Great film, but no market for it: Sorry...

[dsam7]

I'm not sure I understand your argument. It sounds like you are saying that abstractly - in a theoretical perfect world, a free-market would exist as a level playing field. Okay, I understand that in the abstract, but then you are saying that we currently have corruption in the form of favors and subsidies. Lots of favors go on in the private sectors of business, don't they? Why would that stop in an unregulated free-market? In other words, why would corruption go away in a liberal free market? Obviously it would not and the liberalization of markets has not leveled the playing field. It has only made things more uneven.

Steve

Hi Steve,

On the contrary, a business that sought to succeed on the basis of favours or corruption in a genuine free-market would not survive for very long.

In a truly free-market ( where the initiation of force is prohibited) economic power and individual success can only be achieved by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement by all those who participate in the process of production and trade. This mechanism reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all participants. All prices, wages and profits are determined, not by arbitrary whim or the gun, but by the law of supply and demand.

Every government interference in the economy, whether to aid big business or set wages for a favoured labour union, consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force to some men at the expense of others. In a truly free-market, such "favours" would be prohibited just as it is illegal for criminals to survive by racketeering or fraud.

The great strength of a free-market is that its is a level playing field because no-one has a right to the unearned. You exist on the basis of the free exchange of ideas and property.

Unfortunately, we don't live in such a system. We live in a mixed economy.

Anyway, I don't want to take this post right off-topic........I hope I've made my point clearer.

[wado1942]

The great strength of a free-market is that its is a level playing field because no-one has a right to the unearned.

If there WAS such thing as a true free market, there would be complete poverty due to the rich business owners not wanting to pay wages. There HAS to be government intervention to level the playing field or else those that start with the most resources get all the income because they have the most leverage while those with few resources either can't work or work for nearly free because they don't have the resources to get off the ground. In a situation where anybody is free to do what they want, there's nothing but trouble for everybody else. That said, no end of the spectrum works on its own. Communism doesn't work either because there's no incentive to perform.

[steve hyde]

Hi Steve,

On the contrary, a business that sought to succeed on the basis of favours or corruption in a genuine free-market would not survive for very long.

In a truly free-market ( where the initiation of force is prohibited) economic power and individual success can only be achieved by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement by all those who participate in the process of production and trade. This mechanism reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all participants. All prices, wages and profits are determined, not by arbitrary whim or the gun, but by the law of supply and demand.

What constitutes force? And how should the *governments* know when to step in and prohibit the use of it? Isn't that a trade regulation? How is it a "truly free-market." What about the many ways that Power is exercised without the use of force? Is aggressive advertising the use of force? What about aggressive advertising in public schools? Is that force?

I just don't buy this neo-liberal free market stuff. Power works in cunning ways and competition can be bought and sold by the rich and powerful. I am still amazed that people believe that deregulation is the magic wand that is going to bring about social justice.

Just look at the growing gap between the rich and the poor over the past thirty years in the wake of Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's neo-liberal economic policies. That speaks for itself. It's all about empire building and empire building has always been about accumulation for empire through the dispossession of the masses. Same old song and dance different century.

Every government interference in the economy, whether to aid big business or set wages for a favoured labour union, consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force to some men at the expense of others. In a truly free-market, such "favours" would be prohibited just as it is illegal for criminals to survive by racketeering or fraud.


The great strength of a free-market is that its is a level playing field because no-one has a right to the unearned. You exist on the basis of the free exchange of ideas and property.

This sounds just as utopian and impossible as communism! How can you say that we would have a level playing field when we have to start with an uneven one? This is pure fantasy. Where is the evidence? I just don't understand how anyone could actually believe this.. Not to mention that if the government has prohibitions - then we aren't talking about a free-market anymore. I don't follow you.

Unfortunately, we don't live in such a system. We live in a mixed economy.

Yes, indeed.

Anyway, I don't want to take this post right off-topic........I hope I've made my point clearer.

It would be made clearer with solid evidence supporting your view. I'm opposed to trade liberalization. Under the conditions of the current moment, I think it hurts more people than it helps. For me its an ethical stance. We have to live and work under an economic system that has been unjust for a long time. Inclusions and exclusions are bought and sold. And the playing field is far from level. We will never see it level in our life times. This is why I think democratically elected governments regulating trade is still the best idea around.

