Should the leagues just go ahead and cancel travel soccer for the fall in the DMV?

[Anonymous]

Arlington just announced online school in the Fall is most likely.

I don’t think we will have Fall soccer if lost school districts are still online in the Fall.

[Anonymous]

* most

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people wouldn't be investing thousands of dollars for a season that might not happen. Then waiting around to see if they will be refunded, or if the league is going to fold, etc.
Rec leagues can be put together quickly depending on virus conditions, and games are played locally. Travel involves travelling and tournaments against far flung other teams of kids.

People are free to decide and the market will reflect it. Hence the term free market.

No no no. This is a huge problem. Thank heavens that. as a nation we've managed to move past our misguided addiction to free markets. They may have made sense in 18th century, but they aren't a workable solution to the sort of problems we face today. Look at corona virus for example, if we had a free market, we might not have been able to prevent nursing homes admitting residents infected with covid-19. Luckily we were able to prevent this, but only a powerful centralized government could implement the type of regulation necessary to avoid what would otherwise have been a massive wave of unnecessary deaths in nursing homes.

Similarly for rec league vs travel soccer. This is just too important to leave to the free market. How would you know that the free market might not get the decision wrong? It would be much better for government to control this decision. That way we can make certain that we make the best decision for everyone.

How exactly did we prevent admission of infected residents. Isn't that the issue in NY.

And no, the government doesn't need to think for me. I can think for myself. There's a place in N Korea, Russia, or China if you want everything decided for you.

3 months ago we didn't even know about any of this stuff. Who knows where we will be 3 months from now. Why decide anything so far in advance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people wouldn't be investing thousands of dollars for a season that might not happen. Then waiting around to see if they will be refunded, or if the league is going to fold, etc.
Rec leagues can be put together quickly depending on virus conditions, and games are played locally. Travel involves travelling and tournaments against far flung other teams of kids.

People are free to decide and the market will reflect it. Hence the term free market.

No no no. This is a huge problem. Thank heavens that. as a nation we've managed to move past our misguided addiction to free markets. They may have made sense in 18th century, but they aren't a workable solution to the sort of problems we face today. Look at corona virus for example, if we had a free market, we might not have been able to prevent nursing homes admitting residents infected with covid-19. Luckily we were able to prevent this, but only a powerful centralized government could implement the type of regulation necessary to avoid what would otherwise have been a massive wave of unnecessary deaths in nursing homes.

Similarly for rec league vs travel soccer. This is just too important to leave to the free market. How would you know that the free market might not get the decision wrong? It would be much better for government to control this decision. That way we can make certain that we make the best decision for everyone.

If we let every thing to the free market only the rich would have toilet paper, masks, cleaning supplies, etc. PS: this is guy isn't saying stay at home. He's saying, don't spend so much in case it gets cancelled. To OP, remember the rec leagues are huge with SFL. You travel all over NOVA at least.

Getting off topic - my remark was meant to be vaguely humorous / sarcastic - and I wasn't expecting a serious response.

But I completely disagree with you on only the rich winning from a free market. The rich get richer precisely by avoiding the free market, and scheming to create monopolies. An actual free market - and I'm not talking about the travesty we have today - would distribute resources more evenly than any other system. That's not to say that everyone would have the same access to resources - no system can ever guarantee that - and it's not clear that that's even fair or desirable. But there is a reason the very rich spend vast amounts of money bribing politicians to ensure that they are protected from competition - and its not because they believe that they beneift disproportionately from free markets - it's precisely because they know the opposite - they need to rig the markets in order to get a larger share of resources.

Clearly it was lost in translation.

You need to put it into google translate. Source language: Gibberish.

[Anonymous]

Travel will not happen.

Get that into your thick heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people wouldn't be investing thousands of dollars for a season that might not happen. Then waiting around to see if they will be refunded, or if the league is going to fold, etc.
Rec leagues can be put together quickly depending on virus conditions, and games are played locally. Travel involves travelling and tournaments against far flung other teams of kids.

People are free to decide and the market will reflect it. Hence the term free market.

No no no. This is a huge problem. Thank heavens that. as a nation we've managed to move past our misguided addiction to free markets. They may have made sense in 18th century, but they aren't a workable solution to the sort of problems we face today. Look at corona virus for example, if we had a free market, we might not have been able to prevent nursing homes admitting residents infected with covid-19. Luckily we were able to prevent this, but only a powerful centralized government could implement the type of regulation necessary to avoid what would otherwise have been a massive wave of unnecessary deaths in nursing homes.

Similarly for rec league vs travel soccer. This is just too important to leave to the free market. How would you know that the free market might not get the decision wrong? It would be much better for government to control this decision. That way we can make certain that we make the best decision for everyone.

If we let every thing to the free market only the rich would have toilet paper, masks, cleaning supplies, etc. PS: this is guy isn't saying stay at home. He's saying, don't spend so much in case it gets cancelled. To OP, remember the rec leagues are huge with SFL. You travel all over NOVA at least.

Getting off topic - my remark was meant to be vaguely humorous / sarcastic - and I wasn't expecting a serious response.

But I completely disagree with you on only the rich winning from a free market. The rich get richer precisely by avoiding the free market, and scheming to create monopolies. An actual free market - and I'm not talking about the travesty we have today - would distribute resources more evenly than any other system. That's not to say that everyone would have the same access to resources - no system can ever guarantee that - and it's not clear that that's even fair or desirable. But there is a reason the very rich spend vast amounts of money bribing politicians to ensure that they are protected from competition - and its not because they believe that they beneift disproportionately from free markets - it's precisely because they know the opposite - they need to rig the markets in order to get a larger share of resources.

