spends on medical expenses per capita and they have a way lower level of services. It's the way the system's set up. You are right though, it will eventually come around

>hah thats what we call democracy. if you dont like it then
>leave. the majority of people could care less.

If sitting around, waiting for something to happen is what you think a democracy is then I don't even know why I'm talking to you.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

when its a big enough problem for enough people it will change on its own. as long as we elect our officials. thats democracy.

on a piece of paper is 5 seconds of democracy every four years. Popular input into decision making is democracy. And we don't have it.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

is to elect local/state and national officials who will best represent your interests. the avergae person does not have the time to worry about every little decision. obviously some things are more important and you see that with issues like abortion and human rights. that is where democracy is the strongest. people chose their fights.

>some things are more important and you see that with issues
>like abortion and human rights. that is where democracy is
>the strongest.

Abortion and human rights are the most important? Human rights doesn't even figure in to American policy and abortion is WAY old news. Do YOU even believe this? Can you think of ANYTHING on the political agenda that might be just an itsy-bitsy-bit more important from a democratic standpoint? Like how the country is run?

Representative government doesn't even allude to being democratic in itself because it shuts people out of the decision-making process. The biggest party is the party of non-voters. If the majority of people in the country are middle-to-lower income, and politicians slash social programs, how can you pretend that these representatives have their constituents' interests in mind?

I understand the PREMISE of representative government, I'm saying that it doesn't work in practice--read: Bush is president.


America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

i was giving random examples of things people care about. and hey, people are lazy and dont care. thats life. you cant make people go out and vote and you cant make people care. this is a free society. how do you expect to solve this problem? have you ever thought that the non-voters like things the way they are? not everyone shares your concerns.

>too bad for them. if you cant keep up, then shutup. its a
>free country, figure out a way to make some money. it isnt
>that hard.

what does wealth have to do with speech? nothing; i think the position that money equals a form of speech has been refuted to the satisfaction of everyone aside from complete idiots and/or self-interested millionaires. when does a right to voice an opinion come from the ability to, as you put it, "keep up"? not everyone shares your values-system where money matters more than anything. some people are not interested in making a lot of money - why should they be denied an equal footing in a political arena to those who are wealthy?

even people who are able to 'keep up': those who work and make enough money to get by, feel marginalized because nobody hears their voice. wealth should not be a proxy for access to government.


>the public still controls the fate of business. and the
>public still elects its officials. obviously the majority of
>this country could either care less or has bigger things to
>worry about. when it becomes a big problem, something will
>be done.

no, 'business' controls the fate of the public. big business has so much more influence than individual people that the public does not even know what it wants - it is told what it wants by big business. people who cannot see that ("libertarians") are idiots. government exists for the benefit of its people - thus the government must clear a space for people to exercise their freedoms. big business has occupied that space - it manipulates the 'free will' of individuals.

i'm not strictly anti-capitalist, but i am anti-laissez faire. the market does not work. government has to step in - even if government is inefficient, it has an important role that is better done inefficiently than not at all. government should stay out whereever it can, but in regulation of the market, it has to step in.

to separate the business community and the state. Representative government is always going to have the big corporations' backs because they have the same interests and the same position in the power structure.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

n/m

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

to establish, protect, and maintain infrastructure. What if it is no longer "cost effective" for a company to sponsor something like a bridge, tunnel,or highway? What happens when you then have to go to the lowest bidder, and THEY are soley responsible for the upkeep as opposed to being federally/locally/state subsidized?

Then you have infrastructure problems. Suddenly, NYC has a vested interest in a particular company's welfair. That is a dangerous conflict of interest.

Damn a Enron (same deal, but offshore investmensts in Afghan oil thru CentGas)...this shit will get ugly when people can't take the holland tunnel cause Pepsi is having budget cut backs.