In theory, I'm with you. I understand the logic of anarcho-libertarianism and agree with it in theory. If the human race could set back the clocks and start over again, maybe social welfare could be accomplished through a nice clean free-market where everybody's needs are met and creativity, entrepreneurship and unhindered competition would be allowed to flourish.
That sounds great to me, but for that to work now we would have to go back and erase all of history. We would have to erase slave economies and colonialism and all the other unjust things that have happened in history....that is as likely as achieving a level playing field through the liberalization of trans-national capitalism.

Thanks for arguing with me about it. I think the main weak point in your argument is a shallow understanding of how *power* works and also what constitutes *force.* There are other kinds of force besides physical force.
What do you mean by "force"?

Steve

[steve hyde]

It's way less predictable in the United States. Sometimes small movies have huge success in theaters.

i was actually talking mainly about the united states. it's not that predictable here either, i was talking from a distributior's point of view. the keyword in your post is sometimes. few are willing to take the chance. contrary to production there's not a lot of vent cap in distribution. a dvd release can bring in a lot of money compared to how little it costs.

/matt

I see. I think you will agree..I think you may have already said this....,but the best marketing strategy for DVD sales is a theatrical release.

Steve

[steve hyde]

The great strength of a free-market is that its is a level playing field because no-one has a right to the unearned.

If there WAS such thing as a true free market, there would be complete poverty due to the rich business owners not wanting to pay wages. There HAS to be government intervention to level the playing field or else those that start with the most resources get all the income because they have the most leverage while those with few resources either can't work or work for nearly free because they don't have the resources to get off the ground. In a situation where anybody is free to do what they want, there's nothing but trouble for everybody else. That said, no end of the spectrum works on its own. Communism doesn't work either because there's no incentive to perform.

That's how I see it too.

The pure free-market is unattainable utopia and communism is unattainable utopia. The economy will have to exist somewhere between the two extremes. I would be happy if we could just stop the growing gap between the rich and poor. If we could reverse that we would be at least heading in the right direction...



Steve

[MovieStuff]

I just don't buy this neo-liberal free market stuff. Power works in cunning ways and competition can be bought and sold by the rich and powerful. I am still amazed that people believe that deregulation is the magic wand that is going to bring about social justice.....

I dunno about social justice but let's break this down. Money is power. Someone without money has no power in the marketplace unless he has a product that the public wants and needs and he's the only source. But a documentary is like any other movie in that it is not a necessity. Also, it is not a single source product. There are many movies and docs to choose from. So it is a frivolous amenity in the highest order, even if you feel there is a social/educational value that goes beyond dollars and cents inherent in that documentary/movie.

But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that this film maker hits it just right and is successful. If he then makes money he has more power than he had before. And the more money he makes, the more power he has for advertising, marketing, production while less fortunate film makers below him are struggling like he did not so long ago.

So is your question that people with money should have no power? Or is your question that people with money should be regulated in how they can use their power against competition from below? Before you answer, remember that the poor, lowly film maker in question is now one of the power elite. He now has money. Should he now be regulated in how he works and budgets and spends his money when, before, he was poor but unregulated? He is the very same guy with the very same ethics. Why should he suddenly be treated differently with different rules?

A free market is a double edged sword. The very mechanism that lets the little player prosper and become a big player is also the same mechanism that lets this new big player maintain an advantage over the little guys popping up around his ankles trying to take him down. And they will try, believe me. It is my belief that many people want an even playing field.... until their ship comes in..... and then, suddenly, they're a card carrying Republican; intent in maintaining the status-quo and using their power/money to stay ahead of the competition.

But is this really that bad?

The art world is pretty much one, big frivolous amenity. We can't live without food and shelter but we can live without art, if we have to. I'm not saying it would be pleasant or even desirable but, let's face it, if this film maker were making something that we do need, like food, he would be doing the best he can to convince potential customers that his food tasted better than his competition, even if he knew that was not true. He might even decide to buy some air time to advertise his product, very much aware that his competition has better food but no advertising budget. Is that fair? Or is "better food" simply relative to the whims and tastes of a fickle market? Better advertise now and take advantage of which way the wind is blowing because it is a cinch that your compeition isn't going to give you a break if it blows their way next week.

The term "free market" should never be confused with the term "fair market". There is nothing "fair" about business but, most importantly, there was never any guarantee that it would be. Competition breeds a better product and the consumer benefits from this. A "fair market" would lead to stagnation because a profit would be guaranteed, even if the product was lacking in performance.

