3 ms·

I'm taking a Money, Media, and Power class that looks at the history of the United States since the 80s in great detail. It considers how America has become ex

by jmtame 18y ago

I'm taking a Money, Media, and Power class that looks at the history of the United States since the 80s in great detail. It considers how America has become extremely capitalistic, which isn't bad as long as open, competitive markets are encouraged. What we've seen happen in history is the massive consolidation of companies. Look at the media industry, for example. It is now impossible to create your own TV network, and it will probably soon be impossible to compete freely on the Internet because the same conglomerates that dominate the cable and phone industry are trying to do the same thing with the Internet. I have two words that can summarize the entire thing: network neutrality. Complete deregulation is a bad idea; what happens if you take all the rules out of a football game? Everyone will cheat. How does this relate to the topic? We don't like people who get their money for two reasons, in my opinion. We don't like people who are anti-competitive, and who try to dominate markets (such as the Internet, cable, and television industries) and intentionally want to stifle innovation. That's not contributing to society, and we all know that once a monopoly is established, a company has no incentive to innovate. The other reason I personally dislike people with great wealth is because they're not being fiducially responsible. If America is going to be more capitalistic, the people with the money should be driving innovation, not stifling it. They need to act responsibly with their money, and that includes being philanthropic and charitable. When they just hoard it all and it becomes a competition to see who can hold the biggest pot, I don't think you deserve to have it in the first place (think Elon Musk, and how much money he has invested into SpaceX and Tesla Motors). What we have now is a massive gap in income disparity, and that's pissing off the lower and middle class. It's actually driving the middle class out of existence, and I would say at that point the wealth isn't being distributed evenly enough. That's my take on why we dislike wealthy people. At least some of them. As the article pointed out, I really do think some self-made rich individuals rightfully deserve it and are acting responsibly.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
Hexstream 18y ago
"What happens if you take all the rules out of a football game? Everyone will cheat" Technically, if you take all the rules out of a football game then nobody can cheat.
- jmtame 18y ago
  Ha! That is true. I should have said what happens if you take all the regulation out of a football game. I was trying to emphasize the point that deregulation (or taking away neutrality rules) is bad and will allow larger media companies free reign to do whatever they want. With that much power, they're bound to exert absolute control over the whole system. The idea of regulation is not to stifle younger, newer innovators. It's to prevent the larger players from taking over and locking out competition. At one point, it was illegal to own more than 40 TV stations.
  - anamax 18y ago
    It's always a bad idea to confuse intent with effect. I've no doubt that fans of regulation want good things. However, the result of said regulation rarely matches those intentions. Not to go all Dr. Phil, but insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result. Media control regulations lock in big media. Note that we didn't even get a fourth network until TV started to lose marketshare. (Yes, no one owned more than 40 stations, but that restriction didn't affect media control.)
elai 18y ago
The thing is that the current rules in the USA for telecom & cable companies encourage monopolization and got us in this telecom mess in the first place. Municipalities giving local monopolies, huge government subsides to a small few companies, preferential laws, the FCC, and a long history of acting like monopolistic assholes. If all legal advantage and monopoly was REMOVED from telecom, you would all of a sudden see a huge change in the system.
abstractbill 18y ago
It is now impossible to create your own TV network Justin.TV to the rescue! ;-)
Prrometheus 18y ago
You make a lot of popular assumptions in your post that are not supported by reality. I would be skeptical of the value that you are getting for your tuition in "Money, Media, and Power". >What we've seen happen in history is the massive consolidation of companies. Look at the media industry, for example. The media market is fluid and competitive. The top players today are not the same top players of 10 or 20 years ago. The industry has also not become much more consolidated over the past few decades. http://www.reason.com/news/show/29001.html http://www.reason.com/news/show/29001.html >we all know that once a monopoly is established, a company has no incentive to innovate. A sluggish monopoly is a ripe target for new competitors, as long as the government or other barriers to entry don't get in the way. See Firefox/Internet Explorer. > If America is going to be more capitalistic, the people with the money should be driving innovation, not stifling it. They need to act responsibly with their money, and that includes being philanthropic and charitable. I have rarely seen innovation come from philanthropic or charitable acts. The vast increase in technology, efficiency, and productivity of the last 50 years can largely be attributed to selfish, for-profit actions. >When they just hoard it all and it becomes a competition to see who can hold the biggest pot, I don't think you deserve to have it in the first place In the process of "hoarding" wealth, they create value. See my previous point. > It's actually driving the middle class out of existence. Bullshit: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/26/new-income-and-poverty-figures-spoil-the-pity-party/ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/26/new-income-and-pov...
yummyfajitas 18y ago
>It's actually driving the middle class out of existence, and I would say at that point the wealth isn't being distributed evenly enough. I think you are using the term "middle class" in an atypical way. Consider a person who has "a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded...his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs" Would you categorize this person as middle class? I think most people would (I certainly do). (If not, please explain.) It turns out the person I just described is the median poor American. Everyone is now middle class, even the poor. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

