Competition: fair/unfair

[Dick Rees]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

Then again, the tax-paying client that gets a cheaper service is getting a better return on their tax dollars, so it works both ways.

Per.....

I learned early about the Norwegian attitude toward taxes and regulations. The first phrase I was taught was, "Vi slipper å betale skatt."

But I admit that I learned it from a Norfjording.

 

[kristianjohnsen]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

Per....

You're not often wrong on this forum, but that's just WRONG.

How would you feel (or Helge B or Kristian J) if NRK started jobbing at half the going rate for legitimate companies?

Well actually...

Helge (apart from also running a freelance audio service) freelances for a public funding program that installs audio and lighting gear at concert venues. The gear is paid for by tax dollars (well, Kroner, actually). The mission statement of the funding program, called MUO, is to "allow smaller venues to host shows they would otherwise not have been able to host through commercial funding only".

As a small-town sound co I will sometimes see venues be awarded a "free" system they would otherwise have had to rent through a commercial enterprise like mine. So, the example you posted to Per isn't all that way off the truth, actually.

Now, how do I personally allow myself to come to terms with this?

1). Venues are now able to host shows they otherwise could not host in my area. This allows for more musical interest in my area and I believe there might be a "snowball effect" with regards to this.

2). Someone has to staff these venues.

3). Sometimes the venues will host shows they are not quite equipped to handle and will require an addition from somewhere.

4). Sometimes small-town sound companies will get lucky and be awarded one of the contracts for the sale of the gear in a new venue.

Now, one could make the argument that "if the venues weren't awarded funds for "free" gear, they would have to apply for funds to rent systems from the local sound co's". True. But so is Per's statement that overall, the system may be cheaper for the tax payer, and I sure as heck am one of those, so...

Edit: Now, if one of these venues started to run around operating like a sound co....that's where I would draw the line. Which you rightfully have!!

 

[John Roberts]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

Well, I am all in favor of socialism. I like public libraries, fire departments. DOT's seem important to me. I like big government. I like having oversight that makes for safe work places.
I like having government regulations, such as forcing employers to carry insurance, both for their employees, and their customers (liability).

I like the idea of socialized sound systems. That everybody in the community owns, and everybody benefits from.

but does everybody pay for them?

So if I am a socialist, why did Per's comment not ring true to me? Why did I instinctively side with Dick?

Because Per is one of them foreigners?

First I went to the people running it. So, if they have competent people, who are being fairly paid, I have no problem with that.
I do run into the exact opposite in the cases of colleges. But I don't have enough information in the OPs case to determine how I feel about it.
I know I like Dick, and based on how he comes across, I think he would do a competent job. But that is not enough. This is sort of nepotism. I am rooting for him just because I like him, and know him.

It took more thinking on a bike ride to figure out what is bothering me about it. And I came back to my pet peeve about our society.
This is privatization of the gains, and socializing the losses.

That is powerful and well worn cliche.

Unfortunately there is much truth there.

The recent bank crisis in Cypress was unusual in that the losses were not "socialized" and absorbed by Euro-zone taxpayers, but instead the large uninsured depositors and unsecured debt-holders lost money. This was probably a quirk of Cypress and who many of those big depositors were (Russian), making it politically distasteful for the German chancellor facing election in a few months. (or not... what would I know about economics or politics? and no I do not think Europe is moving away from socialism, just having to deal with the reality of running out of other people's money.).

So Dick is getting screwed about three ways.
First off, if it were a social system (sound/video system, and political system), then Dick would have equal access to it.
As would everybody in the community. This does not seem to be the case.

Second, Dick is paying for this system, (as we all are) that is in competition with him.

Third, and most to the point, this system is being operated tax free. So their overhead is lower to start with. This is the biggest triple wammy. That Dick is paying taxes, (probably federal, local, and property), and they are not. So, on this note I would suggest following JR's suggestion and talking to the NPR people, politely and with forethought.
And if they don't respond in a positive manner, then the DA needs to be alerted, and probably the IRS.

Regards, Jack

Or get your own government grant and take over their gig.... How hard can it be to out smart low level government pukes?

JR

 

[Per Søvik]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

<snip> This is sort of nepotism. I am rooting for him just because I like him, and know him. <snip>

Story of my life, I lose because everybody hates me ~:-(~:sad:

Per.....

I learned early about the Norwegian attitude toward taxes and regulations. The first phrase I was taught was, "Vi slipper å betale skatt."

But I admit that I learned it from a Norfjording.

Yes, like everybody else, we would rather burn our money than pay tax, and earning money without paying tax is better than eternal salvation, supermodel sex and satisfying bowel movements (in no particular order). Coming from the neighbour county of Nordfjord, I can truthfully say that people from Nordfjord isn't any worse than everybody else, allthough I hate to admit it.


EDIT:
Back to topic, obviously any business entity, wethether public funding or not, has to abide by the rules under which they are operating, so I'm not defending anybody that does business in breach of the rules, and I certainly do not believe in publicly funding operations that will be misused to put businesses out of profit at great expense to the funders/taxpayers.
Public funding often leads to mismanagment of assets because the assets are "free" and nobody with influence cares if the assets are lost or provide a poor ROI (in monetary terms or otherwise) for the community, the taxpayers or the funders.
The right balance between private and public should be the balance that best serves the society as a whole, regardless of principles involved. Private business isn't always a profit-seeking racket, and publicly owned revenue-generating entities are not necessarily the advance troops of the Red Army (or the Chinese or North Korean equivalent as the case might be today)

 

[Jack Arnott]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

That is powerful and well worn cliche.

Unfortunately there is much truth there.

The recent bank crisis in Cypress was unusual in that the losses were not "socialized" and absorbed by Euro-zone taxpayers, but instead the large uninsured depositors and unsecured debt-holders lost money. This was probably a quirk of Cypress and who many of those big depositors were (Russian), making it politically distasteful for the German chancellor facing election in a few months. (or not... what would I know about economics or politics? and no I do not think Europe is moving away from socialism, just having to deal with the reality of running out of other people's money.).

JR

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me. Disagreeing with me.
Or just doing a topic swerve to the Cypress banks.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me. Disagreeing with me.
Or just doing a topic swerve to the Cypress banks.

I thought I was pretty clear.

The Cypress bank crisis was notable because the Euro zone response was "not" typically socialist, i.e. the banks large depositors and owners were not made whole by the collective. Time will tell the wisdom of this since it was actually Greek government bonds held by the otherwise profitable Cypress banks that caused the capital shortfall when they dropped in value. That and the numerous banks in the rest of the euro zone with similar challenging capitalizations, that could suffer bank runs if there is an expectation that the same "new" rules will get applied broadly.

We have talked about that very cliche before and while powerful for it's imagery it describes government bailout of crony-capitalism, not capitalism or business in general. While big business seems to still be getting a good deal of crony treatment these days and too big to fail banks still seem too big to fail. A corollary cliche of "socializing gain and privatizing loss" could describe the effect of increasing money supply and inflation to transfer wealth from those with assets to those with debt.

======

I suspect we agree that it's a shame that the Heat's winning streak ended, but now they can really get down to the business of getting ready for the finals. not breaking some obscure record.. I don't expect agreement with you about politics. You said you are in favor of socialism, I know I am not.

Are we clear?

JR

 

[Jack Arnott]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

I thought I was pretty clear.
Are we clear?

JR

No, not at all. I don't care about Cypress and how notable it is.

I am only concerned with this single example.

Do you think it is Capitalism, Socialism, or Privatizing Gains, while socializing losses? Or something else?

Because I think it is clearly (mostly) everybody paying for it, and a select few benefiting from it.
Or, Privatization of gains, and socialization of losses.

What do you characterize it as?

Thanks, Jack

 

[W. Mark Hellinger]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

Where to draw the line, and how to pay for moving the line are IMO significant questions.

JR

For the topic at hand, I'd say where to draw the line is simple... it's the property boundary of the college or university, and not one inch past that line. I don't care if the college or university is the largest employer in the town or county, and I don't care if a preponderance of the town's residents are somehow affiliated with the college or university, and I don't care that the college or university feels they have some obligation to give back to the public by arguably bringing production capabilities and thus higher levels of "culture" to the town, county, state, region, etc... That public funding of the college or university is strictly that: Public funding of the school. Oh sure... I've heard the argument that "it's a learning opportunity for the students out in the real world." That's a real slippery slope IMO... and is what internships is for (experience in the real world) because if the line isn't drawn at the school's property boundary... then where is it drawn? Ethics is not a matter of convenience. Publicly funded centers for higher education should be a model of ethical standards… and the folks in-charge damn well know where the line is and are accountable for their departments, or they damn well should, either that, or the wrong folks are in-charge.

Have right at it on campus, so-long as it's of the campus, for the campus, and on the campus... and not one step off campus.

 

[Jack Arnott]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

The US is struggling with being semi-socialist, which to some seems like being semi-pregnant, but we have flirted with modest social programs for decades. Where to draw the line, and how to pay for moving the line are IMO significant questions.

JR

To me, this would be considered socialism, before these guys took this video system out and did for hire shows.
Getting government money to make shows to show on a channel that costs them no money. And is free to the public.

To me this is socialism, and debatable.
Where to draw the line, as you put it.

One side would argue that this is a venue for artistic ventures, that would never see the light of day in a capitalistic society.
And that all of society can benefit from it. The other side would argue that this is a waste of good money. That the money would be better spent on other programs, or just staying in the taxpayers pocket.

But to my way of thinking, this goes past socialism, when the truck goes out to do for hire shows.

Then we have gone past socialism, and into something else. Something that is wrong to me.

Regards, Jack

 

[W. Mark Hellinger]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

But to my way of thinking, this goes past socialism, when the truck goes out to do for hire shows.

Then we have gone past socialism, and into something else. Something that is wrong to me.

Regards, Jack

Correct. That's somebody else being the hero with my tax dollars, while I'm the capitalist watching from the sidelines... and I'm the one who paid those tax dollars that they're being the hero with.

Somebody (or somebodies) said once (or many times): "A smart parasite doesn't kill it's host."

 

[John Chiara]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

I agree 100% Mark. This 'ignoring' the real cost of doing anything is the wall we all keep banging our heads against. I am quickly tiring of explaining basic P/L to clients of all persuasions.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

No, not at all. I don't care about Cypress and how notable it is.

I get that

I am only concerned with this single example.

A community access channel crowding out private enterprise?

Do you think it is Capitalism, Socialism, or Privatizing Gains, while socializing losses? Or something else?

Not sure, haven't heard their side of the story.

Because I think it is clearly (mostly) everybody paying for it, and a select few benefiting from it.
Or, Privatization of gains, and socialization of losses.

I don't really see some fat cats at a local TV gig getting filthy rich off the government teat.

What do you characterize it as?

Not sure I should say what I really think... It sounds a little paranoid even to me, but this could be seen as part of a larger scheme to steer the public discussion and opinion by influencing the influencers. Having as much media in your pocket and beholding to you as possible seems useful if you play that way.

A local access channel seem less like beneficiaries of deep pockets cronyism, and more like useful idiots being played by opinion wranglers spreading around the public wealth.

Thanks, Jack

I'm not sure I want to be too clear about my suspicions since the last time we took a count the majority disagreed with me and voted for fo mo years of the same same.

I apologize to any I may have offended or re-offended with my sharing.

JR

 

[Jack Arnott]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

I don't really see some fat cats at a local TV gig getting filthy rich off the government teat.

JR

I agree. There is no getting filthy rich in this part of the biz.
But the analogy is still the same. The gains are ill begotten. Because you and I are paying for the infrastructure, and getting nothing in return.

There is even the weak case that we are getting our moneys worth for what we are being served on the TV.
But once they cross that line into something that they are doing strictly for money, and not for what they are serving up on the boob tube, then it has crossed that line.

In my opinion.

edit: it is not just the local TV gigsters that are getting away with something. The customer has ill begotten gains too.

