7 ms·

> “While radio across the country has been overtaken by giant corporate broadcasting groups, I’ve loved being a local, independent owner all these years,” King

• graemep 2y ago
  > almost everyone except politicians is critical of big corporation I think that is the critical point. Big corporations are good at lobbying. They shape policy. Politicians do not only like big corporations, they allow them a lot of influence, so they can shape policy to advantage themselves against smaller competitors.
  • InDubioProRubio 2y ago
    Which also includes building bureaucracy moats- that load smaller competitors with unpaid for paperwork and prevent them from operating. Which is never really addressed as source of state inefficiency in liberal literature. At some point, the creature gets hacked by the actual ruler (monopolistic cooperations) and used as a sock puppet.
    • graemep 2y ago
      > Which also includes building bureaucracy moats- that load smaller competitors with unpaid for paperwork and prevent them from operating Exactly. one of the defining moments for my political views was hearing the CEO of a big pub company explaining that this was why they could keep expanding as smaller competitors gave up because of the administrative burden. Both governments and big business live complex rules.
      • i_am_proteus 2y ago
        I'm not sure which CEO you specifically heard, but this[only] is a great example of what you're talking about. Llloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, making statements to this effect in 2015. [only]https://www.wsj.com/articles/regulation-is-good-for-goldman-1423700859 https://www.wsj.com/articles/regulation-is-good-for-goldman-...
        • graemep 2y ago
          Thanks, that is a brilliant quote. The CEO I heard was Ted Tuppen, who ran Enterprise Inns, a big British pub company. Shows what a wide range of things this is true for!
    • Lendal 2y ago
      If this is true, why do corporations lobby against regulation? Either they want more regulations to build this "moat", or they don't. If both outcomes result in a win for them, (deregulation vs moat-building by greater regulation) why spend money on lobbying?
      • graemep 2y ago
        I think two things happen: 1. They say they are opposed to regulations publicly, but indicate they will "compromise" privately. 2. They lobby against some regulations and against others. Here is an example of a business openly asking for more regulation: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51518773 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51518773 I actually agree with some of his arguments, but I do not think his motives are exactly pure.
    • moomin 2y ago
      I’m thinking it must be mentioned more than you think, since I’m a proper lefty and even I think there’s a problem there.
      • graemep 2y ago
        Maybe you are aware of the problem because you are a "proper lefty"? A dying breed these days, unfortunately. It is certainly glossed over by "market fundamentalist" types who tend to think let the market do its work is magic pixie dust.
        • InDubioProRubio 2y ago
          Are there many of those left anymore? Everytime i encounter it and probe it, its basically some thin layer of paint on basically neo-feudalism "whose bread i eat those song i sing" mercenary mentality. Probe for the "not-a-real-ism" shism and if they do not want to go back to small companies fighting, but prefer big behemoths stagnating- not a true free market spirit- also a indicator, if they integrate well into hierarchies.
          • moomin 2y ago
            Meh, markets are a useful tool for the allocation of resources, but like everything you need to keep an eye on what they're doing and who's benefiting. And like everything you need to keep an eye on the people entrusted with keeping an eye on things as well.
• MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
  The first time this happened was due to de-regulation under Bill Clinton in the 90s, triggering a wave of consolidation by the "Telecommunications Act of 1996", driving many small broadcasters out of the market. [0] The second time was shortly before the election, giving left-wing activist billionaire George Soros control over 200 stations [1] [2], in an expedited process that usually takes over a year. It is not hard to see why they accelerated it and why they approved it at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 [1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/george-soros-closer-controlling-200-radio-despite-objection-trump-nominated-fcc-commissioner https://www.foxnews.com/media/george-soros-closer-controllin... [2] https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-langworthy-probe-politicization-of-fcc-with-shortcut-decision-to-facilitate-a-george-soros-deal-to-obtain-a-major-stake-in-over-200-radio-stations/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-langworthy-probe-p...
  • n4r9 2y ago
    Reagan set the scene for this in the 70s with broad economic deregulation and crippling of anti trust enforcement. This established a narrative of the self-correcting nature of markets and the negative consequences of any government intervention or regulation. Only recently in the Biden administration has this narrative met serious challenges, with for example the appointment of Lina Khan and a comeback for anti trust activity. Worryingly, Trump looks set to rewind anti trust activity against mega corporations like Google, ontop of hiring mega corporation advocates into his cabinet, and likely firing Khan despite her incredible performance.
    • MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
      > Reagan set the scene for this in the 70s Ronald Reagan was president from 1981 - 1989. He may have been a Republican, but his actual policies were quite left-wing (eg no-fault divorce, amnesty for illegal immigrants).
      • thrance 2y ago
        Raegan had left-wing policies? Are you trying to reinterpret history to suit your views? Look at this page [1], how are austerity and capital gain tax cuts left-wing again? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
• amtc80 2y ago
  > Almost everyone except politicians is critical of big corporations, yet they're ever growing like a tumor, leaving small mom-and-pop businesses by the wayside. Unfortunately that isn't really true. Many might think the idea of being local is reasonable, but they don't really support it. It's the same with startups. Many like they idea but ask them how to get affordable housing, healthcare and transportation so you can actually make ramen profitability, burn rate and opportunity cost work and they will at best ramble about zoning, taxes and bureaucracy. Most of the time it isn't someone else doing it. Not the politicians, not the corporations, but the local population themselves. They are the ones lowering taxes, defunding colleges, buying cars, going to big box stores and supporting their local mini real estate tycoons. Until everyone who can leave for a bigger place. Which while not local have enough verity that you can carve out your own space. People are even going to Thailand, Argentina, Portugal, China and other places to get a different lifestyle. They would go just about anywhere there was actual support for the local community. And sure, it isn't like other bigger developments doesn't affect the situation, but it is 'on the ground' that the changes are happening.
  • Schiendelman 2y ago
    Why are you asking startups to change your politics? Go organize if you want to fix zoning. Business shouldn't be asked to do that, or you go down a path you will not be happy with.
    • amtc80 2y ago
      I'm not asking startups to change politics. The opposite. It is often literally like I said. You ask someone do you support startups? Yes. Do you support innovation? Yes. Do you support education? Yes. So where in your region can I live to have runway to start a business? Where can I find a space to do some manufacturing? How can I attend the local college? Well, actually... *excuses*. Most just blatantly doesn't support their local community. They complain that the business are closing then defund and sell everything local, lower taxes and spend the money elsewhere. I wish it was more complex than that, but in most cases it isn't. In many cases the local car dealership and contractors are doing well. Because that is what they actually prioritize and spend money on in those communities.
• Gravityloss 2y ago
  I do listen to local channels often when driving (not in USA). I think they have often very interesting personalities who are very interested in music and who present good material, I'm learning about new artists or people's backgrounds etc. Sometimes their style of speaking is quite is odd (maybe they were an alcoholic earlier) but that doesn't bother me so much, you get used to it after a minute. I'll take that any day over the hyper-excited people that fill the general channels with empty speech.
  • justlikereddit 2y ago
    The problem with radio is that it's a never ending filler episode made even worse by awful and constant advertisement.
    • Gravityloss 2y ago
      The same exists with everything: podcasts, youtube videos, books and so on.
      • lolinder 2y ago
        Books, if well chosen, do not have that problem. You pay for the content outright (or your library did), so there's no need to cram advertising in, so the content can actually be designed to be useful rather than to drag out the attention between ad segments.
• billy99k 2y ago
  Mom-and-pop businesses usually have to charge higher prices, because they can't get large volume discounts. Big companies also have the infrastructure to ship things reliably from overseas. When it comes down to it, most people would rather save money and pay less than shop at small businesses. On a note about radio: it's dead. If you want a local radio feel, listen to podcasts. Stephen King most likely is losing advertisers because radio, as a medium, is getting overtaken by podcasts and things like Youtube. I used to listen to the radio every day and I haven't been a regular listener for almost a decade.
  • CubsFan1060 2y ago
    > When it comes down to it, most people would rather save money and pay less than shop at small businesses. You hit the nail on the head exactly here. People are very good at maximizing their short term situation, even at the detriment to their community. A good example is people who travel to nearby cities to buy things because they have lower taxes. They don't seem to understand that (for the most part), taxes in their own city benefit their city. Taxes they pay to a neighboring city don't benefit them or their neighbors.
    • mattmaroon 2y ago
      Eh. Retail is only one type of business. The fraction of businesses that are small fluctuates by a couple percent here and there but isn’t on some long term decline. How is it to our long term benefit to continue paying more for goods forever? Maybe we’re just better off in a world where industries that have severe economies of scale like retail get consumed by the big guys so we all save money, and small businesses keep fixing the pipes, designing our graphics, etc.
