It appears to me that the market system is badly skewed in favor of producers and sellers, and that the Latin warning caveat emptor – let the buyer beware – is the order of the day.  We have commissions and agencies that are supposed to protect consumers from predatory actions of producers, but I wonder if they work.  Here are but a few examples that cause my concern.

Ma Bell, the monopolistic phone system that I grew up with, was broken up to allow for more competition in communications.  We now have dozens if not scores of phone service providers, mostly wireless, from which to choose.  This should, in theory, make for a better selection of service at better prices for consumers; but, does it?  Have you taken a close look at the wireless plans being offered?  The prices sound good; that is, until you read the fine print.  Most of them require you to lock yourself in to at least a two year contract, with a hefty early termination fee if you change your mind.  You’ll also have to buy that company’s phones in most plans, and their phones are ‘locked,’ meaning that you can’t get another company’s SIM card at a better price and install it. The U.S. is one of the few places on the planet that this is done.  During a recent trip back to the U.S., I found a great deal from one company for one month of service, but my U.S. hand phones unfortunately came from another company, so I couldn’t use them.  Fortunately for me I had my local phone from the country where I’m currently working, so I just took out the SIM card and inserted the U.S. one.  In order to stay in touch with my base overseas, I have to carry the old SIM card with me and switch out when I want to make an overseas call. Believe me, that’s as much of a hassle as carrying two phones, but at least I had that option.  Americans who don’t have a foreign phone are stuck with having to buy another phone, or go with the company they originally signed up with.  Some choice, eh?  The phone service market seems to be set up to benefit the companies more than the consumer, for sure.

Another commercial area that gives me fits is the cable TV market.  My home in the U.S. is in a semi-rural area; not densely populated enough for installation of fiber optic cable, and too densely wooded for satellite dishes to work, so I’m stuck with the one cable company that serves the area.  That company offers an alternative fiber optic service, but again, it’s not available to consumers in my neighborhood.  I decided to put off switching my televisions at home to digital, and got a digital converter and antenna; works after a fashion, but is a lot like the old days of the rabbit ear antennas that had to be adjusted every time you changed channels.  Oh, and you have to become accustomed to the peculiarities of digital TV; you know, parts of the picture and sound arriving at different times, and the annoying little digital bits at random places on the screen like a scattered jigsaw puzzle.

I could go on and on about the irritations that American consumers have to endure; but, I don’t want anyone to think that I’m somehow against free markets.  It’s just that I wish the tax and spend Democrats and the no deal’s too good for the rich Republicans would spare a thought or two for the middle income consumer in America for a change.

For instance, what does it take for a man to be free?  Can he be free without a constitution, without some codification of his rights?  Can he be free when governments are allowed to run amuck, to trample on the rights of the individuals in an attempt to protect the powers of those despotic governments.  Can he be free when armies are allowed to rape and pillage, engage in torture, and ignore civilian casualties with a flippant, “collateral damage”.

“When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” 

Martin Luther King said that.  And he is absolutely correct.  Without strong protections afforded by a constitution and enforced by a vigilant public, there could be no freedom.  We see that demonstrated perpetually in nations throughout the world.  And the business world is no different.  Without strong protections afforded by a vigilant public through government regulation, markets cannot be free.  Corporations cannot be allowed to run amuck, to trample on the rights of individuals, and to unleash armies of grafters to rape and pillage the public.  Free markets require protections enforced by an empowered government

The economic basis behind Goldberg’s thesis have much to do with Milton Friedman styled, free market theory, where whenever you have someone with a great idea, he or she will have to have every kind economic leeway, so as to allow as much public exposure for the same consumer base that the more established, blue chip/Fortune 500 companies are catering to.

But if there’s not a lot of competition, a.k.a, long-term incentives to improve upon a current product/service (or even come up with something entirely new), wouldn’t it hinder product/service innovation, so as to better serve their customer base, since one can get very complacent with way things are? And with the constant news-from-the-political grapevine, talking about how The bailed out, Big 3 (U.S.) automakers could be flooding the American/International auto market with even crappier products and services to the average American motorist, I would like to discuss the stagnant product/service innovations of the American film industry.

Ever since I came across the fiscal-political pejorative, “Crony Capitalism,” I am made aware of how this form of big business is anything but, free marketed (i.e, how unqualified people, placed in positions of power–possibly via nepotism, to green-light products/services that quite often won’t gel with the basic consumer). And with the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns/Merrill Lynch fallout model in mind, I can’t help but think that the porno industries, Hollywood studios are functioning in the same business model as the aforementioned, defunct corporations–albeit without the federal TARP…     well, with the exceptions of Hustler’s Larry Flynt and Joe Francis (of Girls Gone Wild infamy)!