----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

"Eat breakfast yourself, share your lunch with a friend, and give your supper to your enemy." Ancient Chinese Proverb

Random answers to Koans by an OKP:

"Iverson's tatoos, legal misfortunes, and the media's overzealousness have nothing to do with the integrity of his American-ness." - Orbit_Established

Give back:
www.jampact.org.

Currently Playing:

Cee-lo: ceelo green...
Incubus: Morning view
Common: Electric Circus
Vivian Green: A love story
Soullive: Next
Lucky Dube: Serious Reggae Business
Jimi Hendrix: Best of/Experience
Les Nubians: One step forward
The Roots: Phrenology
Collective Efforts: Visions of things to come

Corporations' primary aim is to increase profits and market share. You think they give a fuck about a city?

FOR PROMOTIONAL USE ONLY

Have you seen the stats on the education-for-profits? Did you know that the US spends roughly 2X what Canada spends per capita on health care (I'm talking direct gov't subsidies) and you all have a WAY worse level of services provided? It's not in the citizenry's best interest.


America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

>to establish, protect, and maintain infrastructure. What if
>it is no longer "cost effective" for a company to sponsor
>something like a bridge, tunnel,or highway? What happens
>when you then have to go to the lowest bidder, and THEY are
>soley responsible for the upkeep as opposed to being
>federally/locally/state subsidized?

if the govt gets money from a corporation to name a bridge, they can use the corporate money to maintain the bridge. if the corporation can no longer afford to have the name, another corporation comes in to take its place. if no corporation can afford too, or if it isnt in any corporations best interest to then the tax payer pays the brunt, which is what is happening already...

i dont see any disadvantage. if anything, its helps relieve the local tax burden. but hey, im for privatizing everything! road, bridges, tunnels, you name it. that way no one pays tax ever! user fees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

since you're for user fees, what do you think of the Tobin Tax?

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

and there's no road I have to get friends of mine together or hire some people and build it and then require others to pay a toll to use it to make up for what I spent on it?

That's interesting, and I don't mean that in a good or bad way. I've heard that idea associated with Libertarianism (the American breed) pretty often... you're a Libertarian, right?

"There's a lot you can do with a giant four foot dried, curling, boomerang seed pod from the Botang Tree that grows only in Indonesia."
-Tom Waits

"It's not about a salary it's all about reality."
-KRS-One

"Me being wack is like naps on Kojack."
-RZA

Did you see the guy giving toy guns out to kids in Harlem on The Daily Show? I think he was giving away cigarettes too.

The libertarians think people care about that shit when they can't afford rent. Hillarious.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

on some ways.

Personally, I'm partial to the liberty money brings to poor folks. Call me crazy.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

what lead you to libertarianism? was it the social freedom or the economic freedom?

Freedom from illegitamate authority. Self-regulating economy through various forms of free association and decentralized decision making. Worker control of production. That's my tip.

Freedoms are all good but when production and distribution aren't democratically controlled the freedom to arm oneself becomes somewhat less significant.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...

>Then you have infrastructure problems. Suddenly, NYC has a
>vested interest in a particular company's welfair. That is
>a dangerous conflict of interest.
>

foxnes calls them oppressive laws, which is indicative that he may be a darwinist...but the real issue is how do you regulate your partner?

you cant...and you dont.

and thats the biggest problem...

of course we could go with foxnes solution of privatizing everything, which would leave us in pretty much the same predicament..wealth by only a few (the fittest) and insane amounts of money to be paid by the lessers in order to use those services/goods.

>of course we could go with foxnes solution of privatizing
>everything, which would leave us in pretty much the same
>predicament..wealth by only a few (the fittest) and insane
>amounts of money to be paid by the lessers in order to use
>those services/goods.

unless the poor rise up and take control, looting the rich. of course, the rich may have been smart enough to take away their weapons and their freedoms to speak out.

one day ill find out.

i dont think any of us do..

not many of us can be classified as diehard anythings...

