And the sign says "Anybody caught trespassing will be shot on sight"
So I jumped the fence and I yelled at the house
Hey! What gives you the right!
To put up a fence and keep me out, or to keep Mother Nature in
If God was here, he'd tell it to your face, man, you're some kind of sinner
- "Signs" Tesla

The Internet has been a marvel of information swirling around and zooming at the speed of light. It's empowered people and sparked revolts, its created super stars (see Justin Bieber) and it's for the most part been the most important innovation of this generation (by the way in last week's poll on the best invention/innovation not a single person mentioned the television). But the super information highway is also seen by many as a lawless road where hijacking other peoples stuff from creative content to identities makes it the most dangerous place in the world. It's the notion of content that now pits Washington down the middle and has made Hollywood and Silicon Valley take opposite sides.

Hatfields and McCoys

The Stop Online Piracy Act is designed to let owners of content target American websites that aren't knowingly hosting pirated content. Of course, the most successful websites in America are those that rely heavily on user content, which may or may not be pirated from other sources. The law would allow media companies to get a court order to block payments to offending websites, in effect shutting down those sites.

That means companies like Facebook, Wikipedia, and Twitter could potentially be shut down by a movie production company. Of course, the movie production company says its stuff illegally makes it on the web and hurts its sales.

Today Wikipedia will be dark in protest of this new potential law that it says is "censorship without due process" and violates freedom of speech. In response to this action Christopher Dodd, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, said blacking out Wikipedia and other sites (Reddit, Boing Boing, and Mozilla) is an "abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today." He went on to call the protest "dangerous" while setting a precedent for "platforms that serve as gateways to information to intentionally skew the facts."

The SOPA bill and another seemed destined for passage, but it's highly unlikely now with members of both parties in retreat, although the issue isn't going away. Hollywood and other content creators want their money and have a lot of juice. But the power of the Internet is on full display and will win the day for now by pulling the plug.

Yesterday's Poll and Food Stamp Nation

As usual, I got great replies to the question of the day yesterday, including one that suggested ending all welfare (whatever constitutes free money from the government) to all who receive it at the end of one year from the time it is announced. This is a hot topic considering Newt Gingrich repeated comments of President Obama being the "Food Stamp" President. I happen to agree and think it's one of the great tragedies of our time. Moreover, it's even more insulting when the administration actually boasts of this accomplishment and says it's trying to get even more people on the program. (I think Newt has a very un-artful way of saying this that blocks those that should be listening from considering the true implications of the statement.)

Nancy Pelosi has talked about it as a way to boost the economy because of some minute multiplier effect. The fact is we aren't just discussing immediate economic impact from so many people living from those government checks but also long term human and economic toll. Those that envision some kind of equal utopia that can only be achieved by bashing the upper end of the economic brackets have to wake up to the realization everyone is getting hurt to the point of no return. I'm bracing for all the attacks on the rich, and success, and profits that have the affect of clearing the way for formal attempts to confiscate wealth while at the same time excusing shortcomings of millions of people.

You can't say "hey buddy get off that damn sofa," because it's politically incorrect. Yet it's morally and economically the right thing to do.

"The Worldly Philosophers" reveals Thorstein Veblen comments that he was not sure that the forces that bound society together were the interplay of rationally calculated "self interest," and he wasn't convinced that leisure was in and of itself preferable to work. His reading introduced him to the ways of little known people like American Indians and the Ainus of Japan, the Todas of the Nilgiri hills, and Bushmen of Australia. These groups of people lacked so-called leisure classes; so everyone had to work in order to insure survival. Tasks didn't matter as nobody felt demeaned by their job. There was a natural pride of workmanship and a parental feeling of concern for the future generations.

So, what happens to children born into a home on welfare and food stamps? For years there was still the notion that desperate circumstances were temporary and so potential earners in those homes hit the road to find a way to make it happen. It goes much deeper of course. In those pre-industrial societies men strove to outdo each other in the performance of their chores/jobs. If an absence from labor (leisure) was condoned, it was not respected. Today, every speech from President Obama tells every single person that is chronically unemployed, receiving food stamps and welfare, that their circumstance is no fault of their own.

A lot of people are unemployed because they simply lack certain skills. More to the point, people are being lured into a situation where the longer they stay on the sidelines the longer they're going to have to stay on the sidelines. There is no shame if somehow you really believe Wall Street lost your job but what about those old paternal feelings for future generations. This is where the epidemic of long term government assistance makes its most nefarious impact on the nation. There comes a point where people shift from being embarrassed and motivated by food stamps to indifference about stigma or work.

Their future generations grow up with the same ambivalence and lack of determination to evolve and tap into innate gifts, becoming productive and prideful members of society.

Of course, Veblen argued against capitalism and the leisure class with an argument that other societies like Polynesians and ancient Icelanders, along with the Shogunates of Japan, lived in a different pre-industrial society. Their work was predatory, where they seized their riches by force or cunning and took no part in the actual production of wealth by sweat or skill. This action was taken with the approval and admiration of the general populace to the point where the leisure rank was looked up to as the strong and able. This led to a change in perception toward work. Pure labor came to be regarded as honorific and with indignity.

