The Grand Irony - college football is socialist

[BigPapaVol]

Is someone going to find out who owns UTAD?

Or am I too assume the answer is obvious by the lack of response?

Ever assuming you are correct should be a fineable offense.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[fl0at]

Is someone going to find out who owns UTAD?

Or am I too assume the answer is obvious by the lack of response?

The board of trustees, under Article III, Section 12 of the bylaws.

The trustees are not owned by the government, but appointed and allowed to make bylaws as they see fit:

TCA 49-9-209. Powers of the trustees.

(e) (1) The trustees at their stated sessions shall also have full power and authority to make bylaws, rules and regulations for the government of the university and the promotion of education in the university that in their opinion may be expedient or necessary.

The BoT is not owned by the General Assembly, and as such, nor is the AD.

 

[gsvol]

Ever assuming you are correct should be a fineable offense.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

And incarceration!! :loco:

In a lateral move, in order to be politically correct, the NHL has banned the 'shoot out' terminology for post overtime activities, these sessions will now be referred to as 'puck offs.'

 

[utgibbs]

The board of trustees, under Article III, Section 12 of the bylaws.

The trustees are not owned by the government, but appointed and allowed to make bylaws as they see fit:



The BoT is not owned by the General Assembly, and as such, nor is the AD.

In other words, republic-style government ownership? :hi:

The 26-member board is comprised of both five ex officio and 21 appointed members. Appointed seats include one voting and one nonvoting faculty, one voting and one nonvoting students, and 17 congressional district and county representatives

(my emphasis)

Don't hate TN football because it is socialist!

 

[fl0at]

In other words, republic-style government ownership? :hi:

(my emphasis)

Don't hate TN football because it is socialist!

No. If you wanted to take that view, you'd have to take committee assignments within the General Assembly as "socialist" because those representatives to committee, like BoT, are appointments.

If you want to take it one step further, the GA that appoints those committees would also have to be socialist, given that we, The People, appoint them through elections.

You would then have to conclude that Democracy itself is socialism.

Once again, your argument fails. :hi: back.

 

[utgibbs]

No. If you wanted to take that view, you'd have to take committee assignments within the General Assembly as "socialist" because those representatives to committee, like BoT, are appointments.

If you want to take it one step further, the GA that appoints those committees would also have to be socialist, given that we, The People, appoint them through elections.

You would then have to conclude that Democracy itself is socialism.

Once again, your argument fails. :hi: back.

Again, I remind you of Europe (the US?) post WWII. All were "social democracies."

If I have read you correctly, this is exactly what you are describing, no?

Is the bottom line is the State of Tennessee owns UT, and, by extention, UTAD? It is a public institution, owned and ultimately controlled by the state. That we have democratic forms (is great, but needs a reboot) doesn't really matter here. That our UTAD makes money (often with generous tax breaks for donations) is also inconsequential.

 

[BeecherVol]

Again, I remind you of Europe (the US?) post WWII. All were "social democracies."

If I have read you correctly, this is exactly what you are describing, no?

Is the bottom line is the State of Tennessee owns UT, and, by extention, UTAD? It is a public institution, owned and ultimately controlled by the state. That we have democratic forms (is great, but needs a reboot) doesn't really matter here. That our UTAD makes money (often with generous tax breaks for donations) is also inconsequential.

Owned (in this sense) IMO, is self sufficient thu taxes, and in no need of donations. Does the UTAD operate as is, strictly off tax dollars?

 

[fl0at]

Again, I remind you of Europe (the US?) post WWII. All were "social democracies."

If I have read you correctly, this is exactly what you are describing, no?

Is the bottom line is the State of Tennessee owns UT, and, by extention, UTAD? It is a public institution, owned and ultimately controlled by the state. That we have democratic forms (is great, but needs a reboot) doesn't really matter here. That our UTAD makes money (often with generous tax breaks for donations) is also inconsequential.

Again, you are wrong. UT was formed prior to WW2, when the make up was not a "social democracy." Its roots are inherently Republicanism.

With the formation of the UTAD, you brought Capitalism into the system.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit

The AD means of production (us watching a game) is privately owned (by the BoT, which can dissolve it whatever it feels like), and produces a private profit (does the AD share money with the Biology department? Only when it wants to share).

You have not read, apparently, anything correct, as what I have described is absolutely, in no way or form, socialism.

The fact that we have an electorate is inconsequential, because almost every form of government without a monarch is a republic style form of government, and in no way distinguishes socialism from capitalism.

The way the money is made what is consequential, and the AD makes money through Capitalism.

It does so in every way, shape and form different than a socialist economy.