I have recently felt myself more aligned with Libertarianism. The people who invent, innovate and think should be rewarded for their efforts. The market rewards progress and innovation and also represents human freedom most fully. There should be no tyranny of the masses. If you can't cut it, you won't make it. Take some classes, work hard, educate yourself, think alot and one day you'll have some scrillions, no matter who you are.

I also like the fact that libertarian ideals correspond with social freedom and progress. People should be free from all forms of oppression, social and economic, and only in libertarian ideals are personal freedoms fully advocated. I don't want the government telling me what to do with my money or spending it on whatever they choose and I don't want the govt to regulate how I live my life.

responding to your first paragraph...


my problem with this is that for this theory to be 'fair' everyone would need to be starting with the same access, resources, and opportunities

it ignores the effects of history and current imbalances...once the table has been titled, and it has been, those on the 'downside' are already disadvantaged regardless of their innovation, talent, and work...this doesn't make it impossible to make it over to the 'upside', but as a whole there are limiting factors built into the equation from jump.

there are steps libertarians would take in orde to reestablish a free society. you cant just go from one extreme to the next. the first step it to eliminate the income tax.

First, naming rights aren't used to finance maintenance. The money from naming rights is usually just icing on the cake. The bridges aren't going to fall into disrepair bc Best Buy goes into bankruptcy.

Secondly, Govt and industry getting in bed together isn't unheard of in urban development. Most of the following information comes from a biography of Robert Moses I've been reading. This man is almost singely responsible for the way NYC looks today. The book is "The Power Broker. Robert Moses and the Rise and Fall of New York"

Basically, many of the bridges, tunnels, highways and parkways in NYC were built by special corporations called public authorities. Basically, the city or state govt appoint the board of a new corporation whose specific goal was a particular improvement of the city or state infrastructure. The p.a. would sell bonds to banks to raise money to build the bridge, then the tolls from the bridges would be used to pay off those bonds. When the bonds were paid off, the p.a. would turn the structure over to the govt and the people.

The growth of NYC meant that tolls collected far exceeded projections and the improvemnts would be paid off in a fraction of the time expected. Toll bridges and tunnels in new york are MONEY MAKERS. Instead of turning the structures over, Moses worked the system so that he used revenue from existing structures was used to finance newer, more expensive structures.


I think much of NYC's infrastructure is still owned and maintained by Public Authorities so I really doubt any money the city makes from naming rights will be earmarked for bridge or tunnel use.

>First, naming rights aren't used to finance maintenance. The
>money from naming rights is usually just icing on the cake.
>The bridges aren't going to fall into disrepair bc Best Buy
>goes into bankruptcy.
>

yeah..that idea was introduced in this post but not by me..thats a whole nother other can O worms that hopefully never gets opened...

>Secondly, Govt and industry getting in bed together isn't
>unheard of in urban development. Most of the following
>information comes from a biography of Robert Moses I've been
>reading. This man is almost singely responsible for the way
>NYC looks today. The book is "The Power Broker. Robert Moses
>and the Rise and Fall of New York"
>

of course its not new...but still no less inappropriate..

>Basically, many of the bridges, tunnels, highways and
>parkways in NYC were built by special corporations called
>public authorities. Basically, the city or state govt
>appoint the board of a new corporation whose specific goal
>was a particular improvement of the city or state
>infrastructure. The p.a. would sell bonds to banks to raise
>money to build the bridge, then the tolls from the bridges
>would be used to pay off those bonds. When the bonds were
>paid off, the p.a. would turn the structure over to the govt
>and the people.

this still sounds like a different schema than whats being discussed here, which is direct partnerships between corporations and government..the example you gave almost sounds like privitization, which is something im all for when it comes to things government should only be dealing with (urban planning, defense, etc...)
>
>The growth of NYC meant that tolls collected far exceeded
>projections and the improvemnts would be paid off in a
>fraction of the time expected. Toll bridges and tunnels in
>new york are MONEY MAKERS. Instead of turning the structures
>over, Moses worked the system so that he used revenue from
>existing structures was used to finance newer, more
>expensive structures.
>
>
>I think much of NYC's infrastructure is still owned and
>maintained by Public Authorities so I really doubt any money
>the city makes from naming rights will be earmarked for
>bridge or tunnel use.

