Attempting to Control the Development of New Markets Supplanting Old Ones
Listeners, musicians and critics have all railed against the monolithic nature of the recording industry. However no suitable means has been discovered to disassemble the system. Now thanks to new technology forging new markets this systems might just be on its way out. Capitalism, is there nothing it can’t cure?
On a related note.
May 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
This is also the argument that makes me feel better about music priacy (from the big recording industries)- the current system is not only on it’s way out, but the new system will be much better for both artists and consumers, so refusing to participate in the old system and helping to make it crash is maybe not such a bad thing.
One way I think of it is the recording industries ended up at a point where they were basically just trying to guilt consumers into giving them money, but then also generating alot of hostility towards themselves by trying to threaten people into giving them money (prosecuting children, grandmothers, etc) and basically capitalism doesn’t work like that. The reason that capitalism WORKS in the real world is it assumes everyone will work in a self-interested way… if your business model includes you saying ‘hey, come on you guys, be nice’ and then they give you money, that business plan will fail.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Capitalism dont need to make that assumption, people do work in a self-interested way. Sounds like you might be coming around to capitalism.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Like how I’ve said for years that I really like captialism? Yeah, maybe I am.
As I’ve said, there’s a differnce between capitalism and the current corporate model, and there’s a difference between capitalsim and unregulated free markets.
Also, something I haven’t gotten you to really respond to: I think capitalism tends to break down in situations where the person buying something isn’t the person receiving the benefits from it. Examples include charities (why Green Peace is the #1 environmental charity yet it sucks) or corporate CEO’s buying health care plans for their employees.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:39 am
The government seems to be equal measures of ‘the person buying something isn’t the person receiving the benefit from it’? and ‘the person paying for something isn’t the person receiving the benefit from it’?
Im curious as to the distinction between the ‘corporate model’ and captialism.
Is Green Peace the number one charity for enviromentalism? I should think it was Sierra Club.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:10 am
A quick google search indicates that the Sierra Club’s annual budget is about $100,000,000, and Greenpeace’s is over $200,000,000. Let me know if you find different numbers.
The government does have this problem, but we have democratic control over the government. Lets take the example of healthcare- in the corporate model, the competitive advantage goes to the CEO who can buy his employees healthcare for the lowest cost to the company without causing his workers to leave (note I’m not saying all CEO’s are heartless, just that this actually does give such a company a competitive advantage in the marketplace). In a democratic system, the elected official who actually provides the best care to his constituents should have a political advantage in the next election. Definitely neither system is perfect, but in these situations I do think the democratic model is better because it gives the people being affected some input into the process.
Capitalism is a system in which muliple producers make products and put them for sale in a fair marketplace where consumers are free to choose between them. This creates competition and improved customer service.
The corporate model involves a limited number of giant corporations, with executives and CEO’s and boards of directors, where the company is leasing an employee’s labor and owning the products of that labor. While this is one possible capitalistic model, a model in which many smaller, employee-owned companies competed with each other on local and national levels, would also work within a capitalistic system. Indeed, even a single village with 3 blacksmiths and 2 taverns and etc. could be capitalistic.
I can criticize our current economy and corporate model without criticizing the idea of capitalism - they’re seperate entities.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
One what grounds do you critcize the corporate model.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I was just pointing out that I can criticize it wihout criticizing capitalism- it feels like they get conflated alot. I mean, I do have problems with it, but I don’t want you to dismiss the actual point I was making about the difference between capitalism and the corporate model.
Anyway, my main problem is in terms of employee satisfaction- and keeping in mind that almost all consumers spend about half their waking life also being employees, a system that helps consumers but hurts eployees isn’t really all that great. For instance, I think that a socialist business model, where everyone actually owns the things they make before selling them, would probably lead to a more satisfying work experience. Also, all the problems caused by labor vs management issues, poor healthcare packages, etc etc, might not be so bad outside of a corporate model.
I guess to clarify my point: in a corporate model, there’s always a competitive advantage to getting the same amount of work on your employees while spending as little money on them as possible. That creates a tension between hiring good employees/keeping them productive VS. paying them as little as possible and not giving them many benefits.
I think that tension has to end up hurting employees, on average at least. And I don’t think it’s a neccessary part of all possible capitalistic models.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
You never consider the model from the perpective of the consumer. How come?
May 9th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Because I’m making the assumption (or assertion) that the systems would look the same on the consumer’s end.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
You contention is more people would be satisfied if we came away from the corporate model?
May 10th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I think that a socialist business model that was as evolved as our current corporate model would be more satisfying for employees and wouldn’t hurt consumers. Now I don’t think we can just crash the corporations right now and hope everything will work out great, because we have no framework for a socialist business model, but I’d certainly be happy to see people trying to develop one.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:54 am
YOu wouldnt consider Europe to be a more socialist framework?
May 10th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Europe has a more socialist government model, I know; I don’t actualy know what european businesses are like. I do know that a lot of successsful US businesses are starting to implement profit-sharing programs, which is a (very small) step towards what I’m talking about.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Does that mean you favor the more socliast bent found in say France then the US version?
May 11th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Does France have a socialist business model, or does the government impose socialist regulations on businesses? I’m really not talking about the government here.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:33 am
What are you talking about?
May 11th, 2007 at 11:05 am
??
May 11th, 2007 at 11:18 am
What does socialist business model mean and how can it be indepedent to government?