Tuesday, December 05, 2006
It was amazing how close we came in the early to mid 1900's to becoming a socialist society. One of the reasons socialism failed was because communism was an abysmal failure. People associated communism with socialism and did not want to live in a restrictive society in which the government controlled everything. We chose capitalism as our mantra. Instead of a dictator controlling everything we have corporations controlling everything.
Another reason socialism was destroyed was because big business did not want the people to organize and form strong unions, so they did everything they could to prevent it. By backing McCarthyism and the witch hunts which followed, they further ensured America would remain their ripe territory and the people would have no recourse. It was also around this time in which corporations learned how much power they had and how easy and cheap it was to buy politicians. Buying politicians ensured no labor laws would ever surface and the balance of power has been tilted their way ever since. Only FDR with his New Deal was able to break this trend but conservatives have been trying to sabotage Social Security ever since.
In my opinion, a blissful situation exists when a society has a mixture of socialism and capitalism; both must coexist. Both compliment each other and also account for people which fall through the cracks. My definition of socialism does not call for bigger government but smarter government. It allows for tighter, more restrictive regulations on monopolies, such as, utilities and hospitals. It also puts tighter controls on markets by NOT allowing large corporations within the same market to merge and NOT allowing corporations to create markets which are unwanted by the consumer.
An example of an unwanted market situation was when I wrote a few months back about a remote control which does not allow the channel to be changed on a television while advertisements are playing. No consumer is going to want that so it should not be allowed. Only demand should dictate the market and not vise versa. When forces other than demand dictate markets, you have the same treachery as in a restrictive communistic society.
Capitalism is supposed to allow markets to set the pricing and production levels based upon demand (unless you have a monopoly). It’s a company’s knowledge of these markets which dictates profit levels. If you produce the perfect amount of your product to satisfy demand then your profits will be excellent. If you produce too many or too little then your profits will suffer. But the most important thing here is to realize demand is set by the consumer and NOT the company.
There are several markets in which the corporations have complete control so they can set pricing to whatever level they want and basically dictate how the market will operate. Utilities are a perfect example of this. This is why government regulations exist; so these monopolies cannot cannot completely suck our Country dry. This is also why these monopolistic companies lobby so hard to remove these regulations. Don’t ever be fooled by legislation calling to end government regulations – they always exist to protect the consumer. And remember YOU are the consumer.
The MPAA and the RIAA are a different kind of monopoly and they are constantly lobbying the government for more control by turning an average family into wanted felons with ridiculous rules. This article is the epitome of greed and a microcosm of the problem which plagues our society. Keep in mind that the article is pure satire but the point is well made. In this fake scenario, the MPAA wants to collect a fee from any home theatre system, which is defined as two chairs in a room with a television. If you don’t pay the fee then pay a fine of $500,000.
When a DVD is sold, it is only to be viewed by one person. Any other people watching the movie should pay a fee to the MPAA. I can actually imagine the MPAA sponsoring a bill like this. Then our Senators, who are paid by the lobbyists, could again show their true colors by easily passing it into law. Here is how the law would work:
Our scenario begins as a family (husband, wife, kids, dog and a cat) huddle comfortably in front of the television to watch the new Shrek DVD. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door, “Federal Agents, this is a bust!!!!” Then the front door bursts open and eleven or so men clad in black with hoods and guns rush into the house grabbing the family and throwing them onto the ground. The cat and dog are quickly tazed before they can react and left in a puddle of their own drool and piss. The rest of the family is quickly handcuffed and hauled away to stand trial before a federal judge. They are held without bail in this serious matter for one month before the trial begins. After a short trial they are quickly sentenced to ten years in jail and a $500,000 fine – they loose everything. The final scene is animal control putting the family pets into a barred van as the foreclosure notice is hammered onto the front door by the local sheriff. Another family destroyed to protect DVD sales. This successful and rewarding bust sponsored by the MPAA and the RIAA (I’m sure the RIAA will also want a piece of this).