 

[utgibbs]

Owned (in this sense) IMO, is self sufficient thu taxes, and in no need of donations. Does the UTAD operate as is, strictly off tax dollars?

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

There have been plenty of profitable state-run companies in China, Europe, Israel, etc. Making profit does not exempt one from socialist status.

The donation income is tricky ground - a lot of it attributable to taxation (or, in this case, an actual puzzling case of tax deduction).

Regardless, although I haven't looked over the books, I believe UTAD is probably profitable, but it is still a socialist institution.

That's fine by me. Works a treat! :good!:

 

[utgibbs]

Again, you are wrong. UT was formed prior to WW2, when the make up was not a "social democracy." Its roots are inherently Republicanism.

But its modern incarnation was a public Land-Grant!

With the formation of the UTAD, you brought Capitalism into the system.

No, you didn't. In fact, I would find it very interesting to know the social history of the early Big Orange. I will research this in time, but it might be the summer.

The AD means of production (us watching a game) is privately owned (by the BoT, which can dissolve it whatever it feels like), and produces a private profit (does the AD share money with the Biology department? Only when it wants to share).

You have not read, apparently, anything correct, as what I have described is absolutely, in no way or form, socialism.

The fact that we have an electorate is inconsequential, because almost every form of government without a monarch is a republic style form of government, and in no way distinguishes socialism from capitalism.

But if the GOVERNMENT owns said asset, it is a socialist construct! Whether that government be a monarchy, a republic, a despotic social nationalist, or a social democracy, it doesn't matter.

The way the money is made what is consequential, and the AD makes money through Capitalism.

Absolutely false. Socialism makes money in the market just as Capitalism does. Regardless, my intent is not to skim through Hambone's accounting, but donation revenue is very tricky ground for your case here. It seems the elected represntatives have final authority on all decisions. It's open and shut at that juncture.

It does so in every way, shape and form different than a socialist economy.

Not really.

Above in bold.

 

[jwells]

How does money given as a land-grant have anything to do with socialism? The government does not own land-grant universities. From what I understand, most of the time land was given somewhere else, sold, then the money used to finance the university.

 

[utgibbs]

How does money given as a land-grant have anything to do with socialism? The government does not own land-grant universities. From what I understand, most of the time land was given somewhere else, sold, then the money used to finance the university.

Good! This is what I wanted to learn.

Who does own the university then? How is it incorporated?

I believe Federal lands were given to the states to sell - as you say - or otherwise use to set up public universities. That sounds a lot like socialism, and explains why legislators, at the end of the day, have final say in all things UT.

Again, none of this = bad thing.

 

[fl0at]

But its modern incarnation was a public Land-Grant!

No, you didn't. In fact, I would find it very interesting to know the social history of the early Big Orange. I will research this in time, but it might be the summer.

But if the GOVERNMENT owns said asset, it is a socialist construct! Whether that government be a monarchy, a republic, a despotic social nationalist, or a social democracy, it doesn't matter.

Absolutely false. Socialism makes money in the market just as Capitalism does. Regardless, my intent is not to skim through Hambone's accounting, but donation revenue is very tricky ground for your case here. It seems the elected represntatives have final authority on all decisions. It's open and shut at that juncture.

Not really.

The modern version is a land-grant institution, but that in no way implies socialism. There are many aspects of "public property" that are inherent in various forms of government and political ideology. Such an argument can be applied to any number of political ideologies: representative democracy, monarchy, socialism, etc. It is not a marker for any one form.

You do realize that monarchy, democracy and republics predate socialism as a political theory, correct? With that in mind, understand that Government "ownership" of land is not a "construct" of socialism. It is a huge part of the theory, but it in no way implies only socialism. There are plenty of political ideologies that pre-date socialism that also incorporate governmental "ownership" of property.

Furthermore, the Government does not "own" the UTAD, or the BoT. The government has established that the BoT is free to operate in any manner that does not violate the Constitution.

The BoT, in essence, acts as its own governmental body. As far as land goes, here again is TN State Law

They shall be capable in law to purchase, receive and hold to them and their successors forever, or for any less estate, any lands, tenements, goods or chattels that is given, granted or devised to them, or purchased by them for the use of the university, and to use and dispose of the lands, tenements, goods or chattels, in such manner as to them shall seem most advantageous for the use of the university.

The AD absolutely makes money through Capitalism. They do so through Capitalism endeavors of the various broadcast corporations that cover their events. A substantial amount of revenue is also obtained from donations. Donations imply charity, which is not inherent to any form of political ideology, save one that would forbid charity. It is not a marker.