by jmtame 18y ago

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

Hexstream 18y ago

"What happens if you take all the rules out of a football game? Everyone will cheat" Technically, if you take all the rules out of a football game then nobody can cheat.

jmtame 18y ago
Ha! That is true. I should have said what happens if you take all the regulation out of a football game. I was trying to emphasize the point that deregulation (or taking away neutrality rules) is bad and will allow larger media companies free reign to do whatever they want. With that much power, they're bound to exert absolute control over the whole system. The idea of regulation is not to stifle younger, newer innovators. It's to prevent the larger players from taking over and locking out competition. At one point, it was illegal to own more than 40 TV stations.
- anamax 18y ago
  It's always a bad idea to confuse intent with effect. I've no doubt that fans of regulation want good things. However, the result of said regulation rarely matches those intentions. Not to go all Dr. Phil, but insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result. Media control regulations lock in big media. Note that we didn't even get a fourth network until TV started to lose marketshare. (Yes, no one owned more than 40 stations, but that restriction didn't affect media control.)

elai 18y ago

The thing is that the current rules in the USA for telecom & cable companies encourage monopolization and got us in this telecom mess in the first place. Municipalities giving local monopolies, huge government subsides to a small few companies, preferential laws, the FCC, and a long history of acting like monopolistic assholes. If all legal advantage and monopoly was REMOVED from telecom, you would all of a sudden see a huge change in the system.

abstractbill 18y ago

It is now impossible to create your own TV network Justin.TV to the rescue! ;-)

Prrometheus 18y ago

You make a lot of popular assumptions in your post that are not supported by reality. I would be skeptical of the value that you are getting for your tuition in "Money, Media, and Power". >What we've seen happen in history is the massive consolidation of companies. Look at the media industry, for example. The media market is fluid and competitive. The top players today are not the same top players of 10 or 20 years ago. The industry has also not become much more consolidated over the past few decades. http://www.reason.com/news/show/29001.html http://www.reason.com/news/show/29001.html >we all know that once a monopoly is established, a company has no incentive to innovate. A sluggish monopoly is a ripe target for new competitors, as long as the government or other barriers to entry don't get in the way. See Firefox/Internet Explorer. > If America is going to be more capitalistic, the people with the money should be driving innovation, not stifling it. They need to act responsibly with their money, and that includes being philanthropic and charitable. I have rarely seen innovation come from philanthropic or charitable acts. The vast increase in technology, efficiency, and productivity of the last 50 years can largely be attributed to selfish, for-profit actions. >When they just hoard it all and it becomes a competition to see who can hold the biggest pot, I don't think you deserve to have it in the first place In the process of "hoarding" wealth, they create value. See my previous point. > It's actually driving the middle class out of existence. Bullshit: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/26/new-income-and-poverty-figures-spoil-the-pity-party/ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/26/new-income-and-pov...

yummyfajitas 18y ago

>It's actually driving the middle class out of existence, and I would say at that point the wealth isn't being distributed evenly enough. I think you are using the term "middle class" in an atypical way. Consider a person who has "a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded...his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs" Would you categorize this person as middle class? I think most people would (I certainly do). (If not, please explain.) It turns out the person I just described is the median poor American. Everyone is now middle class, even the poor. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm