TritonRider wrote:
>>From: MagillaGorilla [email protected]
>
>
>>I will answer your question with the following statement: pro cycling
>>and bike racing and all the satellite companies they support probably
>>equates to a billion dollar industry.
>
>
> Here are some facts:
> http://nbda.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=34
>
>
>
>>Your argument is irrelevant
>
>
> I disagree. We are talking about how "important" cycling is. You chose to say
> that it's important because of the business it generates. BTW that was much
> higher than your guess.
> It's still a drop in the bucket of GNP.
> http://www.forecasts.org/gnp.htm
> Here's a little perspective:
> http://www.bls.gov/iag/leisurehosp.htm
>
> Extracted:
> Data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program show that, in
> the economy as a whole:
>
> arts, entertainment, and recreation represents about 1.4 percent of all
> employment and about 1.3 percent of all establishments;
>
> All of that was 1.4% how big a chunk of that do you think cycling is?
Your comparison of total bike sales to the sport of professional cycling
(so-called "entertainment" value as an industry) is way too broad. If
you eliminated the sport of pro cycling tomorrow, the industry would
still sell $5.1 billion of those bike sales worldwide.
So my estimate was not off - you are misrepresenting my argument and
then claiming I made a mistake. I was NEVER talking about total bike
sales, douchebag.
And obviously, I didn't want to turn this discussion into a spreadsheet
because it was unnecessary to do so.
My point was that cycling is NOT just entertainment as you and Henrietta
keep saying everytime the subject of doping comes up. It's a
combination of numerous linked industries and businesses: marketing,
sales, machine shop welding, tool dyes, shipping (UPS/FedEx), OLN,
commercials, video production companies, clothing manufacturing,
photography, bike sales, news reporting, airlines, hotel reservations,
graphic design, printers, etc.
I could probably list 50 more but I don't see the point on beating a
dead horse. It's obvious professional cycling is NOT just entertainment
and that you and Henrietta are simpletons for saying that.
After I explained this to you, you then conceded that is was only 3
things: "arts, entertainment, and recreation"..and then went on to say
how all of that [incomplete] list comprises only 1.4% of GNP.
First of all, the list is much more extensive than those three and
probably doesn't even include "recreation" because we're talking about
pro cycling and not recreational cycling (Remember the premise of this
discussion? It was based on a doping issue and how the law doesn't care
about enforcing doping in cycling because "it's just entertainment" and
how the sport's existence can be defined as NOTHING but entertainment.
These arguments are all wrong.)
And second, if it were 1.4% of GNP, any economist worth their salt would
tell you that is HUGE amount both dollar wise and absolute amount wise.
You tried to imply that 1.4% is small.
Dude, you need to get an education and then come back here and bring
something intelligent to the table besides misrepresentations and
misunderstandings.
Thanks,
Magilla
Magilla
