Earlier this month we noted how Disney and ESPN had sued Sling TV for the cardinal sin of actually trying to innovate. Sling TV’s offense: releasing new, more convenient day, weekend, or week-long shorter term streaming subscriptions that provided an affordable way to watch live television.
These mini-subscriptions, starting at around $5, have already proven to be pretty popular. But, of course, it challenges the traditional cable TV model of getting folks locked into recurring (and expensive) monthly subscriptions. Subscriptions that often mandate that you include sports programming many people simply don’t want to pay for.
So of course Time Warner has now filed a second lawsuit (sealed, 1:25-mc-00381) accusing Dish Network of breach of contract. In the complaint, Warner Bros lawyer David Yohai argues that this kind of convenience simply cannot be allowed.
That’s hilarious. Sling has been around for a decade… and now they care.
You can tell traditional television is dying. An industry that isn’t struggling doesn’t consistently embarrass itself like this.
It reminds me of the major labels in the music industry, pissing their pants for ten years when iTunes and streaming became popular.
The “unofficial” streaming sites are better than the official ones at this point. A decent VPN costs less per month than any subscription to an official industry service.
How are the “unofficial” streaming sites financed if people only pay for VPN?
Free market my ass
Well, it’s free after the rebate. But they don’t just give those out, you’ve gotta be loaded.
never have been
If Capitalism is not working as intended then it should be scrapped. Supply and demand indeed.
So what’s the superior model to replace it?
Everything else that has been tried has failed.
And don’t give me some shit about a small community that thrives without capitalism, but exist as a pocket of a capitalistic society that supply all essentials to them.In a microcosm many models work, but most collapse at scale.
This is not a matter of capitalism vs something else, but capitalism vs capitalism.Someone doesn’t need to have a full alternative meticulously planned out to say that the current system is bad.
Capitalism, domesticated by socialism, resulted in the largest growth of human quality of life and productivity from about 1930 to 1980. Then capitalism eroded the socialism and wealth inequality started to increase.
Absolutely, in USA progress ended and things began to turn to shit when Americans chose Reagan over Jimmy Carter.
Reagan was just a symptom. It was billionaires infiltration of both sides of politics that caused it. They leveraged Christian nationalism to infiltrate society. Remember when we laughed at the evangelicals and their corporate megachurches?
Maybe Reagan was just a symptom, the problem is that the choice of Reagan over Carter, marks the point where the ideology of humanism was destroyed as a major force in the American political culture. And it was turned to might makes right, 3 strikes and you’re out, and all sorts of sociopathic ideology and policies in USA.
Absolutely Christianity is a huge problem in this. But Christianity can have another more humanitarian face too, but that’s not the way Christianity in USA turned.
How about we stop being stupid tribalists and just focus on real solutions to real problems?
I know that’s asking too much for people like /u/buffalox.
To be fair the US made damn sure that everything else that was tried would fail. Though to answer the question usually some form of social democracy with a regulated capitalist economy like you see in nordic countries.
I live in Denmark, and I can assure you, what we have is still capitalism.
It’s just regulated capitalism, to prevent harm, and ensure fair competition.
In principle it’s the same as USA, but with a political desire to maintain a different balance between capitalists and workers than USA.
But I agree, that among the systems we know of and have tried, the Scandinavian model seems to be among the better systems.
But maybe it all boils down to a stronger democracy, with 12 parties represented in parliament, and the government consisting of 4 cooperating parties.
I think that helps create a better balance, and the American 2 party system, both destroys a good balance, and it also rob voters of the ability to vote for something they actually feel represent their wishes.On a funny side-note, every research done into the matter that I know of, shows that Scandinavian countries have greater freedom than USA! Especially on the freedom of speech, we have way bigger freedom than Americans.
Capitalism is like alcohol. You don’t take it pure because bad things happen, possibly lethal things. It needs to be a limited amount as part of something bigger.
I agree, that’s what we usually call regulated, only about half of USA think regulation is a poison, all other countries understand regulation much better.
Just adding the bailouts for right wing governments that bow to the fascists, like Argentina recently. As you said, there’s no level playing field.
So what’s the superior model to replace it?
Everything else that has been tried has failed.The same could have been said in feudal times. However, thanks to smarter people, silly arguments like this didn’t stop attempts at progress. If people of the past followed your own logic, you’d be a slave right now. Think about that.
Feudalism is a fixed structure of society, that was also capitalist.