right..it will be wasted in some other undisclosed way...if you want to increase revenue for the city, heres an idea, levy taxes on the corporations instead of becoming embedded with them...

but then you face the problem of the corporation up and leaving and moving to GREENer pastures...

still..i see this partnership as bad bad bad

I don't see much harm with the naming rights. It's just a little icing on the budget cake. The sums taking in will be miniscule in comparison to the operating budget of a city but it doesn't inconvenience anyone like tax hikes or spending cuts.

>I don't see much harm with the naming rights. It's just a
>little icing on the budget cake. The sums taking in will be
>miniscule in comparison to the operating budget of a city
>but it doesn't inconvenience anyone like tax hikes or
>spending cuts.

in an effort not to 'inconvenience' these corporations, we give them these benefits instead of taxing them...

meanwhile they do as they please, lobby and influence domestic as well as foregin policy, and operate with no regard to employees, and place their concern only on stakeholders...

and they are backed/partnered with the government in this effort.

Public authorities are one thing- they are legistlated to act in the role they do. Getting a fortune 500 company is another. And I thought this wasn't about naming rights alone? I thought this was more like stadium building in a city area, where the taxpayers front the money for the building, and the company takes care of the upkeep.


----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________


So what are our options as another baby boy enters the earth? We just pray that he's tall, pray that he's fast, give the boy a ball, teach him how to pass...it's his only ticket out of this hell. - OKP Greg Soundz "Options"


Give back to our land of bread, water, and sunshine:
www.jampact.org.

Currently Playing:

Cee-lo: ceelo green...
Incubus: Morning view
Common: Electric Circus
Vivian Green: A love story
Soullive: Next
Lucky Dube: Serious Reggae Business
Jimi Hendrix: Best of/Experience
Les Nubians: One step forward
The Roots: Phrenology
Collective Efforts: Visions of things to come

>Public authorities are one thing- they are legistlated to
>act in the role they do. Getting a fortune 500 company is
>another. And I thought this wasn't about naming rights
>alone? I thought this was more like stadium building in a
>city area, where the taxpayers front the money for the
>building, and the company takes care of the upkeep.


From the original post, it just seems to be naming rights. I don't think it's about Microsoft wanting to build it's own bridge, it's about the city wanting to make money off of naming it's landmarks. It's crass but it's more palatable (to me) than more taxation or deeper spending cuts.

is still a partnership.

Govts and corporations are symbiotic in our system. They can't survive without each other. As long as the purpose of the govt is to enrich the lives of it's population rather than the accounts of select people, it's a system that works.

in a utopia it would be right.

but every system is flawed..capitalism, communism, socialim...and right now, so is this idea of a symbiotic relationship between govt and corporations with the gov'ts sole or even primary intent being the enriching of the lives of the people.

is brought to you by....
Disney,
McDonalds,
I.L.G. -selling your bodies cheicals AFTER you die
And by 'Lil Sweethear Cupcakes -a subsidiary of I.L.G.

They ain't really gaining nothing other than advertising.

Like I really go out and buy Reliant Products, since they named the stadium after em.

If folks wanna be dumb with their money, let em.

than the entire world becoming a giant billboard.

of course that too is a problem...but not the main one.

but all else isnt equal in japan...so i dont know how much room for comparison there is.

It not that they think you are going to look at the name of the stadium and want to buy their product. It is about giving of an aura of omnipotance and size. If you have a stadium named after your company, then every time teams play in that stadium, the name of that stadium gets programmed into our collective psyche. Capitalism is a whore.

it may be a whore in your eyes. but atleast people have the freedom to choose what products they can and cant buy rather than have a controling government decide for them.