As to the not really, well, let's look at Wiki again, for a refresher:

A socialist society is a social structure organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance

Let's compare:
UTAD: equal power-relations? Nope. Who has more power at the University, the UTAD, the BoT or the Biology department? The UTAD is not on equal grounds with the Biology department, or the BoT.

UTAD: self-management? Nope. Changes have to be approved by the BoT, if they are substantial enough.

UTAD: dispersed decision-making? Somewhat. Everything must funnel through the ADCOMs to the Athletic Board to the BoT. There is some leeway, but for the most part, it is a dictatorship, and the BoT is the ultimate dictator.

UTAD: reduction or elimination of hierarchal and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance? Nope. There is a ton of hierarchy, bureaucracy, administration and governance, and it has grown over the years. (Not a reduction).

Essentially, UTAD satisfies 0.5/4 common markers for socialism.

 

[utgibbs]

The modern version is a land-grant institution, but that in no way implies socialism. There are many aspects of "public property" that are inherent in various forms of government and political ideology. Such an argument can be applied to any number of political ideologies: representative democracy, monarchy, socialism, etc. It is not a marker for any one form.

You do realize that monarchy, democracy and republics predate socialism as a political theory, correct? With that in mind, understand that Government "ownership" of land is not a "construct" of socialism. It is a huge part of the theory, but it in no way implies only socialism. There are plenty of political ideologies that pre-date socialism that also incorporate governmental "ownership" of property.

Furthermore, the Government does not "own" the UTAD, or the BoT. The government has established that the BoT is free to operate in any manner that does not violate the Constitution.

The BoT, in essence, acts as its own governmental body. As far as land goes, here again is TN State Law



The AD absolutely makes money through Capitalism. They do so through Capitalism endeavors of the various broadcast corporations that cover their events. A substantial amount of revenue is also obtained from donations. Donations imply charity, which is not inherent to any form of political ideology, save one that would forbid charity. It is not a marker.

As to the not really, well, let's look at Wiki again, for a refresher:



Let's compare:
UTAD: equal power-relations? Nope. Who has more power at the University, the UTAD, the BoT or the Biology department? The UTAD is not on equal grounds with the Biology department, or the BoT.

UTAD: self-management? Nope. Changes have to be approved by the BoT, if they are substantial enough.

UTAD: dispersed decision-making? Somewhat. Everything must funnel through the ADCOMs to the Athletic Board to the BoT. There is some leeway, but for the most part, it is a dictatorship, and the BoT is the ultimate dictator.

UTAD: reduction or elimination of hierarchal and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance? Nope. There is a ton of hierarchy, bureaucracy, administration and governance, and it has grown over the years. (Not a reduction).

Essentially, UTAD satisfies 0.5/4 common markers for socialism.

float, every post you make supports the socialist angle all the more.

The AD makes money through a variety of instruments - and, in truth, some of it's primary mechanisms are on very interesting ground with regards to tax dollars. None of these mechanisms is Capitalism. You are refering to a market structure which any "owner" of the means of production can get access to.

At the end of the day, the BoT, controlled ultimately by the legislature, has final say-so. It is an institution founded by a dispersement of federal land to the State of Tennessee for the sole purpose of setting up an institution of higher learning.

It's socialism. It ain't that bad! :good!:

 

[BeecherVol]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

There have been plenty of profitable state-run companies in China, Europe, Israel, etc. Making profit does not exempt one from socialist status.

The donation income is tricky ground - a lot of it attributable to taxation (or, in this case, an actual puzzling case of tax deduction).

Regardless, although I haven't looked over the books, I believe UTAD is probably profitable, but it is still a socialist institution.

That's fine by me. Works a treat! :good!:

Never mentioned making a profit.

The point had more to do with the donations/non tax revenue. Basically the money brought in, that is not forced by paying taxes, the gifts in other words.

Would the UTAD run the same without donations, or money brought in from non tax dollars?

 

[fl0at]

float, every post you make supports the socialist angle all the more.

The AD makes money through a variety of instruments - and, in truth, some of it's primary mechanisms are on very interesting ground with regards to tax dollars. None of these mechanisms is Capitalism. You are refering to a market structure which any "owner" of the means of production can get access to.

At the end of the day, the BoT, controlled ultimately by the legislature, has final say-so. It is an institution founded by a dispersement of federal land to the State of Tennessee for the sole purpose of setting up an institution of higher learning.

It's socialism. It ain't that bad! :good!:

Gibbs, if 0.5/4, or 12.5% of the basic indicators for socialism, is "support," then you are not quite the "metrics" guy I thought you were.