As I try to get into even the basic, entry-level, internship level of the film industry, I can’t help but think that with all the predictable, below sub-par quality of movies out in the average cineplexes/art house theaters, there is not a lot of cinematic innovation out there. Not only do we as film goers have to contend/complain of the constant remakes, film adaptations of TV shows, but likewise via the “high brow” film market, i.e, Cannes Film Festival, are constantly rehashing the same political themes that in my honest opinion, is no longer relevant since the 1960s/1970s! Like the latest remake of the superhero franchises, I have plenty to complain about how the so-called “independent filmmakers” are trying to flood the market with their anti-church, anti-American/anti-Iraq War work–AS IF IT’S STILL 1969! I can always go off tangent on how antiquated these leftist ideas are (for any movie genre), but I will like to comment on how limiting it is to market these sorts of films–even on the niche level!

Maybe it’s in part that with Hollywood’s notorious nepotism is where we also get the studio “Peter Principle,” where certain studio brass are functioning on the same dysfunctional level as Mike Judge’s Office Space–and how it eventually “trickles down” to what is being green-lighted into our local film theaters! I also suppose that’s why in examining the satiric premise behind Office Space, is the main plausibility why I’m not on my way up on my aspiring film career (*i.e, had I obstinately maintain my personal issues, not only will it compels me to not be as innovative-productive as some other peers, nor only get promoted to the director’s seat, but possibly likewise with gaining the sort of perks and monetary privileges of the higher ups–JUST SO THEY CAN KEEP ME FROM DOING MORE DAMAGE ON A LABOR LEVEL–AS OPPOSED TO A MANAGERIAL LEVEL!). So on a facetiously-hypothetical level, if I wanted to be a filmmaker today, maybe I should have immaturity problems–and all the while proclaim my self-promoting, self-defending sense of self-importance–never mind the fact that whatever passes off as art or talent nowadays is perpetually-adolescent, entitlement-arrogant, mediocrity!

And like with any other workplace, Peter Principle…

I would like to go into the *cough cough* “other” film industry, where their bankable names are–or was, Jenna Jameson, John Holmes, and even Ron Jeremy, where this Peter Principle involves how to… you know… Whenever I hear about the laughable defenses of pornography as art (via the convenient references of Renaissance/Restoration/Greco-Roman-era art), I have to use my Milton Friedman analogy to best question how much “art” there is in pornography…    Now that’s a (sick) laugh!

I was reminded by some shock-jock, talk radio comments, explaining why Playboy founder/publisher, Hugh Hefner had a brief experimentation with bisexuality:

“If you see one set of boobs, you seen them all!”

So I guess given Hefner’s “work schedule(!),” what’s our sure bet that seeing the same female nudity, conducting the same sexual acts, on a daily basis, wouldn’t that brings to mind how mundane that will be? And with this rationale in mind, how much more predictably boring pornography can be, if not already is?

Whenever I ruminate about the art industry, if not the (post-) modern art industry, I am reminded of (to put it charitably!) how little artistic, let alone product innovation there is, constantly relying on the marketability-safer avenue of using the same shtick time and time again! And with regards to pornography, what’s so product-innovative of viewing the same over and over again, to the point of being bored to tears?(!) In many ways, I like to liken the act of watching porn today, as to still driving the same Model-T Ford in today’s automotive technological age!*

*or perhaps watching hardcore porn is comparable to driving that fiery death trap-of-a-jalopy called a Ford Pinto! 

Funny enough, whenever I hear about “Big Three automakers,” (Ford, Chrysler, GM), why do I find myself facetiously comparing them to the SoCal Valley’s, “Big Three of porn (Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler)?” Like Detroit Motor City, it’s almost amusing to think that much of the smut then, now and ever, are comparable to that automotive, epic failure best known as The Edsel! With Flynt Publications in the fiscal red, I suppose that’s why the onetime “free speech poster boy” had to (ironically enough) be on the same begging position (with the TARP-crazy pols) as say, many of the ladies who were “independently employed” by him!

And for more damagingly funny comparisons with the Big 3 automakers, whenever I hear about the complacent nature of the automobile unions (i.e, to not give more flexible room for their employers to do what they have to do, to stay in business, hence to practically have little or no incentive to do their hard-working part), why do I find myself chortling, comparing porn actors/actresses with the same slovenly hard-headed, union bosses… being overpaid to do practically nothing?(!)  

But I suppose with how much campaign/lobbying money limousine-Leftist Hollywood and the porn industry contributes to the currently-ruling, Democratic Party, it could have been darkly-funnier to suggest that both film industries will be under the same incompetent, bureaucratic control/regulation as the Big Three Automakers…

Oh wait a minute; I think we already have something like it called, The National Endowment For The Arts!

Hmmmm… I guess that explains why I found the themes/commentary of Daniel Clowes’ Art School Confidential so resonates in me: hint, how these artistic institutions are more of a over-rated, for-profit schools for no-talent, unintentionally self-parodying jerks!

What is really wrong is that we have an economic system that functions at its optimal best when some group is exploited for the economic profit of the economic elite of this nation.  Capitalism is little more than the making of the human weakness of absolute greed into an economic theory.

How do you function as a nation where one of your founding and guiding principles is the idea that, ” All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” coupled with an economic theory that supports the use of fellow human beings as an exploitable commodity for profit.  Property from John Locke’s original thesis was changed for some nebulous idea of the pursuit of happiness.

But the question remains, as a contradiction in the fundamental ideals of this nation in that our economic foundation functions best when you have resources including human resources to exploit for profit.  That is juxtaposed against the idea of our equality as human beings in terms of the rights we should enjoy as citizens.

The whole debate on immigration is illustrative of the point I am trying to make.  Corporate America recruited and employed anywhere from 12 to 20 million immigrants that they brought in to work.  The initial lie was that they were taking jobs that Americans wouldn’t do?

This was proved to be a lie and in actuality they were being given jobs that Corporate America didn’t want to pay for.  Corporate America was using the immigrants to jam all of America’s wages back.  When you are pitting people against each other with economic survival at stake how reasonable is it to believe that people won’t react against those they perceive as placing their economic survival in jeopardy?

When you have  Media figures such as Lou Dobbs,  on CNN telling everyone nightly in a segment titled War on the Middle Class,  that the immigrants are the problem,  expecting people to see that race is just camouflage to keep everyone from seeing the truth is an unreasonable expectation as is all the stupid diversity lectures.  All it proves is that your job has not been placed in jeopardy which enables you to be so magnanimous.

Our gutless bought and paid for Congressmen and Senators never suggested that maybe we didn’t need to pass laws against people brought here and given jobs by business.  Many, particularly Republicans, suggested that maybe if we built a high wall,  that would fix the problem and keep all those illegal aliens out.

Miraculously, no one really seriously suggested that maybe we should arrest jail and prosecute the CEO’s of Corporations despite the fact  they recruited, brought in and hired immigrants  to illegally and artificially depress Americans wages, evade tax laws, minimum wage, hour and work place safety laws all in the name of the biggest fraud of all Free Markets. and huge Corporate profits.  They were breaking the law maybe forty million times a day and allowed to get away with it.

To add insult to injury, as some Americans lost jobs and or had wages cut,  their tax dollars became a huge subsidy to the illegal employers who paid the workers a pittance for their labor and relied on our social safety net to pay for the housing and schooling and health care of the illegal workforce they brought in to reap obscene profit margins while Middle Class America collapsed financially.

Race as a bait and switch has been done at the beginning of the last century in the coal mines and factories of the East Coast.  In fact you can go back to the founding of our nation and see Race or Ethnicity or religion or gender or other differences exploited as a means  to keep Middle Class America divided against its own best interests and ready to be exploited for profit and out of Labor Unions.

There is a seamless line of exploitation all the way back to the founding of this nation where Race was used to keep people separated and exploitable.  Just go back to 1676 Virginia where Nathaniel Bacon led an uprising of both White and Black slaves against the ruling rich planter aristocracy.  At one time they had thrown Gov. Berkeley and his wealthy fellow planter’s out of Virginia.

The hegemony of wealth over justice was reestablished with the help of the Royal Navy. Another historically interesting side light of this small often over looked part of our history is that after this incident you began to have the first laws prohibiting Whites and Blacks from marrying, working together, and having contact with each other, Segregation by any other name. 

 Many rich land owners freed White indentured servants and put them in charge of the black workers.  Wealthy Whites after Bacon’s Rebellion,  started cultivating an idea of a White identity as a way of keeping White workers identifying with the Wealthy instead of seeing their common economic plight with Blacks Americans.  To this day working class White America has far more in common with the Black community than with Rich Whites who caricature working America with Joe the Plumber’s and Sarah Palin.  Hint, they are laughing behind all of Middle Class America’s backs with these two.