To day we have democracy which is better but is also capitalist.
In principle capitalism is usually about free markets that are generally controlled, because otherwise the system quickly collapses.
Attempts at non free market systems is generally planned economy, for instance the infamous Soviet Union 5 year plans.
To get rid of capitalism we need to get rid of all shortages for everybody, and that is not on the near horizon.
Feel free to think of a solution, but let’s not throw overboard what has worked better than anything else, before we have something real to replace it with.
And not just philosophical bullshit about how nice it would be.Feudalism is a fixed structure of society, that was also capitalist.
In principle capitalism is usually about free markets that are generally controlled, because otherwise the system quickly collapses.
These two points seem both contradictory, as well as inaccurate to me.
Feudalism is “a combination of legal, economic, military, cultural, and political customs (…)” Feudalism - Wikipedia
While capitalism is “an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit.” “In its modern form, [capitalism] can be traced to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the early Renaissance, in city-states like Florence. Capital has existed incipiently on a small scale for centuries in the form of merchant, renting and lending activities and occasionally as small-scale industry with some wage labor.” Capitalism - Wikipedia
First of all, feudalism is a system encapsulating various parts of society, including the economy. Whereas capitalism is focused on the economy, but also affects other parts of society. Feudalism is by no means capitalist, as it’s an entirely different system that predates capitalism by centuries. Naturally, there are similiarities and, in the end, feudalism transitioned into capitalism.
However, that does not mean it’s the same system or that one is a feature of the other. These systems, or sets of customs and policies, change over time, adopting new policies and revising existing ones according to the changing world - that is a perfectly natural, as well as unavoidable process. Sometimes it may be difficult to tell precisely when a shift occured, kind of like what is happening in some European countries today. Although, using currently established definitions, we can separate the two.
To day we have democracy which is better but is also capitalist.
This makes no sense to me. There’s nothing that inherently links democracy and capitalism. They are entirely different constructs. A democracy can exist without capitalism, just like a capitalist economy can exist without a democratic government. Furthermore, democracy predates capitalism by 2000 years at the very least.
Democracy “is a form of government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state.” “Democratic assemblies are as old as the human species and are found throughout human history (…)” “Under Cleisthenes, what is generally held as the first example of a type of democracy in the sixth-century BC (508–507 BC) was established in Athens.” Democracy - Wikipedia
To get rid of capitalism we need to get rid of all shortages for everybody, and that is not on the near horizon.
Not necessarily. I’m not sure where this conclusion comes from. There are no requirements that have to be met in order for a society to transition from capitalism to a different economical system. And actually, as of right now, we do in fact have enough resources to meet the basic needs of every single person on the planet. Housing not yet, but it could be achieved soon.
Feel free to think of a solution, but let’s not throw overboard what has worked better than anything else, before we have something real to replace it with.
And not just philosophical bullshit about how nice it would be.This argument, usually coming from capitalists, is not only counter-intuitive, but also short-sighted. Broadly speaking, to solve a problem, the very first thing you need to do is acknowledge it. If you don’t acknowledge a problem, meaning it doesn’t ‘exist’, you won’t be able to solve it. Which is exactly why people are complaining about capitalism.
Then you may suggest which parts are the most problematic and propose improvements or solutions. At this stage capitalists will often say, like you, that there is nothing else, or that nothing else works or is proven, etc. Firstly, in the context of American capitalism specifically (as this is what the post is about), there are many existing, working and proven solutions to some of its problems. All you need to do is take a look at Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries.
Furthermore, socialism exists and, unlike what capitalists would have you believe, has been at the very least proven to work in limited capacity. That is, until it collapsed due to external sanctions or the leader being assassinated. I’d be curious to see what capitalists would say if we judged capitalism under similar circumstances.
All in all, we do have at least some improvements readily available for deployment. The problem is not that they don’t exist or are unrealistic. Keep in mind you’re not restricted to choosing either capitalism or socialism. You’re entirely free to mix and modify policies. Again - like in Europe, adopting socialist policies while fundamentally sticking to capitalism. Seems to work quite well, and there’s still room for improvement.
These two points seem both contradictory, as well as inaccurate to me.
Well that’s too bad, because that means you don’t understand the fundamentals of capitalism, and how capitalism works with either democracy or other systems of governance.
Capitalism is very flexible, it’s all about the regulation and other economic policies by governments. The Scandinavian model is capitalistic, but emphasizes human values and not just profits.