Please elaborate on the assertion that the AD is on "very interesting ground with regards to tax dollars." Please produce the amount of money that the AD takes from said tax dollars.

The money garnered from television revenue, ads and seats in Neyland are all capitalist endeavors that generate a private profit. Ergo, capitalist.

If you honestly believe you can get access to running through the T, please, I implore you, run on the field during the game. Your access is limited and controlled.

At the end of the day, the BoT is NOT controlled ultimately by the government. The BoT are appointed members who are legally authorized the make any bylaws they see fit, so long as they are not unconstitutional.

They can completely disband the AD, right now, without consent of the General Assembly. This is because the AD is created by bylaws, and the state of Tennessee, in the STATE LAW authorizes the BoT to "have full power and authority to make bylaws, rules and regulations for the government of the university and the promotion of education in the university that in their opinion may be expedient or necessary."

Explain how our state law, as noted above in quotes, means the GA has ultimate control over the University.

 

[rjd970]

I don't care what anybody says. Without guys like utgibbs and LG this place would be much more boring during the offseason.

 

[MG1968]

I don't care what anybody says. Without guys like utgibbs and LG this place would be much more boring during the offseason.

yeah, but they're poor substitutes for OE and Finevol plus they have a long way to go before their trollishness is as strong as Billy C.'s

 

[utgibbs]

Gibbs, if 0.5/4, or 12.5% of the basic indicators for socialism, is "support," then you are not quite the "metrics" guy I thought you were.

Please elaborate on the assertion that the AD is on "very interesting ground with regards to tax dollars." Please produce the amount of money that the AD takes from said tax dollars. Donations are tax deductible. Without the tax break, what would this revenue stream look like? In fact, they've made the Tennessee Fund in order to streamline the tax accounting.

The money garnered from television revenue, ads and seats in Neyland are all capitalist endeavors that generate a private (sic) profit. Ergo, capitalist.

If you honestly believe you can get access to running through the T, please, I implore you, run on the field during the game. Your access is limited and controlled.

At the end of the day, the BoT is NOT controlled ultimately by the government. The BoT are appointed members who are legally authorized the make any bylaws they see fit, so long as they are not unconstitutional. (17 of the 26 Trustees are always legislators.)

They can completely disband the AD, right now, without consent of the General Assembly. This is because the AD is created by bylaws, and the state of Tennessee, in the STATE LAW authorizes the BoT to "have full power and authority to make bylaws, rules and regulations for the government of the university and the promotion of education in the university that in their opinion may be expedient or necessary." (Exactly, socialism).

Explain how our state law, as noted above in quotes, means the GA has ultimate control over the University.(Trustees are always a supermajority of legislators)

They obviously don't make it for private profit - the ads, TV revenue, et al. is obviously for public profit, float. Tell me, who gets the dividends?

:hi:

 

[fl0at]

(17 of the 26 Trustees are always legislators.)

Untrue; quite a full faced lie if truth be told. In fact, only (1) member is a legislator, the Governor.

As noted by state law:

(a) The board of trustees of the University of Tennessee shall consist of five (5) ex officio members, and twenty-two (22) additional appointed members.


(1) Of the twenty-two (22) additional members, one (1) shall be appointed from each congressional district. Each member shall reside within the congressional district from which the member is appointed as such district is apportioned at the time of the member's appointment.

Furthermore, here is the board, broken down dummy style, for you.

The Honorable Bill Haslam = Governor, ex officio
Mr. James L. Murphy, III = Not a member of the GA
Charles Anderson = Not a member of the GA
Ms. Anne Holt Blackburn = Not a member of the GA
Dr. Toby Boulet = Not a member of the GA
Mr. William Y. Carroll = Not a member of the GA
Mr. George Cates = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Spruell Driver = Not a member of the GA
John N. Foy = Not a member of the GA
Crawford Gallimore = Not a member of the GA
Monice Moore Hagler = Not a member of the GA
Mr. James E. Hall = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Douglas Horne = Not a member of the GA
Julius Johnson = Not a member of the GA
Karen Johnson = Not a member of the GA
Ms. Andrea J. Loughry = Not a member of the GA
The Honorable Richard G. Rhoda = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Karl A. Schledwitz = Not a member of the GA
Dr. Joe DiPietro = Not a member of the GA
Ms. Carey Smith = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Don C. Stansberry, Jr. = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Robert Talbott = Not a member of the GA
Betty Ann Tanner = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Sumeet Sudhir Vaikunth = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Charles Wharton = Not a member of the GA

STOP MAKING STUFF UP GIBBS, it is intellectually dishonest. Anyone can look up state representatives at capital.tn.gov and compare to bot.tennessee.edu

 

[fl0at]

Donations are tax deductible. Without the tax break, what would this revenue stream look like? In fact, they've made the Tennessee Fund in order to streamline the tax accounting.

