“Fair trade” appears to be a noble assembly of words. We all trade and it should be fair, right? A quote, which I can not adequately attribute to a proper author, was told to me that generally questions the premise of fairness: “Fair? to whom?”(1)

Read More

clipped from www.breitbart.com Justice Dept Approves XM-Sirius Deal WASHINGTON (AP) - The Justice Department approved Sirius Satellite Radio’s $5 billion buyout of rival XM Satellite Radio on Monday, saying the deal was unlikely to hurt competition or consumers. The Justice Department, in a lengthy news release explaining its decision, said the two companies compete not just with each other but also with other forms of radio and entertainment. “The likely evolution of technology in the future, including the expected introduction in the next several years of mobile broadband Internet devices, made it even more unlikely that the transaction would harm consumers in the longer term,” the Justice Department said. “Accordingly, the division has closed its investigation of the proposed merger.”

In a free land, you do not need the permission of the government in order to conduct private business.

I love the “fabulously” wealthy, rich people who earned their stripes working from the ground up to build business empires. The modern business is truly a study in the success and failure of human groups.  So it is no surprise to see some wealthy people patting themselves on the back for a job “well” done.  And it is no surprise that there are those amongst their very ranks who tend to spank themselves for the wealth they have created and/or amassed over time.

A recent article in the NY Times interviews several business executives considered to be at the “pinnacle” of wealth.  There were those who compared their gains to the efforts of the early American industrialists (Carnegie, et al.) while the authors made no effort to diminish these comparisons. The oddity that struck me is how wealthy industrialists of the modern era appear to be largely mixed in their opinions regarding the re-distribution of their wealth.  Some feel that they should be taxed more. Others feel they should be taxed less. Yet still others think the current system is just fine.

What I found odd is that Warren Buffet seems to take a conflicted stance. As many books and lore about the guy state: he’s a simple guy who likes simple things who lives a simple life - and he never gave his kids any of his money. None of Warren Buffet’s money is going to his kids - instead he’s giving it all away to the Gates Foundation. The confusing part? He feels that (from my impression of the article) we need to distribute the income after it is earned. Redistribution is essentially a forceful method of taking one’s wealth and giving it to others.   In much the same way he wouldn’t give his children any money - they had to earn it independently, why should he give it to someone else? On either hand, you’re giving your money away so what does it matter whether it is your children or others? Neither group (family or government) earned it within the marketplace.

The Baltimore Sun reports: recent fee hikes granted by a royalty review board is knee-capping the bootstrapping Internet radio industry. The recent hoopla over the royalty hikes is causing many casual participants in the marketplace to drop out. So just what are the issues involved?

The Copyright Royalty Board has removed some of the caps on royalty fees. For some broadcasters, the fee increases amount to doubling their dues to the cult of the music industry. In some cases, I can understand and side with the music industry. They are seeking to gain on their investments. But more of my mind and heart fall on the opposite side, with the radiomen.

Music and entertainment are interesting things. In the case of radio, while many stations make money off marketing breaks, or in the case of Internet radio - off of advertising links or banners, etc, radio also does a double service for the music industry. Think about it - the music industry charges you to market their product for them; radio has long been a marketing driver of new music, not the end point on the marketing tool chain.

We have our blessed government who likes to step in and manipulate the marketplace: remove “payolla” marketing dollars from broadcasters hands, regulating radio frequencies to stratospheric price levels for access to airwaves, and other pieces of legislation that is, purposefully or not, keeping people out of radio instead of removing barriers to enter the radio market.

Bands and labels with lesser muscle can not gain traction, even in niche radio, that would put them in spots next to similar and more popular, if not equally talented, artists. Traditional mainstream radio is less apt to take large risks on unknown talent - an area that has been well served by Internet radio. All of the risk falls on broadcasters with little to no risk involved by the music industry. How they think they can cannibalize this marketing channel is beyond me. It makes for stupid business; at the same time, it makes more sense to use ideas such as Creative Commons.

If people ever wonder why I think Steve Albini is a god - here is why.

Reason’s Hit & Run is notified by the Edwards campaign: “By the power of Greyskull - I have the power!….. over weather”. (link)

Dems continue to jerk themselves off in matters of economics and trade over at the New York Times (link)

Loss Leader: Harry Potter might be popular, but he’s cheap and not bringing in the cash for book sellers when the markup is just a hair above, at, or below cost.  Maybe it’s time to outsource. (link)

While the Phillies tank in baseball at least Philly criminals are batting .479 in the body count department. The city of “brotherly love” doesn’t seem to share that love very often.  There’s no specific article but a good glance at Philly.com will give you a decent impression. Murder and Baseball - what can be more American? (link)

Want to stop global warming? Carbon Credits won’t do it. Although my archives are still down, I’ve covered carbon credits quite a bit. One of my posts addressed the issue as a matter of a broken window fallacy in action. With government as the window breaker and the beneficiary being both unwilling and willing glaziers.