This society lives in modern life, according to Veblen, while the predatory class seizes goods without work.

Mitt's Tax Problem

It's interesting that close to 50 million Americans are on food stamps and the central issue in the 2012 race for the White House is how much taxes one candidate is paying. We are talking about someone that's putting money into the kitty - a lot of money at that. But much is going to be made about Mitt Romney's 15% tax rate that he pays on income from investments. It is such a misguided gambit, but has been so central to the war on the profit motive from day one that the media and White House are poised to pounce. When Americans wonder where money will come from to make the kind of investments that bring us great companies large and small, they should understand increasing taxes on investment income will make it harder.

By the way, according to the Tax Foundation 75% of American tax payers pay less than 15% a year and only 25% pay more. If those paying less than 15% voted for Romney in a general election for the White House it would be the widest margin of victory in history. But the current occupant of the White House has already released a statement on Romney paying his "fair share" and they will layer this thing on thicker and thicker as the year moves along.
The hope is like a dog barking at a squirrel, so transfixed that it misses the house burning down, Americans will forget four years of failure and put all their energy and anger into hunting down the rich.

Today's Session

I didn't like the way the market waffled into the second half of trading, and that same blasé feeling permeates the air this morning. Economic data was okay and Goldman beat, but the market yearns for a real catalyst. S&P 1,300 is one of those round figures that might need an extra push or several pushes to really clear. We aren't forcing the issue this morning but are watching this IMF scuttlebutt because it's going to cost you a lot of money, even as BRIC nations chip in more.

Comments

I agree intellectual property needs to be protected but due process needs to be respected...can't have the government in the business of shutting down websites.. SOPA is wrong Ray Brady on 1/18/2012 10:09:33 AM

Yes they have a right, that is what this is all about. The last thing we need is the Government get involved in our Internet.More and more the Government is becoming the enemy when it come to our rights. DWiP on 1/18/2012 10:35:32 AM

Welcome to the new millinium.. Information is where you find it and not about who owns it. We had better start preparing for the real global internet age. Robert Shaw on 1/18/2012 10:36:45 AM

They have the right to prevent stolen property Davse Fancher on 1/18/2012 10:40:30 AM

I believe the internet web should remain open and free. Once the government gets involved, many regulations, mostly restrictive will follow as legislators try to out-do each other with "good works" Cheko on 1/18/2012 10:45:54 AM

The media companies and copyright holders in general get too good a deal from Congress, the life of the author plus scores of years of exclusive use, as opposed to pharmaceutical inventors and innovators who get 17 or so years of exclusivity. As to media companies going dark, I'm for it as legitimate non-violent protest. Jonathan Dick on 1/18/2012 11:20:02 AM

I believe we should expect laws to protect our property. Wikipedia should stay out of it. michael l. price on 1/18/2012 11:31:51 AM

We're lucky to live in a country where we can protest censorship. Even it is an over reaction or not justified, they could not do that in China. If a site abuses it's power and does this too much, then as free consumers, we'll just move on to another site. That is the beauty of freedom and a free market. Max Gunther on 1/18/2012 11:40:19 AM

Wikipedia is helping with the fight of the this overreaching SOPA bill. The legislators of the bill don't understand how the internet works. Support the Anti-SOPA proposed regulation. Though the intent may be good, don't put this too broad legislation into law. Don't trust the government to act rationally or with constraint. Tony on 1/18/2012 11:45:24 AM

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." -Amendment 1, Bill of Rights, U.S.Constitution. We'd be so much better off if we simply required our government officials to comply with the Constitution which every one of them has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend. George on 1/18/2012 12:03:09 PM

Yes, Wikipedia has it right. The American public's attention needs to be focused on SOPA and PIPA which threatens freedom of speech and access. Wikipedia is providing links to write to our representatives. Google is providing a petition to voice a vote against these infringements. Susan on 1/18/2012 12:23:50 PM

There are existing copyright/patent laws to protect property rights. This proposed legislation eliminates that pesky due process requirement. SS on 1/18/2012 12:45:45 PM

Apple figured a way to broker content sales and protection. Let film and TV do the same thing. Asking the government to do this is like asking the rabbit to guard the lettuce stand !! Gale on 1/18/2012 1:53:02 PM

Yes to Wikipedia! Hollywood's claims of dollar losses are greatly exaggerated. Most who pirate their garbage would not buy it at regular prices. Joe Daileda on 1/18/2012 2:01:39 PM

wikipedia does have the right to protest. Amendment I Julie Beenblossom on 1/18/2012 2:34:28 PM

The internet is just the vehicle...why aren't the corporations cracking down on WHO released the material? Making the general populous pay for the those who truly violate corporate policy is not the way to go. If it's not available, you can't download it in the first place Ken on 1/18/2012 3:06:30 PM

Yes, Wikipedia is within their "rights" to do what they did. It's a free service, they can do what they want (until legislated otherwise). SOPA is an incredibly wide-ranging bill that could see internet carriers almost indiscriminately reduce or simply drop traffic they don't want, for whatever reason. Hardly what I want my tax subsidies supporting. Mike on 1/18/2012 4:40:04 PM

Tweet

 

Home | Products & Services | Education | In The Media | Help | About Us | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | All Rights Reserved.