The documentary in question is very good. But is it needed? No. Therefore, the only thing the film maker is "entitled" to is whatever his product earns him. He can't very well call himself a serious documentary film maker about society and be surprised that society, historically, couldn't care less about documentaries. Free market or not, he has produced a product that is not needed and it will be treated as such by the very society he documents.

My two cents......

Roger

[audadvnc]

...It is my belief that many people want an even playing field.... until their ship comes in..... and then, suddenly, they're a card carrying Republican; intent in maintaining the status-quo and using their power/money to stay ahead of the competition...

Human nature hasn't changed, people have always suffered from greed and envy. But the Industrial Revolution made it possible to consolidate power and money to a degree unimaginable to previous generations, and the trends of globalization push the limits of power to unprecedented levels. It is now possible for a soft drink manufacturer to place their product in every home in the world, and get everybody hooked on the Real Thing, to underprice the competition in any market it so chooses, and to rule the soda pop world. Historical limits to growth have been rendered impotent with improved communication and greater concentrations of wealth.

The only entities powerful enough to buffer Rupert Murdoch or Bill Gates from buying every other company worldwide are governments, but what if the feds were bought also? It doesn't take too much to buy a pol. I see a big possibility that in the near future the earth will be owned by one man - and he won't be into free market economics.

[MovieStuff]

[I see a big possibility that in the near future the earth will be owned by one man - and he won't be into free market economics.

Which is ironic since his wealth and power would be distilled from the very free market economics that he might try to negate. As I say, everyone wants a level playing field until they're on top and then they want to stay there.

Roger

[steve hyde]

I just don't buy this neo-liberal free market stuff. Power works in cunning ways and competition can be bought and sold by the rich and powerful. I am still amazed that people believe that deregulation is the magic wand that is going to bring about social justice.....

I dunno about social justice but let's break this down. Money is power. Someone without money has no power in the marketplace unless he has a product that the public wants and needs and he's the only source. But a documentary is like any other movie in that it is not a necessity. Also, it is not a single source product. There are many movies and docs to choose from. So it is a frivolous amenity in the highest order, even if you feel there is a social/educational value that goes beyond dollars and cents inherent in that documentary/movie.

....Money may be Power, but Power is more than money. First of all money gets its value from a combination of natural resources and labor. The value in money comes from labor. Capital has no Power without labor.

Let me ask you this: if you think documentaries are frivolous and that art is a non-necessity then you and I certainly see the world through a different lens. What is art? Is writing a history book art? Is philosophy art? If you think art is non-essential I'm not sure what to say...

To me that is like saying that language is non-essential!!!

I would give up food before I would give up language. To quote Werner Herzog, "Without language we are like cows in a pasture." We would become stupid grazing animals and we would be better off dead.

Furthermore, and still echoing Herzog, we need new languages desperately because our old languages have become antiquated.
Cinema is one such new language and yes I think cinema has become an essential new language. Documentary film is a powerful new language. It is certainly not a frivolous amenity.

But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that this film maker hits it just right and is successful. If he then makes money he has more power than he had before. And the more money he makes, the more power he has for advertising, marketing, production while less fortunate film makers below him are struggling like he did not so long ago.

So is your question that people with money should have no power? Or is your question that people with money should be regulated in how they can use their power against competition from below? Before you answer, remember that the poor, lowly film maker in question is now one of the power elite. He now has money. Should he now be regulated in how he works and budgets and spends his money when, before, he was poor but unregulated? He is the very same guy with the very same ethics. Why should he suddenly be treated differently with different rules?

Actually my question was what constitutes an illicit use of *force* in a competitive economy? To be fair, my argument had strayed away from the "Iraq in Fragments" example and I had started discussing political economy more abstractly.

Yes, I am arguing that people with money need to be regulated to some extent in order to protect smaller producers from being crushed by an excessive use of *force*.

A free market is a double edged sword. The very mechanism that lets the little player prosper and become a big player is also the same mechanism that lets this new big player maintain an advantage over the little guys popping up around his ankles trying to take him down. And they will try, believe me. It is my belief that many people want an even playing field.... until their ship comes in..... and then, suddenly, they're a card carrying Republican; intent in maintaining the status-quo and using their power/money to stay ahead of the competition.

But is this really that bad?

Yes, in my view its bad, really bad. Republicans have shown that they really only care about themselves and their own families and religious affiliates. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that they live in an uneven society and they insist on wishing away the history that put them in a privileged place in the society and instead of *history* they favor nostalgia and pretend that everything about their liberty was earned proudly. They are reckless nationalists instead of world citizens. They are dangerous. These things I just described are their staus-quo and they are working to paper over all diversity with the blanket of this status-quo. That is really really that bad

The art world is pretty much one, big frivolous amenity. We can't live without food and shelter but we can live without art, if we have to. I'm not saying it would be pleasant or even desirable but, let's face it, if this film maker were making something that we do need, like food, he would be doing the best he can to convince potential customers that his food tasted better than his competition, even if he knew that was not true. He might even decide to buy some air time to advertise his product, very much aware that his competition has better food but no advertising budget. Is that fair? Or is "better food" simply relative to the whims and tastes of a fickle market? Better advertise now and take advantage of which way the wind is blowing because it is a cinch that your compeition isn't going to give you a break if it blows their way next week.

The term "free market" should never be confused with the term "fair market". There is nothing "fair" about business but, most importantly, there was never any guarantee that it would be. Competition breeds a better product and the consumer benefits from this. A "fair market" would lead to stagnation because a profit would be guaranteed, even if the product was lacking in performance.

We cannot live without art (period)

I agree that we need competition. I just think there need to be rules in the game. Rules that foster a productive form of competition.

The documentary in question is very good. But is it needed? No. Therefore, the only thing the film maker is "entitled" to is whatever his product earns him. He can't very well call himself a serious documentary film maker about society and be surprised that society, historically, couldn't care less about documentaries. Free market or not, he has produced a product that is not needed and it will be treated as such by the very society he documents.

My two cents......

Roger

Yes, it is needed!!!!!! People are dying there. That matters.

Obviously, documentaries that humanize the so-called "enemy" in a war do not foster the kind of nostalgic patriotism needed to gain support for such a war. Especially a war that few people support anymore. I certainly never did.

[MovieStuff]

Let me ask you this: if you think documentaries are frivolous and that art is a non-necessity then you and I certainly see the world through a different lens. What is art? Is writing a history book art? Is philosophy art? If you think art is non-essential I'm not sure what to say...

To me that is like saying that language is non-essential!!!

I, personally, feel that art is essential but, then again, I'm an artist so my viewpoint is a bit biased. You and I feel it is a shame that this guy makes a terrific doc and isn't successful. By "successful" I assume you mean financially benefitting from the sale of his product. But where would that money come from? It comes from an audience that has to decide if they want to spend part of this weeks hard earned paycheck to see a documentary or to buy groceries. Whether a movie is essential or not isn't up to me or you. It's up to the buying public. Do I feel they would be better off seeing this film? Do I feel that it should be essential viewing? What if I do? What you and I think is irrelevant. A "free market" isn't about an even playing field for the seller. That's a myth. It's about making a product and putting it out there to compete with all the other products that prospective buyers have to choose from. "Free market" is about the level of choice for the buyer; not about specialized laws that favor the little player so he can become a big player.

Look at it like this, if an artist becomes successful to the point that he is a name brand and anything his signature is on will bring in 6 figures, should he step aside and produce no more art so that less fortunate artists below him can prosper without "unfair" competition? Should this artist start producing bad art so that it won't sell as much? Should there be a law that says he can only produce X number of paintings and only for a limited price?

Money is power and power is money. Getting that power from being a successful artist is no more noble than getting it from selling real estate. But the idea of a "free market" is to benefit the buyer, not the seller.

Roger

[Nigel]

Steve,

I think you are missing my point. Which simply is:

A) What is good or bad/What should have ditribution or not is a nothing more than an opinion.

B) That the editor of the film more than likely won't know if the film has distribution until well after the fact.

For all you know "Iraq in Fragments" could be on the verge of a huge deal. To say that it won't get one may be premature. To say that it deserves one is point of view. Who gets what and why is not the kind of question to waste time over.

Good Luck


Coercive force in the market place isn't always executed by the buyers/sellers but more often than not is created by the government itself. (The is my OT rant).

[Jim Carlile]

Steve, I accept what you are saying but must take issue with your comment about the free-market. A genuine free-market or classical liberalism, (not a system of some freedoms and controls or government favours to friends or unearned subsidies etc that we live in today) does rest on a "level playing field" because all human interaction is VOLUNTARY. No one ( including the government) has the right to initiate force in any area of life - whether it's in demanding financing for a film or seeking preferential treatment for a business because it supports a particular political party... A genuine free society is about the free, exchange of ideas and property, not about unearned subsidy,force, favours, quotas or corruption - ( not the way our governments and their friends operate!).

Hardly. I have to pay the rent. I don't have any choice. So my dilemma is hardly one in which I placed myself voluntarily. And because of that, my landlord's are able to sqeeze me through my lack of any real choice in the matter.

The free market's a myth. Can never be no such thing. You're either a rich man or a peddler-- and the peddler metaphor is apt for a documentary filmaker. I think living small and doing good work for its own sake is the only real way out. Just get up in the morning and keep plugging away, doing your own thing. What else is there?

[Jim Carlile]

That said, no end of the spectrum works on its own. Communism doesn't work either because there's no incentive to perform.

Actually, the various Soviet film academies were absolutely phenomenal examples of successful communism at work. Free, intensely intellectual, with guaranteed jobs in a film industry where profit was secondary. How many Tarkovsky's did we produce in the U.S? or Polanskis, another example of communist educational practices and opportunities?

The amazing work of the Soviet film industry at its best showed that communism can work. Of course, that's Art...

[Nigel]

Jim,

You always have a choice. The choice may not be one you would like to make but you always have choice. Your choice of dealing with the landlord instead of moving is a choice you made.

There are free markets.

How much did you pay for your weed today??

Good Luck

I'm done with talking economics. People know I am a free marketeer--Libertarian.

[dsam7]

Thanks for arguing with me about it. I think the main weak point in your argument is a shallow understanding of how *power* works and also what constitutes *force.* There are other kinds of force besides physical force.
What do you mean by "force"?

Steve

Hi Steve,

I am glad that you agree with me, at least in theory. However, I am not an anarcho-libertarian. I support government, but the government's job should be restricted to it's sole purpose which is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from the initiation of physical force. Whether, criminals, or foreign invaders, the government's job is to place the use of retaliatory force under objective control. A constitutional republic with a good judiciary, police force and military.

The problem with your argument is that you are basing your view of the free-market and "power" on how our current mixed economy operates and the kind of politicians, businessmen and people that it produces. A free-market demands the virtues of honesty and productivity. Without this the economy collapses. You must earn your place by trading your goods and services by mutual consent. Genuine benevolence would replace the the cynical, dishonest politicization of poverty that we see today. Indeed, all the abuses, iniquities popularly ascribed to capitalism have not been caused by an unregulated economy, but by government intervention.( Just look at the former soviet union or current dictatorships as an example of how most live in poverty, with shortages of food and basic essentials. A statist economy can not be socially engineered).

Supporters of a mixed economy want all the benefits of capitalism but without the cause. (Indeed, you are wrong to suggest that Reagan and Thatcher were advocates of small government and free markets - they were, like you, supporters of a mixed economy. In fact they both introduced even more government!). A mixed economy is not static -
since the introduction of controls necessitates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable mixture. The only principle of a mixed economy is that no one's interests are safe, everyone's interests are on a public auction block. It's a society of pressure groups all fighting one another for government support. It is only a matter of time, ( 5, 10, 50 years etc.) before it reaches a crossroad: either the individual and the private sector regain their freedom and start rebuilding or they give up and let the absolute state take over (dictatorship).

Now, as to your question as to what constitutes "force".

In the context of man's rights, man's rights can only be violated by the use of physical force. It is only by means of force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his rational judgement. There is only one fundamental right - a man's right to his own life - not the right to the lives of others.

I could go on. Its difficult to argue in a small thread. It involves going back to basic philosophical principles ( and rejecting the flawed premise that man is evil by nature - the excuse used to rule men for centuries) and building my case - but I don't have the time to expand further.

Anyway, I'm getting my Bolex H8S ( very rare model) back from the service agent - I'm looking forward to it! I'm happy to voluntarily pay him for his services - rather than have some government parasite tell me who I should do business with and what I should be charged! (I think it is a bad reflection of what someone thinks of themselves when they say that the market cannot be trusted left uncontrolled).