      • CubsFan1060 2y ago
        I can't back this up with data, so this is just my opinion. Economies of scale are better in almost every way, if the benefits of economies of scale are somewhat evenly distributed, and that the benefits don't come with significant negatives somewhere else. However, most of the time, the majority of the benefits of economies of scale tend to go to the wealthy. The small amount of benefits that do go to consumers/people make them think that they are the beneficiaries, and often the societal cost is masked.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• SideQuark 2y ago
  > Almost nobody likes this development, Most people don't even care, since now there are so many more independent sources of easily accessible information than anyone could have envisioned 40 years ago. In fact, of decades of being in tech, having a lot of friends and connections, I don't know I have even heard one friend lament this, ever. Compare that to the many topics I regularly hear people worry about, or the hundreds of conversations on various repeating topics, I find it way out of touch to think this topic is that big to nearly anyone. > Almost everyone except politicians is critical of big corporations Also not true. I suspect you're in some 20s aged echo chamber? > Without regulation, small businesses will not be able to compete with the giants. Regulation historically serves to entrench big business since they can more easily afford to ensure they meet regulations, and can amortize legal and employment issues than mom and pop stores. > leaving small mom-and-pop businesses by the wayside. The fact is that small businesses have increased much more rapidly in the last decade than perhaps ever. There are over 30 million small businesses in the US, and out of a population of 345M (including infants, teens, retirees...) that is around one small business per 5 working age adults. [1] Read some about small businesses before making so many claims apparently based on poor sources. [1] https://www.uschamber.com/small-business/small-business-data-center https://www.uschamber.com/small-business/small-business-data...
  • henvic 2y ago
    Well said. It's hilarious people don't know about regulatory capture and have so much faith in politicians.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • croon 2y ago
    > Regulation historically serves to entrench big business since they can more easily afford to ensure they meet regulations, and can amortize legal and employment issues than mom and pop stores. How has the regulatory framework changed during the last few administrations and congresses? Who has lobbied for this (de)regulation? Has it led to less conglomeration or more? Regulation is good, regulation is bad. It depends entirely on what it consists of. Changes in regulation historically has probably generally served to entrench big business through extensive and ever increasing lobbying, but that includes both regulation and deregulation.
• MSFT_Edging 2y ago
  You see this happening because large corps simply are more efficient. This is why you'll see communists be against small mom and pop businesses, one in part because the proprietors hold up Capitalism as the petit bourgeois, but also because you get way more done for less by consolidating. The main difference being you can't vote on a Corporation's behavior but theoretically, you have some say in your government's handling of state-owned industry. (inb4 communist dictatorships) At the local level in existing socialist/communist states, there's unions and local leaders who have to answer to the workers generally. Not a perfect system, but hey, China will execute the CEO if they sell poisonous baby food. Can't say the same for whoever was responsible for the Boar's head poisonings.
  • graemep 2y ago
    > You see this happening because large corps simply are more efficient. More efficient in terms of doing things at low cost in a system them manipulated to give them a cost advantage. True. Supermarkets are monopsony buyers, tech companies use patent thickets to keep out new entrants. They lobby for regulations that small businesses without separate compliance departments cannot afford to keep up with.
• scotty79 2y ago
  > Almost everyone except politicians is critical of big corporations, yet they're ever growing like a tumor, leaving small mom-and-pop businesses by the wayside. Corporations found themselves a river of wealth flowing throught the economy and squat on it. That how they became corporations. By walking randomly they landed in a profitable spot, which allowed them to grow like a tumor and extract even more value. That's why politicians are interested in them, because they can leach some of that wealth that's getting extracted. Mom and pop shops are just potential corporations that sat in the wrong spot. They are failed businesses. What's why governement doesn't pay attention to them. While corporations are pumping out rivers of wealth with industrial pumps mom and pop shops are just treading a little bit of liquid wealth in a puddle with a short stick and taking out a little bit that stuck to it. Effect on community, jobs and such is totally irrelevant. Government and the rich don't care about poor people unless there's a chance they might rebel. When you say "everyone except politicians is critical" - "everyone" means, nobody important.
• patrick451 2y ago
  Regulatory capture protects big business and makes it all but impossible for new comers enter the market and weighs down existing small business with the burden of compliance. We need fewer regulations, not more.
• JeremyNT 2y ago
  There is another way, of course, which is public radio. It sounds like King just operated his stations at a loss, but maybe a non profit model could have survived? I currently live in Nashville TN and the local public radio music station is so good that I never use algorithmic streaming any more. I do, however, have a lot of t-shirts and tote bags. https://wnxp.org/ https://wnxp.org/