Author Topic: In a Godless society  (Read 8854 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #261 on: April 12, 2012, 10:23:11 AM »
Screwtape that last post was so full of obvious fallacies,

I went through it, the only fallacy was one possible false dichotomy:

Quote

You cannot on one hand praise The Market for always being right and on the other hand curse it for outcomes you don't want.  Either The Market is perfect and self regulating, or it is not.  You should decide which you think it is.


and I don't even think it truly qualifies, much less is obvious. It only looks like one on a cursorial reading, because Perfect/not prefect is a true dichotomy.

If there are, as you say, "Obvious Fallacies;" I'd like you to show them to me, I am open to the evidence.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #262 on: April 12, 2012, 12:56:29 PM »
If there are, as you say, "Obvious Fallacies;" I'd like you to show them to me, I am open to the evidence.

I don't think you were looking hard, this one was is a peach!

Then where is the Market incentive for people to be creative if anything they make can be stolen and capitalized on by others or be given away for free?  Free Market theory would say, there is none, so no one will bother to be writers, musicians, artists, etc. 

Bold mine. Doesn't this one just make you laugh? There would be no writers, musicians, artists, etc. if they weren't making money from your creations? One of the oldest and weakest arguments in support of copyrights. Let's just ignore all those artists who do, in fact give away their work for free, or those that continue to create despite never achieving financial success.

Are we entitled to free entertainment?  This was a problem that was addressed by Gerry Cassale of Devo.  He pointed out that people used to pay for music.  Now, they don't feel like they have to.  So essentially, music, art, film, is worthless to them.  Is that how you feel also?  Do you value music and art?  If you are not willing to pay for it, it will cease to be made. Or, it will become like TV - loaded with commercials and product placements and only that which appeals to the lowest common denominator will be supported.

The same false argument again, with a strawman suggesting I don't value music and art for flavor. Just because you don't feel you should pay money for something doesn't mean you feel it's worthless. I don't feel I should pay for air, does that mean I think it's worthless? I believe if you have created something which can improve the lives of others, you have the duty to make it available at the lowest possible cost.

I do not think actors, writers, and singers should be making millions when science teachers make thousands.

I don't disagree with that, but that is the market. That is how The Market works.


Another fallacy. That is not the market, that is the government and copyright laws intervening with the market to artificially discourage competition and create monopolies.

Quote
We have a couple hundred "entertainers" and tens or hundreds of thousands of science teachers.

What did you base those numbers on? I'm guessing it was pulled out of your ass. It's far more likely that writers, actors, and all other artists outnumber science teachers. I do not have any sources, but it's logical.

Quote
Considering the incredible gift of free information to the underprivelidged of the world,

Again, are we talking information - meaning useful, instructional data - or entertainment?

Entertainment is important to developing an understanding and appreciation of world culture. Again, should it only be available to those who can afford it?

Quote
if Tom Cruise only made $75,000 this year I would have no problem with that. If he decided to quit acting because he couldn't get $40 million per film he can go fuck himself. A thousand talented actors would love to take his place, and would do it for an honest man's salary.

This is irrelevant to the point.  It is not about Tom Cruise.  Tom Cruise is not the only or primary artist being protected by copyright law.   For every Tom Cruise there are hundreds of other people who are harmed - writers, editors, cinematographers, studio engineers, gaffers, etc.  They all get paid from the same place.

Is it really irrelevant? Doesn't Tom Cruise make about 20,000 times what the gaffers make? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to profit from a movie if you stopped using most of your budget on talent? Would people be less likely to pirate if they weren't sick of overpaid artists flaunting their cash?

Quote
Only the lazy or stupid artists can't find a way to take advantage of new technology and require a law to protect them from innovation.

I don't understand that leap of logic.  Artists are now required to be businessmen and tech innovators or be deemed lazy and stupid?

Don't artists have business managers? And for those that don't, haven't they always been their own?

Quote
And nobody is talking about being protected from innovation or technology.   

Copyright laws, by their very nature, are anti-innovation. They protect companies products against competition, so they don't have to continually refine them or introduce new products. They allow companies to continue using an outdated business model instead of coming up with new methods of monetizing new technology.

Quote
Only the shit artists will stop creating because they can't make money from it. Mark Twain didn't make much from Tom Sawyer from a combination of factors, including piracy, but he didn't bitch out and quit writing did he?

Actually, he bitched about it quite a bit.  He took the pirates to court, to no avail.  He tried to get the Canadian rights to it, to no avail.  And following jaime's link:
Quote
it also seems to have discouraged him as a writer. During the next five years he published only one book.