 

[kristianjohnsen]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

This 'ignoring' the real cost of doing anything is the wall we all keep banging our heads against.

It's going to be "interesting times" when resources become scarce enough that we cant keep our "line of credit" from Mother Nature, and actually have to pay up front for the real cost of the things we want.

As usual, those that already get by just fine will have the easiest time.

 

[Randy Gartner]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

This type of thing is becomming more common.Our local IU ( unit that runs our vo tech schools ) decided to get into the bus business.They now directly compete against private contractors. It is perfectly legal under Pennsylvania law to do this. Yes,it does save taxpayers money,but it put several contractors out of business and lowered the wages of the drivers.If this keeps up,I guess we will all be working for the government.

 

[John Chiara]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

It's going to be "interesting times" when resources become scarce enough that we cant keep our "line of credit" from Mother Nature, and actually have to pay up front for the real cost of the things we want.

As usual, those that already get by just fine will have the easiest time.

More worried about when I can't pay my rent or insurance.

 

[Eric Snodgrass]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

This type of thing is becomming more common.Our local IU ( unit that runs our vo tech schools ) decided to get into the bus business.They now directly compete against private contractors. It is perfectly legal under Pennsylvania law to do this. Yes,it does save taxpayers money,but it put several contractors out of business and lowered the wages of the drivers.If this keeps up,I guess we will all be working for the government.

This reads like the business plan of WalMart, with the same result. I doubt this will lead to the government getting into other businesses and putting out of business many private contractors. To me this is just a case of someone in the local government making the decision to put the local government into business competition, with a poor outcome as a result - and it wouldn't surprise me if this local government official came from the business world.

 

[W. Mark Hellinger]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

I agree 100% Mark. This 'ignoring' the real cost of doing anything is the wall we all keep banging our heads against. I am quickly tiring of explaining basic P/L to clients of all persuasions.

Beyond P/L, the other thing to consider is the slippery slope of govt. steering or control of whom has access to the govt. funded open mic... or censorship as the case may be. Admittedly the college might have better than average for the area equipment and techs, as that likely became a self fulfilling prophesy, because the college is likely tax sheltered and socialistically funded, and therefore may have a considerable P/L edge over whatever private competition there may have been or could otherwise be in the area... leading to possibly (or likely) eliminating private competition at whatever level(s) the college's capabilities are, leading to: "We put the job to bid and the only capable bidder was the college." With the private sector competition gone (or seriously crippled), then the college has the ability (and possibly the internally and/or externally mandated sociological impetus) to pick and choose who has and who hasn't access to public performance at whatever level the college offers services for.

Live performance production is a tool of propaganda, just like radio, teevee, and print medium. Generally govt. funded tools of propaganda are used at least in-part to promote the government's (or government's people's) agenda, sometimes/oftentimes/or maybe almost guaranteed to ultimately lead to a self fulling/ self purpetuating/ self enhancing prophsey.

 

[Per Søvik]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

<snip>With the private sector competition gone (or seriously crippled), then the college has the ability (and possibly the internally and/or externally mandated sociological impetus) to pick and choose who has and who hasn't access to public performance at whatever level the college offers services for. <snip>

Which may or may not be any worse than limiting public performance to those who can afford to pay for a "real" sound company.

The established soundpeople complain that gear has become available at such a low price that a lot more people get into the game of providing sound, eating into profits etc. etc. It sounds a bit like protectionism to me.
Another issue that just sprang up again is government selling off another portion of the the wireless frequency band. While the concensus seems to be that in a non-socialist economy, the government should stay out of everything, I don't think the same sentiment will be held by the sound companies when the governments "stay out of it" and sell of the frequency bands to the highest bidders instead of holding on to the bands for public benefit. (I know that the public probably benefits more from the band being used for mobile devices than wireless microphones, but that is another part of the discussion)

 

[W. Mark Hellinger]

Re: Competition: fair/unfair

Which may or may not be any worse than limiting public performance to those who can afford to pay for a "real" sound company.

Could be, but then I'd prefer to have freedom of speech, even if it costs real money to effectively express myself, rather than free speech for those and only those who are reading off an approved script.