What matters is the political balance between those, and in both cases capitalism is the proven best method we have yet. and mind you I am a traditional social democrat, meaning I am left of the Social Democratic party we have in Denmark.I hate what stereotypical “capitalism” stands for, but the part about regulated free markets, is the best model that actually works yet.
Oh boy wow.
this shows your like of imagination or even research.
keep in mind that modern capitalism is like a few hundred years old, humanity existed for longer than that.
this shows your like of imagination or even research.
IDK but I read it like you meant to write LACK of imagination, but it actually doesn’t either way, and I think you I think you should read some of my other posts before jumping to that conclusion.
You are extrapolating on too little evidence.humanity existed for longer than that.
Yes and much was tried, and capitalism replaced it all because it works better. Including more modern attempts like planned economy.
Maybe we find something better in the future, but we haven’t yet. For now the key is regulation to prevent everything going to the 1% so they own and control everything.
And I will gladly admit that we are failing at that, but for instance in USA that is a fault of a dysfunctional democracy, not a fault of capitalism, because everybody knows capitalism does that if not properly regulated. And USA has chosen to allow it, because democracy between only 2 parties doesn’t work.
What does a surgeon replace a tumor with once it’s been removed?
damn, that is a good analogy
That’s an invalid analogy, or at a very minimum it requires explanation.
I think the only point we can get rid of capitalism, is when there is no shortages of anything for anyone.
Until then it needs to be regulated, and dreams and claims of just removing it are counterproductive, because we simply can’t at this point in time.
Capitalism also isn’t the problem, lack of regulation and allowing the 1% to control everything is.Scandinavian countries are free market capitalist countries, and although they aren’t perfect either, they are better for the general population than the American 2 party system.
How you run your democracy is crucial, democracy is supposed to control society, not the 1%.You have the right ideas in some ways but their execution in your head is lacking.
Read a little bit about the subject and you might understand what people are talking about. Maybe start with Rosa Luxemburg. She writes about reforming capitalism or tearing it all down and creating something new.
Good luck and remember we only limit ourselves with our thoughts.
She writes about reforming capitalism
Exactly my point, with the options we have now, reform is the way forward, not replace.
You are conflating capitalism and markets. As much as capitalists would like for everyone to believe they are one and the same, they are completely distinct from one another.
That’s just a load of hoola boola.
Per definition capitalism and free markets are tied.
Soviet Russia also used money for their planned economy, but it was not free markets, and hence not considered a capitalist country by any normal definition of the word.You are conflating rhetoric with an actual argument. And you are dismissing a normal definition without providing an alternative.
So what is capitalism pray tell?
Removed by mod
Off the top of my head, something like social ownership of all necessities (e.g. housing healthcare education security natural resource management etc.) utilities (e.g. water/sewer electricity internet garbage etc.) and infrastructure (e.g. bridges dams public transportation systems etc.), administered by a network of democratically elected and transparently administered (e.g. subject to public records requests, required to make annual reports, etc.) local and regional councils with a variety of checks and balances on each other, reserving luxury and entertainment goods and services for private ownership, and establishing strong legal and cultural recognition of individual’s free speech and privacy rights (and I think at a minimum privacy requires every person having their own room with a door that locks, so
societye; the tenants collectively own the apartment complex (but the maintenance is funded by a neighborhood council that is funded by a city council that etc.) but you own your unit)That sounds very good, and I agree. But I think even that system would be capitalistic too. But with way more control and ownership of it given to the people instead of the 1%.
In Denmark we have some of that, although it was partially undermined by the right wing government in the 80.
But electric infrastructure is “in principle at least” owned by the users. The same is somewhat true with water supply, Public transportation, Postal services used to be but aren’t anymore. Some of our internet infrastructure is indirectly publicly owned. So we have 1 Gbit internet at a fair price.
All these things exist fine withing a well regulated capitalist system, and even with private competition. The real key is taxes and distribution of wealth, and in that regard the biggest problem is to balance being part of an international community, which a small country like Denmark absolutely has to be, and balance that with the race to the bottom we often see from other countries.It would for instance be easier to tax the rich fairly, if there weren’t tax shelters. But the rich can spend a lot of money on tax and accounting specialists to avoid tax. And they are often very difficult to pursue legally.
These are the real world problems, not just the knee jerk “capitalism is the problem” that is so often thrown around.
Not only do these bastards collude to fix prices, they sue defectors.
Thats very on-brand for these assholes.
Rent seeking as a way of life.