Could this ever be possible? I think it could be. If so, is this what the market is dictating the consumer wants or is this the consumer dictating what the market wants? When our Congress votes on issues like this with the freshly printed money from the lobbyists in their pockets do they realize what they are signing into law?
Another reason socialism was destroyed was because big business did not want the people to organize and form strong unions, so they did everything they could to prevent it. By backing McCarthyism and the witch hunts which followed, they further ensured America would remain their ripe territory and the people would have no recourse. It was also around this time in which corporations learned how much power they had and how easy and cheap it was to buy politicians. Buying politicians ensured no labor laws would ever surface and the balance of power has been tilted their way ever since. Only FDR with his New Deal was able to break this trend but conservatives have been trying to sabotage Social Security ever since.
In my opinion, a blissful situation exists when a society has a mixture of socialism and capitalism; both must coexist. Both compliment each other and also account for people which fall through the cracks. My definition of socialism does not call for bigger government but smarter government. It allows for tighter, more restrictive regulations on monopolies, such as, utilities and hospitals. It also puts tighter controls on markets by NOT allowing large corporations within the same market to merge and NOT allowing corporations to create markets which are unwanted by the consumer.
An example of an unwanted market situation was when I wrote a few months back about a remote control which does not allow the channel to be changed on a television while advertisements are playing. No consumer is going to want that so it should not be allowed. Only demand should dictate the market and not vise versa. When forces other than demand dictate markets, you have the same treachery as in a restrictive communistic society.
Capitalism is supposed to allow markets to set the pricing and production levels based upon demand (unless you have a monopoly). It’s a company’s knowledge of these markets which dictates profit levels. If you produce the perfect amount of your product to satisfy demand then your profits will be excellent. If you produce too many or too little then your profits will suffer. But the most important thing here is to realize demand is set by the consumer and NOT the company.
There are several markets in which the corporations have complete control so they can set pricing to whatever level they want and basically dictate how the market will operate. Utilities are a perfect example of this. This is why government regulations exist; so these monopolies cannot cannot completely suck our Country dry. This is also why these monopolistic companies lobby so hard to remove these regulations. Don’t ever be fooled by legislation calling to end government regulations – they always exist to protect the consumer. And remember YOU are the consumer.
The MPAA and the RIAA are a different kind of monopoly and they are constantly lobbying the government for more control by turning an average family into wanted felons with ridiculous rules. This article is the epitome of greed and a microcosm of the problem which plagues our society. Keep in mind that the article is pure satire but the point is well made. In this fake scenario, the MPAA wants to collect a fee from any home theatre system, which is defined as two chairs in a room with a television. If you don’t pay the fee then pay a fine of $500,000.
When a DVD is sold, it is only to be viewed by one person. Any other people watching the movie should pay a fee to the MPAA. I can actually imagine the MPAA sponsoring a bill like this. Then our Senators, who are paid by the lobbyists, could again show their true colors by easily passing it into law. Here is how the law would work:
Our scenario begins as a family (husband, wife, kids, dog and a cat) huddle comfortably in front of the television to watch the new Shrek DVD. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door, “Federal Agents, this is a bust!!!!” Then the front door bursts open and eleven or so men clad in black with hoods and guns rush into the house grabbing the family and throwing them onto the ground. The cat and dog are quickly tazed before they can react and left in a puddle of their own drool and piss. The rest of the family is quickly handcuffed and hauled away to stand trial before a federal judge. They are held without bail in this serious matter for one month before the trial begins. After a short trial they are quickly sentenced to ten years in jail and a $500,000 fine – they loose everything. The final scene is animal control putting the family pets into a barred van as the foreclosure notice is hammered onto the front door by the local sheriff. Another family destroyed to protect DVD sales. This successful and rewarding bust sponsored by the MPAA and the RIAA (I’m sure the RIAA will also want a piece of this).
Could this ever be possible? I think it could be. If so, is this what the market is dictating the consumer wants or is this the consumer dictating what the market wants? When our Congress votes on issues like this with the freshly printed money from the lobbyists in their pockets do they realize what they are signing into law?
posted by DarthImmortal at 9:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home