Correct. Smart poster. Even American is not really the land of the free, it is the land of the crooked and powerful, at least much more so. Still the closest but not really free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people wouldn't be investing thousands of dollars for a season that might not happen. Then waiting around to see if they will be refunded, or if the league is going to fold, etc.
Rec leagues can be put together quickly depending on virus conditions, and games are played locally. Travel involves travelling and tournaments against far flung other teams of kids.

People are free to decide and the market will reflect it. Hence the term free market.

No no no. This is a huge problem. Thank heavens that. as a nation we've managed to move past our misguided addiction to free markets. They may have made sense in 18th century, but they aren't a workable solution to the sort of problems we face today. Look at corona virus for example, if we had a free market, we might not have been able to prevent nursing homes admitting residents infected with covid-19. Luckily we were able to prevent this, but only a powerful centralized government could implement the type of regulation necessary to avoid what would otherwise have been a massive wave of unnecessary deaths in nursing homes.

Similarly for rec league vs travel soccer. This is just too important to leave to the free market. How would you know that the free market might not get the decision wrong? It would be much better for government to control this decision. That way we can make certain that we make the best decision for everyone.

If we let every thing to the free market only the rich would have toilet paper, masks, cleaning supplies, etc. PS: this is guy isn't saying stay at home. He's saying, don't spend so much in case it gets cancelled. To OP, remember the rec leagues are huge with SFL. You travel all over NOVA at least.

Getting off topic - my remark was meant to be vaguely humorous / sarcastic - and I wasn't expecting a serious response.

But I completely disagree with you on only the rich winning from a free market. The rich get richer precisely by avoiding the free market, and scheming to create monopolies. An actual free market - and I'm not talking about the travesty we have today - would distribute resources more evenly than any other system. That's not to say that everyone would have the same access to resources - no system can ever guarantee that - and it's not clear that that's even fair or desirable. But there is a reason the very rich spend vast amounts of money bribing politicians to ensure that they are protected from competition - and its not because they believe that they beneift disproportionately from free markets - it's precisely because they know the opposite - they need to rig the markets in order to get a larger share of resources.

Correct. Smart poster. Even American is not really the land of the free, it is the land of the crooked and powerful, at least much more so. Still the closest but not really free.

Thanks for the second-rate socialism. This kind of thinking is simply the mirror image of the ideology inhabiting the White House. Nobody is protected from competition in America. That’s why people are complaining - they don’t want change in the economy. They want the government to protect them from change and the competitive process. I believe in sharply progressive taxation, but I also think companies can and should do what they are going to do, and should be relatively free to do so. We are all counting on them to do that now, notwithstanding the sniping, envy and parlor socialism that is bandied about by people in my party who apparently want to get the jerk in the White House re-elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people wouldn't be investing thousands of dollars for a season that might not happen. Then waiting around to see if they will be refunded, or if the league is going to fold, etc.
Rec leagues can be put together quickly depending on virus conditions, and games are played locally. Travel involves travelling and tournaments against far flung other teams of kids.

People are free to decide and the market will reflect it. Hence the term free market.

No no no. This is a huge problem. Thank heavens that. as a nation we've managed to move past our misguided addiction to free markets. They may have made sense in 18th century, but they aren't a workable solution to the sort of problems we face today. Look at corona virus for example, if we had a free market, we might not have been able to prevent nursing homes admitting residents infected with covid-19. Luckily we were able to prevent this, but only a powerful centralized government could implement the type of regulation necessary to avoid what would otherwise have been a massive wave of unnecessary deaths in nursing homes.

Similarly for rec league vs travel soccer. This is just too important to leave to the free market. How would you know that the free market might not get the decision wrong? It would be much better for government to control this decision. That way we can make certain that we make the best decision for everyone.

If we let every thing to the free market only the rich would have toilet paper, masks, cleaning supplies, etc. PS: this is guy isn't saying stay at home. He's saying, don't spend so much in case it gets cancelled. To OP, remember the rec leagues are huge with SFL. You travel all over NOVA at least.

Getting off topic - my remark was meant to be vaguely humorous / sarcastic - and I wasn't expecting a serious response.

But I completely disagree with you on only the rich winning from a free market. The rich get richer precisely by avoiding the free market, and scheming to create monopolies. An actual free market - and I'm not talking about the travesty we have today - would distribute resources more evenly than any other system. That's not to say that everyone would have the same access to resources - no system can ever guarantee that - and it's not clear that that's even fair or desirable. But there is a reason the very rich spend vast amounts of money bribing politicians to ensure that they are protected from competition - and its not because they believe that they beneift disproportionately from free markets - it's precisely because they know the opposite - they need to rig the markets in order to get a larger share of resources.

Correct. Smart poster. Even American is not really the land of the free, it is the land of the crooked and powerful, at least much more so. Still the closest but not really free.

Thanks for the second-rate socialism. This kind of thinking is simply the mirror image of the ideology inhabiting the White House. Nobody is protected from competition in America. That’s why people are complaining - they don’t want change in the economy. They want the government to protect them from change and the competitive process. I believe in sharply progressive taxation, but I also think companies can and should do what they are going to do, and should be relatively free to do so. We are all counting on them to do that now, notwithstanding the sniping, envy and parlor socialism that is bandied about by people in my party who apparently want to get the jerk in the White House re-elected.

Don't think you've understood what those guys are saying. It's not secind rate socialism at all - at least not if I understand them correctly.