  Race, Class, Ethnicity, Gender or any other dividing line aren’t the problem in and of themselves.  They are the symptoms of an economic model that feeds on inequality and exploitation.  Greed was one of the seven deadly sins in the Bible for a reason.  Adam Smith be damned we almost have let it destroy our nation.

The Capitalism part comes in with businesses. Most businesses have a small amount of regulations to follow from the government to allow free markets and the trade of ideas. But what happens when businesses do not feel the same about governments? Maybe in order to get the upper hand in this always competing free market a business needs to get the upper hand in the government. Now the representing part of our government begins to degrade as corporate lobbyists begin to ask your government officials for “favors” in exchange for a special “extra” paycheck. I, like most people, used to believe a Capitalist Republic is the best governing system in this chaotic world, but when I took a closer look my ignorant self was astonished to see that maybe it’s not. Maybe that supposedly tried and failed system called Socialism would benefit not only the U.S. government more but also the American people more.

Where Do the Little People Go: Who Does Capitalism really benefit?

America has an obsession with material goods and possession. Corporations such as Wal-Mart provide us with these cheap items that we seem to obsess over. The consumer goes home after proudly saving a few dollars on the newest items on the market and Wal-Mart injects a little bit more into our economy. It is how capitalism is supposed to work: the consumer consumes and the economy grows while Wal-Mart continues to compete with other businesses like Target. But what about the nice disabled man who greets you at the entrance? Wal-Mart doesn’t provide benefits like health insurance and only pays low level workers the least they can. Never mind him and those far away lower-class citizens though- the new episode of American Idol will help you forget about it. And besides what Wal-Mart does for our economy is great right? Why else would they get all those great tax breaks?

The Power Bias: Why the Lower Class Stays So Low and the Rich Get Richer

Those great tax breaks do not go to the entire company. The disabled greeter man pays the same taxes and even the staff manager doesn’t see a change in their taxes. Put simply the ones who need the tax breaks don’t get the tax breaks. The CEO of Wal-Mart? Well I’m pretty sure he’s rich enough to get those tax breaks. If our great Capitalist government was formed upon common sense principles where do tax breaks for the rich fit in? Well here’s where lobbyists come in! These tax breaks for the rich most likely took a large paycheck for a large number of people. Such a provocative bill needed an organization to campaign it to the people. At the time this bill was passed, George W. Bush’s approval ratings were much higher than they are today and Congress was controlled by a Republican majority. A quick campaign by Republican economic experts was all it took to persuade the masses.

In all these political games where was the poor McDonalds worker? Where was their representative? Two things keep a low income worker away from politics: lack of representation, of course, and money. One thing was constant in the passing of the tax breaks: the constant flow of money in and out of the politician’s pockets. American society is largely based on income levels and, as in the passing of certain bills, the power of an American congress or senate is largely based on profits made from lobbyists. So, where was the McDonalds worker in all this? Trying to make ends meet, of course. If the worker decides to get a better education at a community college they would most likely have to quit there job, which they cannot afford to do. This is where the Capitalist-Republic fails America greatest: in the lowest class. It seems the government would prefer to see these people fail and sit on welfare checks all their lives instead of exceeding up, into the global market, to compete with the corporations that have kept them down for so long.

Socialism: Taking another Peek at the Cold War Devil

Many modern day countries, such as France and Denmark, have some form of Socialism so it wouldn’t be correct to say Socialism is dead. Soviet-Era Socialism is dead and let me say I do hope it stays that way. America’s perspective of Socialism came only from the fascist states of Nazi Germany and Cold War communist countries. What this did was make the American political system stubborn and slowed down any chance of political progression. Political progression is something that has solved big problems in the past and I believe it can do it now. Instead of continuing to push policies that don’t seem to work, a government should change those policies. Proposing Socialism as means of solving some problems does not mean I would like to see Capitalism abolished and businesses being taken over by the government as some politicians would like you to believe. It would just be refreshing to see America get a dramatic change in governing systems on certain issues instead of relying solely on people’s incentives and businesses that take action.

In Conclusion

Many corporations who see a more Socialist society as a threat to their profits would like to see America continue in the direction of a government controlled not by the people but by big business. It won’t be easy for America to start taking another look at forms of Socialism since an entire generation has been fed propaganda campaigning against it, but a time will come when the average American starts realizing who really controls their government. When this time comes no campaign by experts will be able to reassure the American people that everything is alright. A large mass of angered, informed people can bring ruin to any government system. This is the time the government must decide if it wishes to start taking care of its people or hide in the closet even longer because a citizen of a country like America can only take so much inaction by the government.