Was that entirely due to the piracy incident? Could the fact that the publisher forced him to market the book to kids, or that people complained that the book was too racy and too thin and not a good value, or that the publisher delayed the book for months have had an effect on that? Regardless, he continued writing didn't he?

Quote
I'm all for changing the business model.  Take a wrecking ball to the music industry.  I do not think the entertainment industry properly compensates most artists[1].  I think talentless executives take the lion's share of the money from people who work very hard to create something the rest of us like.  But you have not proposed a business model.  You have proposed the complete devaluation of art.
 1. Tom Cruise either, but in the other direction.

When the Canadian government made healthcare free, did that mean life became worthless?[2] I've also, so... many... times... that I'm sure you're intentionally ignoring it... pointed out that some people will voluntarily pay even if technology allows them to avoid it. I've also repeatedly suggested that artists seek new ways to monetize their products, never suggested they receive no compensation for them.[3]

Quote
It looks to me as if you've painted yourself into a corner. You made a statement that you'd not really thought through and now you feel like you have to be committed to that statement, like you have to be consistent.  But here's the thing - you don't.  It is perfectly acceptable - even preferable - to back off of dumb things we've said.  It would be fine for you to say something like, "My emotional reaction is I want stuff free and I've been taking it for years.  So, I'm struggling to justify it.  But I cannot figure out a fair way to make it work."  Because, really, that is probably close to the truth.

With no logic or evidence to back up any of your arguments, I'm the one who's supposed to back down. Interesting.

Quote
And you owe me an apology for calling me a lair.  If you have any integrity, it will be in your next post.

I think you were lying, and changed your story when you got caught. Or you weren't lying, but wrote your post in a way that invited confusion. In which case I don't think I should apologize for being confused.
 2. Yes, people pay taxes to support healthcare. Perhaps artists can work on grants.
 3. Even offering their product for free doesn't mean they can't profit from it.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 12:58:30 PM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #263 on: April 13, 2012, 02:52:10 AM »
Why does Tom Cruise (or any big artist, come to that) make millions?  Ultimately, because millions of people go and see his films because that want to see a film with Tom Cruise in it - and they're willing to pay for it.  I'm guessing that's market forces - Warner or Fox or whoever wouldn't pay vast sums of money to an artist if they knew that only five men and a dog would pay to see his films.

I quite agree that people won't stop making art, or stop creating useful products, just because they aren't getting paid.  YouTube for one is testament to that, though quality may be another issue.  And I can quite see how composers, and writers, and other solo enterprises, would be continue to create, fitting their creation in in their spare time.  What I'm less clear on is how the large-scale collaborations would happen?  Without a studio putting money behind it, how would a big film get made?  Presumably the business-model being proposed is that everyone pitches in their time and materials for free, and hope to be reimbursed by voluntary contributions?  The alternative I guess is that someone bankrolls it - but I guess that can't be an option because why should only the rich be able to determine what gets produced.

It's been suggested that the art itself be made free, with the money coming from other avenues - live performance, for example (though that applies of course only to music - it's hardly work for a sci-fi film!).  Merchandise has been mooted as a way of recovering money (heh - because t-shirts you buy at a gig certainly aren't overpriced already!) - but that wouldn't work if we've removed copyright laws because some other guy will produce knock-off t-shirts for half the price.

If we are ONLY talking about modifying the law for information, not for physical product, then it might work.....but I can see a field day for lawyers.  Prosecuting someone for selling a cheap copy of your t-shirt (physical product) against the defence "you can't copyright a t-shirt.....and the logo and message placed on it are intellectual property, which should be free.  You can't say that only the rich should be able to wear a 'Billy and the Boingers' t-shirt"!

Final point about information and entertainment being open to all.  Would all artists be required to include close-captioning, signing, and audio description in their products?  Information after all should be available to ALL - so these should be mandatory for all creative products, if that's the line we're going down.  Likewise, should the first (or an early) step be to ensure that every person in the world has a free PC with broadband access so that they can indeed access the information?  Otherwise we're still in an "only if you can afford it" scenario, which is what we're trying to step away from.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12573
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #264 on: April 13, 2012, 07:54:24 AM »
I think you were lying, and changed your story when you got caught.

Oh sure.  I was lying.  Because discussing copyright law with you is so important to me that it is worth throwing away my integrity.  You little idiot.  Not everyone is as emotionally invested in this discussion as you.  I did not jump into because I am an ardent supporter of copyright law.  I did not jump into it to show you up or prove you wrong.  It so happens I do think you are wrong, but so what?  If it turns out to not be the case, I lose nothing. 

I got involved because you said something I found to be poorly thought through at best and I wanted to see where you were coming from.

And why on earth would I lie about something that you could easily look up?  Something that could so easily be shown to be a lie? 

Or you weren't lying, but wrote your post in a way that invited confusion.

Which I said was the case.  However, you do not seem to be able to take personal responsibility for your role in this.  It is bad policy to go shooting off your big, fat yap and call someone a liar unless you are absolutely sure they are.  Particularly when it is a casual, friendly discussion on something that is utterly irrelevant.

Rather than make sure, you shot off your big, fat yap and you were wrong.  You could have asked a question to clarify.  You could have given me the benefit of the doubt and just said my explanation was incomplete.  But you didn't.  You tried to win the argument by attacking me personally.  It was an ad hominum agrument.  Screwtape lied, therefore Joe is right.  Oops.  Screwtape didn't lie and Joe is a lout, unable to admit he was wrong about something.

You couldn't just disagree with me and be cordial.   You couldn't make your points and give a better argument.  Oh no, not Joe B Bowers.  Joe B Bowers has to win every argument.  Joe B Bowers has to destroy whomever disagrees with him.  Which is a classic sign of insecurity and a tiny penis. 

In which case I don't think I should apologize for being confused.

Which means you are either stupid as dirt or bereft of integrity.  Or both.


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5070
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #265 on: April 13, 2012, 08:39:08 AM »
If we are ONLY talking about modifying the law for information, not for physical product, then it might work.....but I can see a field day for lawyers.  Prosecuting someone for selling a cheap copy of your t-shirt (physical product) against the defence "you can't copyright a t-shirt.....and the logo and message placed on it are intellectual property, which should be free.  You can't say that only the rich should be able to wear a 'Billy and the Boingers' t-shirt"!

Final point about information and entertainment being open to all.  Would all artists be required to include close-captioning, signing, and audio description in their products?  Information after all should be available to ALL - so these should be mandatory for all creative products, if that's the line we're going down.  Likewise, should the first (or an early) step be to ensure that every person in the world has a free PC with broadband access so that they can indeed access the information?  Otherwise we're still in an "only if you can afford it" scenario, which is what we're trying to step away from.
Which is why, in reality, you won't see copyright or patents vanishing, even if the general information itself basically becomes free.  For example, let's take chloramphenicol.  Knowing its chemical structure is not going to allow someone to easily reproduce it.  People are going to come up with processes that allow it to be produced, and those processes are going to be protected, like it or not.  More to the point, the more someone has to spend in order to protect their process for making it from being stolen (especially if they aren't legally protected), the more they're going to have to charge in order to break even.  That's why we have things like patent laws and copyright laws, because they build at least some protections in.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #266 on: April 13, 2012, 09:25:23 AM »

Then where is the Market incentive for people to be creative if anything they make can be stolen and capitalized on by others or be given away for free?  Free Market theory would say, there is none, so no one will bother to be writers, musicians, artists, etc. 

Bold mine. Doesn't this one just make you laugh? There would be no writers, musicians, artists, etc. if they weren't making money from your creations? One of the oldest and weakest arguments in support of copyrights. Let's just ignore all those artists who do, in fact give away their work for free, or those that continue to create despite never achieving financial success.


Yes, stating it in such absolute terms was an oversimplification. None the less, yet, if you haven't noticed if you ask those free artists, the overwhelming majority that produce a quality product are hoping to be "discovered" meaning they are willing to forgo pay now in order to get into the small highly paid club.

Does Screwtape have to construct each statement in such "contractually specific" terms to satisfy you?
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #267 on: April 19, 2012, 07:52:02 AM »
A further point that occurred to me on the train this morning, regarding whether artists, musicians, et al, would continue to create without recompense.

They may well do - many will create for the love of it (though their freedom to do so may well be curtailed without the income stream it provides).....but my thought was this.

Would there still be people out there producing the things I want to consume?  And if there are, how will I find them?

A lot of interviews with creative types tend to have one thing in common: they tend to be prouder of their less mainstream works.  So when remuneration vanishes as a consideration, would they not all tend towards their own preferred genre?  Would that mean that the more popular (to the consumer) fields would find themselves starved of the creative types that currently supply them?  Or would they be as good?

I certainly don't know the answers, but I suspect that a dramatic shift towards entirely free entertainment would lead to a decrease in mass-market entertainment.  That may or may not be a good thing, depending on what your personal tastes are.

And one final unconnected thought that has just occurred to me.