That donations are tax deductible has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever. Tax donations are deductible every year, and that does not mean people still give, or don't give. People give to support their school and their team.

Tax deductible does not imply anything in the way of socialism or any other political ideology.

(Exactly, socialism).

Full power of UT by the BoT is not socialism, it is, in fact, representative democracy, a bit of republicanism and a bit of capitalism all rolled into one. The BoT must vote on measures that improve the University, and they are representative to and of the University, which is why there are students on the BoT. They represent the University, and are in no way controlled by state law.

(Trustees are always a supermajority of legislators)

Again, either a bold faced lie or a misunderstanding of the BoT. Either way, absolutely incorrect in every way shape and form.

They obviously don't make it for private profit - the ads, TV revenue, et al. is obviously for public profit, float. Tell me, who gets the dividends?
:hi:

How does ESPN televised games through contracts approved by the BoT, in cooperation with the SEC a public profit, gibbs?

ESPN gets their contracted end, UT gets their contracted end.

 

[MG1968]

STOP MAKING STUFF UP GIBBS, it is intellectually dishonest.

you could have simply posted that and officially ended the thread

gibbs' pedantic reply notwithstanding

 

[fl0at]

you could have simply posted that and officially ended the thread

gibbs' pedantic reply notwithstanding

Oh, I have no doubt in my mind, that in an absurd attempt to save face after having absolutely no understanding of the BoT composition that gibbs will merely post that since the BoT can make bylaws, they are "legislatures" and any argument to the contrary about the true meaning of the word would be "quibbling."

Most individuals would admit that they misunderstood the phrase "17 congressional district and county representatives" (which, by the way gibbs, means from the Federal Congressional districts, not the representatives of those districts).

If gibbs states he misunderstood, I will have respect for his admission. We shall see what route he takes.

 

[utgibbs]

Untrue; quite a full faced lie if truth be told. In fact, only (1) member is a legislator, the Governor.

As noted by state law:



Furthermore, here is the board, broken down dummy style, for you.

The Honorable Bill Haslam = Governor, ex officio
Mr. James L. Murphy, III = Not a member of the GA
Charles Anderson = Not a member of the GA
Ms. Anne Holt Blackburn = Not a member of the GA
Dr. Toby Boulet = Not a member of the GA
Mr. William Y. Carroll = Not a member of the GA
Mr. George Cates = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Spruell Driver = Not a member of the GA
John N. Foy = Not a member of the GA
Crawford Gallimore = Not a member of the GA
Monice Moore Hagler = Not a member of the GA
Mr. James E. Hall = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Douglas Horne = Not a member of the GA
Julius Johnson = Not a member of the GA
Karen Johnson = Not a member of the GA
Ms. Andrea J. Loughry = Not a member of the GA
The Honorable Richard G. Rhoda = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Karl A. Schledwitz = Not a member of the GA
Dr. Joe DiPietro = Not a member of the GA
Ms. Carey Smith = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Don C. Stansberry, Jr. = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Robert Talbott = Not a member of the GA
Betty Ann Tanner = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Sumeet Sudhir Vaikunth = Not a member of the GA
Mr. Charles Wharton = Not a member of the GA

STOP MAKING STUFF UP GIBBS, it is intellectually dishonest. Anyone can look up state representatives at capital.tn.gov and compare to bot.tennessee.edu

Interesting.

Board of Trustees | About

Obviously the phrase: 17 congressional district and county representatives is not drawn from the legislature.

That's fine. Who gets the dividends?

It's still socialist. :hi:

 

[utgibbs]

Oh, I have no doubt in my mind, that in an absurd attempt to save face after having absolutely no understanding of the BoT composition that gibbs will merely post that since the BoT can make bylaws, they are "legislatures" and any argument to the contrary about the true meaning of the word would be "quibbling."

Most individuals would admit that they misunderstood the phrase "17 congressional district and county representatives" (which, by the way gibbs, means from the Federal Congressional districts, not the representatives of those districts).
If gibbs states he misunderstood, I will have respect for his admission. We shall see what route he takes.

You are correct here. I did misinterpret, and I made a mistake as admitted above. And I said up front I didn't have all the answers on this one.

However, I didn't make a mistake about UTAD being a socialist institution. The BoT is a representative governing body. It does not distribute funds to shareholders. It was created from a federal land-grant. UTAD obtains much revenue from a tax rebate system. It is still a socialist institution. :hi: