Sirius Left......... believers in supply side economics? Say it aint so!

[Deudalus]

This post is for the 4 or 5 of you Sirius Left listeners who might actually also read Anandtech.

I like to listen to a bit of everything and while I was switching back and forth on the dial I came across Alex Bennett a few days ago and he actually stated:

"I don't have a problem with people downloading TV shows. Those are already provided online anyways for free. But please people do not pirate download movies and music. The money lost when people steal movies and music online is passed down to the little guys in the industry and I have friends who work in those unseen jobs."


Umm, is it just me or is that a hardcore leftie flatly stating that they do realize that when the bottom line is hit up top the reaction is jobs are lost, pay is cut, or both down below?

Say it aint so!

 

[sandorski]

Ahh, so your Strawman Leftie doesn't exist. Shock

 

[Fern]

"I don't have a problem with people downloading TV shows. Those are already provided online anyways for free.

Last time I checked TV shows were also on TV and that's free. I smell a genius

But please people do not pirate download movies and music. The money lost when people steal movies and music online is passed down to the little guys in the industry and I have friends who work in those unseen jobs."

Yeah, sounds like he is talking about 'trickle down' or supply side economic theory.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

Last time I checked TV shows were also on TV and that's free. I smell a genius



Yeah, sounds like he is talking about 'trickle down' or supply side economic theory.

Fern

That is an incorrect assessment. Not even close really.

 

[DrPizza]

Isn't music provided on the radio for free? Using his logic, it SHOULD be okay to download it. (I'm not endorsing pirating of music & would happily agree to allow someone to search my hard drives for anything pirated - there is none. Just pointing out his twisted logic.)

 

[Deudalus]

Ahh, so your Strawman Leftie doesn't exist. Shock

I didn't create a strawman.

This is a man who's current job description is to beat up on conservative points of view. One of the pillars of conservative thinking is a free market system and supply side economics.

I have many, many times heard Alex Bennett blame the free market and conservative economic policies for many atrocities.


For that point of view to immediately go out the window as soon as his friends might be hurt by REALITY is highly comical.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's called "above the line" and "below the line" in the movie industry. Nothing is trickle down - people get paid to do a job. Everyone worth their salt is union in some way (its more like a trade organization then a real union).

Whats going on in the industry is painful. People expect tv, movies, video games, newspapers, photos, software all for free. They want all the content in their lives to just be there and have no costs attached. So the industry is in flux trying to figure this out. Add to that the damages of this recession and there isn't a lot of money to make films with. I have been VERY lucky in that I have generally been able to keep working through this all but a lot of very talented people have had to pack their bags and leave the city. Things seem to be picking up and have been for the last couple months.

So we can just wait and see. If people refuse to buy content then things will be watermarked with ads and placements will go up because people don't work for free. But 1 thing I do know is that middle america has a hard time entertaining themselves and they NEED content to make their boring lives "better".

 

[sandorski]

I didn't create a strawman.

This is a man who's current job description is to beat up on conservative points of view. One of the pillars of conservative thinking is a free market system and supply side economics.

I have many, many times heard Alex Bennett blame the free market and conservative economic policies for many atrocities.


For that point of view to immediately go out the window as soon as his friends might be hurt by REALITY is highly comical.

Again with the Strawman. What he said has nothing to do with Trickle Down or Supply Side Economics. Nothing.

 

[Throckmorton]

Isn't this demand side economics? He's talking about consuming media...

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll agree that the Right needs to re-define themselves, but re-defining "trickledown economics" or "supply side economics" is a pretty feeble attempt.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAYQkAE

 

[Fern]

That is an incorrect assessment. Not even close really.

I'm trying to understand your position, just saying "no" isn't helpful.

This is his remark that I'm focusing on:

The money lost when people steal movies and music online is passed down to the little guys in the industry and I have friends who work in those unseen jobs."

Now that sentence taken literally is nonsense. You can't literally "pass down lost money".

So what I gather he is saying is - pay for the content and it'll help out those on the bottom in these unseen jobs. (Do you think he is saying something else? If so, what?)

That sounds like trickle down to me.

Fern

 

[Deudalus]

Again with the Strawman. What he said has nothing to do with Trickle Down or Supply Side Economics. Nothing.

Is not the basic principle of supply side economics that the better the bottom line for the wealthy and for corporations the better off everyone below them will be?

Is he not directly arguing that pirating movies and music hurts the bottom line of those corporations which they pass down to every one of their workers?

Can you please tell me how that is not a direct correlation?

Or you are arguing that when you hurt the bottom line you hurt the worker but when you help the bottom line you don't help the worker? Basically you think the lowering tide lowers all boats the rising tide doesn't raise all boats, is that right?

If so then you at least have an argument. It would be a complete and total dumb ass argument but you would have one none the less.

 

[sandorski]

Is not the basic principle of supply side economics that the better the bottom line for the wealthy and for corporations the better off everyone below them will be?

Is he not directly arguing that pirating movies and music hurts the bottom line of those corporations which they pass down to every one of their workers?

Can you please tell me how that is not a direct correlation?

Or you are arguing that when you hurt the bottom line you hurt the worker but when you help the bottom line you don't help the worker?

If so then you at least have an argument. You would be a complete and total dumb ass argument but you would have one none the less.

Let me put this simply for you and Fern: Whether the Economic Policy is Supply Side or Demand Side, if someone Steals all your shit you can't Pay your Employees.

In short, it has nothing to do with Trickle Down/Supply Side Economics. Just simple Economics.

 

[Deudalus]

Let me put this simply for you and Fern: Whether the Economic Policy is Supply Side or Demand Side, if someone Steals all your shit you can't Pay your Employees.

In short, it has nothing to do with Trickle Down/Supply Side Economics. Just simple Economics.

Supply side economics is simple economics I think.

Let me make it simple for you. If someone is stealing your shit then you are spending more per product that you are producing.......

For example if you produce cups. If you produce 5 cups and sell them for 20 cents each you will earn 1 dollar. If you produce 5 cups and 2 get stolen in order to continue to earn that dollar then you will either need to charge 33 cents each or you will need to pay your workers less (or fire some of them) in order to keep your profit margins the same.

Now I don't know about where you live but where I live popcorn at the movies is 5 bucks and a 20 oz drink is 3.50. Blu Ray disks are 30 bucks or more so basically the idea of raising the price of the product is not really feasible.

That means the best option is to pay their workers less or fire/not hire some of them.

So basically their bottom line is being hampered which is passed down to everyone else. When that bottom line goes down then the prices go up or the pay/jobs go down or more likely both. When the bottom line goes up then prices come down and pay/jobs go up.

This is EXACTLY why supply side economics make sense.

You do realize that right?

 

[sandorski]

Supply side economics is simple economics I think.

Let me make it simple for you. If someone is stealing your shit then you are spending more per product that you are producing.......

For example if you produce cups. If you produce 5 cups and sell them for 20 cents each you will earn 1 dollar. If you produce 5 cups and 2 get stolen in order to continue to earn that dollar then you will either need to charge 33 cents each or you will need to pay your workers less (or fire some of them) in order to keep your profit margins the same.

Now I don't know about where you live but where I live popcorn at the movies is 5 bucks and a 20 oz drink is 3.50. Blu Ray disks are 30 bucks or more so basically the idea of raising the price of the product is not really feasible.

That means the best option is to pay their workers less or fire/not hire some of them.

So basically their bottom line is being hampered which is passed down to everyone else. When that bottom line goes down then the prices go up or the pay/jobs go down or more likely both. When the bottom line goes up then prices come down and pay/jobs go up.

This is EXACTLY why supply side economics make sense.

You do realize that right?

That has nothing to do with Supply Side Economics. Nothing. You're trying to shoehorn in your Hobby Economic Theory into a place where it does not fit. If people Steal your shit, you can't pay your Employees. This works within any Economic Model.

 

[Deudalus]

Assuming you understood the last post let me break it down a bit more for you and Alex Bennett.

Alex and you apparently believe that the piece of paper that the bottom line is written on actually gives a shit whether its property theft, taxes, corporate taxes, or anything else that can negative effect the bottom line.

For example Alex Bennett thinks that property theft will hurt the bottom line which hurts his worker friends which is true.

However, I doubt he thinks that higher taxes (specifically corporate taxes) are a problem and have the same impact on the bottom line which is also true.


What you should realize is that the bottom line doesn't have an opinion or emotions. All it cares about is the bottom line.