When a Network cancels a low-rating show, how often do we see the writers, cast, and crew decide to band together and make the show themselves?  If the argument that "the creative will create, regardless of the money", wouldn't we be seeing that happening all the time?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12573
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #268 on: April 19, 2012, 08:47:26 AM »
Would there still be people out there producing the things I want to consume?  And if there are, how will I find them?

this was one of the points Jerry Casale made. 
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/art-money/devo-de-evolution-devalued-music

Quote
Ryssdal: There is, I think, on this album -- what I've heard of it -- you've guys acknowledged much more the business of music, I think, than you ever did. That, you know, you've gotta make a buck?

Casale: That is definitely the culture we all live in. I mean, look what's happened -- the implosion of the music business in general, the functions of labels are almost gone, people have devalued music in terms of its cultural important and they feel they shouldn't even have to pay for it. And with all the home-recording techniques, everybody puts out CDs and everybody thinks they can become the next huge act by using social networking like Facebook or MySpace. And it's all largely an illusion. What's happened is that so many CDs are put out per month, possibly 10,000 a month. Nobody can possibly even know half the music that exists out there. And so marketing is everything. Marketing is the end-all, be-all of our society.

...

Ryssdal: Did I read some place you actually prefer your music to be commissioned, that's the way you like to do it?

Casale: Well, at this point, what's happened is, artists no longer make a living by selling music. They only make a living by tour grosses, merchandising receipts and having their songs licensed to commercials video games or films. That's it. Trying to make a living as a recording artist, that's the only way you're going to survive.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #269 on: April 19, 2012, 08:52:05 AM »

And one final unconnected thought that has just occurred to me.

When a Network cancels a low-rating show, how often do we see the writers, cast, and crew decide to band together and make the show themselves?  If the argument that "the creative will create, regardless of the money", wouldn't we be seeing that happening all the time?

If intellectual property laws didn't exist, pretty much what you would have left are infomercials, heavy product placement, reality shows with little replay value, and merchandise driven driven shows(He-Man and G.I. Joe come to mind). It would certainly cause a major downturn in any production on TV of any artistic value.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #270 on: April 21, 2012, 01:28:42 AM »
I just skimmed through this last page of discussion - apologies for being so late to introduce something.

It seems we're discussing copyright/patent laws - It was my position earlier in the year to expedite the patent system so businesses could get going faster.  Do you know how long it takes to gain a patent?  In computer software, btw, copyrights mean next to nothing.  Modified slightly, the code no longer infringes.  It's stupid that we have to put copyrights on our code...

Copyrights and patents are supposed to protect the property of the inventor so it doesn't get used by somebody else to gain an unfair advantage.  These days, however, it is used to create monopolies and curtail innovation.  I have to patent every damn thing that is possibly patentable if I create a program just so somebody else won't do so and turn around and sue me..  See Microsoft patenting the circular dial of the iPod and turning around and suing Apple..  few years' back news..

The only reason patent law is an issue for the internet is because Hollywood is pushing for it - so they can return to making more money.  But, I'm tired of all the crap - the correct model is what we have with iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc.  I shouldn't have to dish out $80 for internet access and an additional $50 for basic cable.  That's a monopoly of a utility service that is getting away with ripping off the country.  The television industry used to make their money solely from advertising, just like Google, but changed at some point along the way to include numerous fees on top of that.  Now they are too bloated to sustain themselves in any other way.  If the Kardashians can be rich by having some stupid tv show that I never watch, things have gotten out of hand..

We were against the 'current draft' of PIPA and SOPA.  For obvious reasons - while it would protect the property of certain corporate entities, it would destroy the openness and creativity of the internet.  Imagine not being able to have wikipedia as it is, imagine having to freaking cite every source of information on the internet if you happen to talk about it - this would be a disaster.  The internet wasn't designed to be a freaking library with everything perfectly cited and categorized.  It was meant to be a free and open system - that's what makes it a great thing.  Everything should be made available for discussion, it's a great tool for sharing ideas openly and/or anonymously if desired.  Everybody can contribute whatever the hell they want to..

Now for a market economy - which seems to be another area of debate, the free market 'guiding an invisible hand to perfection, or rather, equillibrium' is total crap.  The free market will always make the rich end up with the vast majority of the money.  That's why it's screwed in the long run.  The fact is, in reality, we never reach a perfect balance, where everything costs whatever you are willing to pay.  Companies are commonly jacking up the prices to get you to pay what they want to earn.  If economics held water or validity, it should be the case that when demand is down, prices go down to meet demand.  This isn't the case - companies lose revenue, because demand is down, and increase their prices to compensate.  That's the net effect that would cause hyper-inflation.  The fact is, a free market will always have depression cycles.  Always.  That's the way it works - there exists at every 50-100 year interval a point in time where the 'haves' possess a certain percentage of the pie, and the 'have-nots' can no longer afford luxury items, or want-to-have items, and turn to necessity goods. 

The idea that in another type of economy, thinking that people would all want to be musicians, is unfounded.  In a non-free market society, we can look at China as a good example.  The difference between that idea and another one that may work is to give full control to the people instead of the government.  Besides, in the system we have today, it takes way too long to change careers or shift economic direction in any way.  In the 22nd century, we've undermined innovation because of a system that was designed for 1920.  We need to reinvent this system, plain and simple.  It can be done with structure and order, we no longer need 'invisible crap' that 'guides us'.  Do you see the similarities in economic teachings vs religious teachings?  The basic fact is, our models of a free market economy are too simple, based on a perfect world, and the real world 'ain't workin that way'...

The best form of market economy, in my opinion, would be one that favours the distribution of wealth in a more sustainable pattern, so the rich don't get too fat.  What is happening right now?  Most people wound up in the poor house while the most rich have swelled in earnings.  This isn't supposed to happen in a recession or a depression - the opposite is supposed to happen.  The middle class as a household should be making somewhere around 200k to equate to their buying power back in the 60s...

If you want evidence that favouring a more equal distribution of wealth is healthier for a free market, just look at which western countries aren't struggling too much right now.  Bear in mind that our unemployment percentage hasn't budged per population since 2008...

What I am saying is, the 'fix' to a Free Market is to not allow a small percentage of the population to control a large percentage of the money.  Unless they were all using it to promote other business, or using it for some real purpose rather than trading dollars in the stock exchange or putting it in another nations' banking system.  This will never happen, however, because said small population percentage already controls the entire nation.  But case-in-point, this class-warfare thing has been stupid; you would think business owners would know that the best way to stay wealthy is to make sure those who work for you are also wealthy - doing this on a national level would mean people can afford to buy whatever crap you want to sell. 

In the past few years, I have commonly heard two losing strategies: 1: give the rich more money, they are the 'job creators' and it will 'trickle-down'.  False.  They will pocket the money and create no new jobs - this is what actually happened.  I don't want to hear about any more tax holidays when the government needs all the funding it can get.  2. Spend money to pump it into dampened market segments to temporarily keep us afloat.  Bail out companies that aren't involved in financial institutions.  Also losing - GM declared bankruptcy protection and restructured anyway, and will probably do it again within the next 5-10 years.  It was a big waste of money.  The temporary jobs - we're not doing anything that will result in a repayment of any way, so we are dumping money into fixing roads that don't necessarily need-a-fixing..  Once said stimulus is removed, we are back where we started.

Only recently have I seen the government half-heartedly address the problem of failing small business, encouraging investment in business growth, and doing things similar to the 30s that worked, which we have yet to fully perform.  The fed has done their part.  The rest of us seem incompetent...
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 01:36:07 AM by jeremy0 »
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #271 on: April 21, 2012, 01:38:17 AM »
BTW - you may not like what Joe Bowers had to say on this page of this subject, but actually he is more correct than he may seem...
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #272 on: April 21, 2012, 02:37:16 AM »
Another thing I would like to point out is that without proper regulation, a free market economy collapses much faster than you would think.  For example, this 'great recession' was initially caused not by 'irresponsible lending', but the laughable 'practice of lending' that came to be by the 'rip-off america body of thought by most CEOs recently.'  They treated people like idiots, the idea was to foreclose on any possible homes to get more profit and a faster turn-around, but again, just like CEOs trying to grow a business that is already maxed out in market share, and the growth becomes a hinderance to debt structures (GM, YRCW, etc); all banks practiced this activity, they ended up losing a lot of money, and were in turn rewarded with a bailout from the government.
[edit]
And when it's the financial sector that causes the financial sector to have a meltdown, and causes the rest of the economy to collapse structurally instead of cyclically, that should be raising some serious red flags to washington...

What we did right in the 30s was the Restructuring and Refinancing Corporation.  We restructured and heavily regulated the banks, funded the banks, funded small businesses and startups.  Now, we can't do any of these things due to government financial structures.  Clinton told Obama 'you don't hit your banker'.  I would rather be throwing punches at these bankers right now, in my opinion, because they have gone right back to the type of business that gained us so much damage.  They are just doing it under slightly different, but not so heavily regulated, guidelines. 

Between me and this Joe Bowers fella, I would guarantee you that we both see every problem we have been faced with and will be faced with as almost entirely avoidable, and brought about largely due to deregulation and poor economic policy.  The fact that people like us are seeing this, without having a PhD in economics, is entirely laughable...
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 02:55:01 AM by jeremy0 »
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #273 on: April 21, 2012, 04:33:03 AM »
When a Network cancels a low-rating show, how often do we see the writers, cast, and crew decide to band together and make the show themselves?  If the argument that "the creative will create, regardless of the money", wouldn't we be seeing that happening all the time?

If intellectual property laws didn't exist, pretty much what you would have left are infomercials, heavy product placement, reality shows with little replay value, and merchandise driven driven shows(He-Man and G.I. Joe come to mind). It would certainly cause a major downturn in any production on TV of any artistic value.

Uh Hatter, TV is already free, generally speaking, and always has been.[1] The networks already make most of their money from advertising, and there have been some pretty damn good shows produced on that free business model over the last 80 years or so.

Anfauglir that means when a show gets cancelled, it's because it was so unpopular that people wouldn't even watch it if you gave it away for free. That's gotta be pretty discouraging as an artist.
 1.  You may pay for cable or satellite TV, but that mostly just covers the cost of infrastructure (cables, towers, satellites, etc.)
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5070
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #274 on: April 21, 2012, 06:15:29 AM »
Uh Hatter, TV is already free, generally speaking, and always has been.[1] The networks already make most of their money from advertising, and there have been some pretty damn good shows produced on that free business model over the last 80 years or so.

Anfauglir that means when a show gets cancelled, it's because it was so unpopular that people wouldn't even watch it if you gave it away for free. That's gotta be pretty discouraging as an artist.
 1.  You may pay for cable or satellite TV, but that mostly just covers the cost of infrastructure (cables, towers, satellites, etc.)
Okay.  First off?  Pay per view.  Second?  Tiers.  Yes, some television is "free", in the sense that the consumer is paying for the basic service and doesn't have to pay anything on top of that in order to watch the shows, but many television channels are on higher-cost tiers, and the "infrastructure" argument falls apart because it's all carried on the same infrastructure.  What happens is something like, a company produces a show, then sells the rights to broadcast that show to companies which actually provide the service.  Based on how much the provider paid, they distribute the TV channels into tiers in order to make a return on their investment.

Shows don't get cancelled because they're unpopular.  They get cancelled because the network that produces them thinks that they can make more money off of some new show.  "Unpopular" is a highly relative term.  Especially in this day and age, a show can have lots of viewers, but if the network thinks another show would be more popular for that time slot, they'll move the other show, or drop it entirely.  In actual point of fact, there are not all that many shows which are dropped because "people wouldn't even watch it if you gave it away for free".  If you really gave it away for free, say as an Internet download, you'd probably find that there would be quite a few people who would watch it even if it were crap.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6775
  • Darwins +543/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #275 on: April 21, 2012, 11:19:38 AM »
Uh Hatter, TV is already free, generally speaking, and always has been. ... The networks already make most of their money from advertising, ...
You expose your own fallacy.

TV is not free.

GB: Who pays for adverts?
JB: Companies
GB How do companies get their money?
JB: By selling things and making a profit
GB: Who buys those things?
JB: The public - people like you and I
GB: So where does the money for advertising come from?
JB: The pockets of the people like you and me when we buy things
GB: So we are paying a little bit extra for TV advertising every time we buy something?
JB: Yes.
GB: and that money pays for TV programs?
JB: Yes
GB: So it's not free?
JB: I don't suppose it is, sorry Hatter, you were correct.

 You buy something and the price includes enough to cover the cost of the advertising on TV. Everytime you buy something that is advertised you pay that bit extra.

No such thing as a free lunch.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #276 on: April 21, 2012, 11:47:37 AM »


Uh Hatter, TV is already free, generally speaking, and always has been.[1] The networks already make most of their money from advertising, and there have been some pretty damn good shows produced on that free business model over the last 80 years or so.

Anfauglir that means when a show gets cancelled, it's because it was so unpopular that people wouldn't even watch it if you gave it away for free. That's gotta be pretty discouraging as an artist.
 1.  You may pay for cable or satellite TV, but that mostly just covers the cost of infrastructure (cables, towers, satellites, etc.)

Advertising IS NOT Merchandising. If anyone can air the show, then it loses the singular large audience created by the bottleneck. Even with repeat usage it is the producer of the material that gets paid, making the producer of the material willing to spend more on the production in order to secure the audience.

That ISN'T a free business model.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #277 on: April 22, 2012, 12:50:22 AM »
When a Network cancels a low-rating show, how often do we see the writers, cast, and crew decide to band together and make the show themselves?  If the argument that "the creative will create, regardless of the money", wouldn't we be seeing that happening all the time?
Anfauglir that means when a show gets cancelled, it's because it was so unpopular that people wouldn't even watch it if you gave it away for free. That's gotta be pretty discouraging as an artist.

I thought the argument was that "creators will create", regardless of market forces?  Are you now saying that creators take strong note of the market?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #278 on: April 22, 2012, 02:32:17 AM »
I thought the argument was that "creators will create", regardless of market forces?  Are you now saying that creators take strong note of the market?

If they were simply producing the show for monetary gain, they would have no reason to continue making it when that impetus has been removed.

If the reason that they were creating that particular show was because they were emotionally invested in it's creation, and they were not discouraged by (or did not perceive cancellation as) rejection, then I think they would likely find a way to continue making it, such as finding another network or going online. Futurama, for one such example, was cancelled but the creators were passionate about it and looked for another network, now it's back on the air albeit with a lower budget.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #279 on: April 22, 2012, 02:50:50 AM »
Futurama, for one such example, was cancelled but the creators were passionate about it and looked for another network, now it's back on the air albeit with a lower budget.

and I curse their persistence. Hate that show...(love the Simpsons)
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #280 on: April 22, 2012, 07:09:42 AM »
I thought the argument was that "creators will create", regardless of market forces?  Are you now saying that creators take strong note of the market?

If they were simply producing the show for monetary gain, they would have no reason to continue making it when that impetus has been removed.

If the reason that they were creating that particular show was because they were emotionally invested in it's creation, and they were not discouraged by (or did not perceive cancellation as) rejection, then I think they would likely find a way to continue making it, such as finding another network or going online. Futurama, for one such example, was cancelled but the creators were passionate about it and looked for another network, now it's back on the air albeit with a lower budget.

But you've said that creative people will carry on producing regardless of money, and so loss of copyright will not hurt output.....so because we don't see the majority of cancelled shows being continued by the crew,  it must be that 99% of actors, writers, and crew currently producing TV shows are only in it for the money.....but doesn't that mean that removal of copyright and the removal of that income stream will have a dramatic impact on current media output?

And presumably the corrollary to that is that the majority of the true creative types, who DON'T care about the money, are NOT currently involved in TV output....but doesn't that mean that changes to copyright law will be a matter of complete indifference to them?

I don't get who these changes will be helping.  The ones who do it for free will see no change.  The ones who do it for a job will see their livelihood cut.  The people who enjoy consuming what they currently produce will lose out.   Who exactly gets helped by making all entertainment output free?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #281 on: April 22, 2012, 03:51:40 PM »
I thought the argument was that "creators will create", regardless of market forces?  Are you now saying that creators take strong note of the market?

If they were simply producing the show for monetary gain, they would have no reason to continue making it when that impetus has been removed.

If the reason that they were creating that particular show was because they were emotionally invested in it's creation, and they were not discouraged by (or did not perceive cancellation as) rejection, then I think they would likely find a way to continue making it, such as finding another network or going online. Futurama, for one such example, was cancelled but the creators were passionate about it and looked for another network, now it's back on the air albeit with a lower budget.
..along with about every other cartoon show that started on 'Adult Swim' - American Dad, Family Guy, etc..
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #282 on: April 22, 2012, 03:55:57 PM »
<snip>Who exactly gets helped by making all entertainment output free?
The consumer - for example, the best way to get your anime is online, as opposed to spending 60-120 dollars for the 'season'.  Once I bought the 'season box set' of Boston Legal, because I liked the show.  Had they given people who liked it the opportunity to buy single shows, watch them as many times as they want once the show is bought, it may not have been so easily cancelled.  Now we have a television model exactly like the current music industry that would both save the consumer tons of money (cable tv sucks a big one - fewer choices, spend a lot to watch a single movie), and this would be the correct reaction from Hollywood if they knew what they were doing as producers, instead of trying to force people to fork over the money for their crap. 

If TV were to follow in the music industry's footsteps, no changes to copyright or patents needed, both parties benefit (consumer, producer)....
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #283 on: April 22, 2012, 03:59:44 PM »
jeremy0, I take it you didn't read Anfauglir's post. If you had, you'd notice that he mentions that most artists do it because they enjoy it and because they want to be payed. No money for them means their lives would be destroyed. No money for them also means most would stop working. No actors means no movies; no movies means no product; no product means no viewers. Nobody benefits from what joebbowers is suggesting.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #284 on: April 22, 2012, 04:02:56 PM »
Oh - I didn't realize that.  What I thought we were discussing was copyright law, what the effects would be under different systemic models, etc.  Didn't know we were discussing free things..

I would say that yes, if everything were free - forget about musicians - the consumption model would be chaotic, so would the production model.  You would have to implement a 'control factor', rather, numerous ones - to bring structure to the concept of a free society.  However, you can base the control on money, rocks, or marbles for all you care, as long as it bring control to the chaotic system..

This is the same concept in Communism, Socialism, Free Markets, etc.  All models have their flaws, but all models address the chaos of a free-consumption system...
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #285 on: April 22, 2012, 04:36:24 PM »
This post started out 'In a godless society' - I didn't read the first few pages, was too late to the discussion.  However, I think what Joe did was introduce a new form of economic system, where the concept is much like the concepts behind the linux operating system.  We've shown that uncontrollable consumption ends up being just 'what you want' instead of 'everything'.  I think I could build upon a model of free consumption, which is what Joe seemed to be debating.  If we want to make this thread interesting, we can hammer out the problems in a free society to see if we can make it work, or be viable in a major way..

I will start the debate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system#Types, and if we can come up with a perfect model for economic stability based on some sort of 'free consumption' or 'freedom in distribution', then we have one seriously interesting forum topic going on here..
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #286 on: April 22, 2012, 04:43:04 PM »
If everything is free, then money becomes useless. People would have to work because they wanted to. Does that sound like it's realistically possible?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #287 on: April 22, 2012, 06:59:16 PM »
If everything is free, then money becomes useless. People would have to work because they wanted to. Does that sound like it's realistically possible?
see bolded.  that's the idea.  people having to work only because they want to is not relevant - they work in order to obtain said production..  As I said - a control factor could be in the form of money, rocks, or marbles - or anything of your choosing.  How to make such a system work?  That's the topic of debate.  We all know that nothing is free, and nothing can be free.  The idea is how do you have a system in which you work, and can then obtain/do anything that you might want to obtain/do that day, without it being an archaic system.  Such a system is possible, but it requires out-of-the-box thinking...

For example - the problem with a Free Market is unequal distribution of money - the business owners always end up with all of it.  Eliminating personal wealth - that's the goal of a more 'free' capitalist market.[1]
Or, communism - works good, except the problem is there is too much forced control, and if done wrong causes major economic problems.  The fix to that would be to give all the law-making decisions to the public instead of a governing body trying to do everything on its own.[2]

[1] The idea of 'free' in this case isn't that everything is free and you no longer need to work, but rather free for use or free for consumption.  Based on the idea that you put in your fair 'share' of work..
[2] I'm not saying that communism is better, only that it's applied one of the 'fixes' to a free-market economy, in the idea of socialism that people are paid on a more equal share of wealth, thereby eliminating the economic problems that a free market commonly faces..  Communism isn't correct in principle, wouldn't work in western civilisations..

For example - to get you jump-started, follow the links here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-based_economy.  This would be, in fact, a free society, along the lines of what we're talking about (Joe, myself)
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 07:12:19 PM by jeremy0 »
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #288 on: April 23, 2012, 01:50:30 AM »
It requires people to not be lazy. You're ignoring the fact that people will not cooperate, to make it seem as if your suggestion is based on anything more than wishful thinking. It's not.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6775
  • Darwins +543/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #289 on: April 23, 2012, 05:28:07 AM »
Capitalism 101:

I think that the thread is confusing the two types of artistic endeavour; (i)  the one that fulfils your own need (You may suddenly have a desire to write a book or paint a painting  just for the sake of doing it.) and (ii) one that fills a commercial need (Futurama.)

We can discount the first one as being a contribution to society unless it becomes a commercial success, at which point it might occur to you that there is a living to be made and then your art falls into category (ii).

The conclusion is that all artistic endeavours are done for, or in the hopes of, personal advantage.

Nothing much stops the first one but you would be foolish to employ your time and talents in the second one if nobody were willing to pay you.

This is capitalism as laid out 250 years ago by Adam SmithWiki – the god of free-market economists and the real Ayn Rand.

Like people’s view of Jesus’s message, so people have various views of Adam Smith’s message, and this is partly because it does not cast capitalism in a particularly pleasant light – although it is a true light.

The message is perhaps summed up in:

Quote
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
So, no rational person ever does anything just because they like you – no TV station or film studio ever pays their workers from a fortune left by an eccentric millionaire. Everyone is in it for the money and everyone pays for everything. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

A counter to this may be Graybeard’s dictum, “You can assign self-interest to any deed, however good.” However, in the overall scheme of things, Adam Smith was probably right




Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”