So don't be like Alex Bennett and talk about how evil corporations only worry about the bottom line and should be taxed more with one side of your mouth and how we shouldn't be stealing media because that hurts the bottom line which hurts the worker with the other side of your mouth.

Basically don't turn into a wise economist when it suits you and then a bleeding heart social welfare type who believes in huge taxes when it doesn't.

 

[sandorski]

Assuming you understood the last post let me break it down a bit more for you and Alex Bennett.

Alex and you apparently believe that the piece of paper that the bottom line is written on actually gives a shit whether its property theft, taxes, corporate taxes, or anything else that can negative effect the bottom line.

For example Alex Bennett thinks that property theft will hurt the bottom line which hurts his worker friends.

However, I doubt he thinks that higher taxes (specifically corporate taxes) are a problem and have the same impact on the bottom line.


What you should realize is that the bottom line doesn't have an opinion or emotions. All it cares about is the bottom line.

So don't talk about how evil corporations only worry about the bottom line and should be taxed more with one side of your mouth and how we shouldn't be stealing media because that hurts the bottom line which hurts the worker with the other side of your mouth.

Get it?

Sorry, you're still wrong in your Summation and Supply Side tangent. Taxes are an essential part within a functioning Economic System, Theft is not.

 

[Deudalus]

Sorry, you're still wrong in your Summation and Supply Side tangent. Taxes are an essential part within a functioning Economic System, Theft is not.

Answer this simple question for me. Do you believe that taxes have the same impact on the bottom line as theft?

For example, if Company A has their cost go up 1 million dollars per year due to:

Situation A: Tax increases
Situation B: Property theft

Do you think their response via pricing and personnel will be different?

Like do you believe they will say "ahh shit property theft is up time to lay someone off" but when its "ahh shit corporate taxes are up guess we just have to eat that one its on the house".......

 

[sandorski]

Answer this simple question for me. Do you believe that taxes have the same impact on the bottom line as theft?

For example, if Company A has their cost go up 1 million dollars per year due to:

Situation A: Tax increases
Situation B: Property theft

Do you think their response via pricing and personnel will be different?

No. The main reason being that Taxes and Theft do not affect the Bottom line in the same manner.

Just accept the fact that you over reached in order to get some shots at some guy on the Radio you don't like and save yourself further embarrassment.

 

[MotF Bane]

Deudalus, you're wasting your time with him.

 

[Deudalus]

No. The main reason being that Taxes and Theft do not affect the Bottom line in the same manner.

Just accept the fact that you over reached in order to get some shots at some guy on the Radio you don't like and save yourself further embarrassment.

I will if you can explain your first paragraph to me.

If my families taxes were 100 per month for property taxes and 100 per month for water I don't think I would view them any differently when it comes to my families budget......


I think you need to explain it to me a bit clearer.

Assuming you have a bottom line budget of actual dollars, for every 1 dollar lost via property theft what percentage of a real dollar is lost? The same question for every 1 dollar lost to the federal/state government in taxes what percentage of a real dollar is lost?

It seems to me what you are saying is that 1 dollar lost to property theft is actually like 150% of a dollar where as for a dollar lost due to taxes that is only like 60% of a dollar.

I'm guessing that is the case because only property theft dollars actually hurt bad enough to negatively effect pricing and or personnel decisions.

Is that not correct?

 

[Deudalus]

Deudalus, you're wasting your time with him.

Oh believe me I realize that. Just passing the time.

Best case scenario he sees the error in his ways.

Worst case he reveals himself as a mental midget.

 

[Fern]

Let me put this simply for you and Fern: Whether the Economic Policy is Supply Side or Demand Side, if someone Steals all your shit you can't Pay your Employees.

In short, it has nothing to do with Trickle Down/Supply Side Economics. Just simple Economics.

Thank you.

I can now clearly see that you don't have a point.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

I will if you can explain your first paragraph to me.

If my families taxes were 100 per month for property taxes and 100 per month for water I don't think I would view them any differently when it comes to my families budget......

Businesses are Taxed, mainly, based upon their Bottom Line, not before it. Theft is not just Revenue Loss, but Loss of Stock, thus affect the Bottom Line directly. Taxes also pay for Infrastructure that the Business Needs and Uses. Theft has no Utility for a Business.

 

[sandorski]

Oh believe me I realize that. Just passing the time.

Best case scenario he sees the error in his ways.

Worst case he reveals himself as a mental midget.

/facepalm