I don't it laughable at all. What was lost was the sale of the complete album. People are buying 2-3 tracks at a buck a apiece, instead of buying the $12-13 album. I definitely think that is a concern to all music producers.
I'll have to assume that you don't really listen critically to your music, or at least not on anything more than earbuds. A downloaded track has nowhere near the detail nor dynamic range of a CD, as it's both compressed, in a bitstream sense, and compressed, in a musical sense. That's a real benefit of CDs (and vinyl...) to some, who still *listen* to their music as a foreground activity.
Also, as others have mentioned, CDs are albums, with planned multitrack content (often, amazingly, longer than 2-3 minutes per track . That's a benefit to some, who who still *listen* to their music as a foreground activity, and aren't afflicted with ADD.
I won't defend CD pricing, though... greed is everywhere.
As a related issue, people are loving downloading/streaming "HD" content to their new flatscreen TVs, without realizing that the actual amount of data used to render a pixel has been severely limited from that in a Blu-Ray or DVD. A 25:1 compression makes a downloaded HD movie more or less equivalent to a regular old NTSC or PAL signal, OK for an iPad or iPhone, but not much else without losing all the visual detail they likely bought the TV for in the first place. Not an issue for a casual watcher, but critical for a critical one.
Most audio/visual content these days is targeted at non-critical, non-savvy, casual and impatient consumers. While marketed as quality, the product is actually crap.
Back to media barons, we'd buy more papers if they'd employ more editors...
you are downloading anything more compressed than lossless. The average consumer does not have a critical enough ear nor the equipment to appreciate the difference - and won't. For the average consumer it is good if it is "good enough". For ardent audiophiles who love the hiss and rumble of tube technology because it makes the music "warm" then nothing short of pure vinyl or master discs in CDs will suffice. Given the amount of noise that has to be removed after studio recording, let alone "live" venue recording, it's a wonder anyone claiming to be an audiophile can listen to any recording at all! If it isn't live - it isn't music!!
Critical videophiles and audiophiles are a tiny, tiny minority who wax vocal from time to time, but somehow fail to realize that the standards expressed are entirely unworkable for the average consumer. A trip through most Best Buys, Walmarts or other big box suppliers will demonstrate this conclusively, as most of the equipment affordable for the average consumer is woefully inadequate, introduces sonic and visual artifacting that would (and does) drive a purist nuts.
So yeah. And for the record, fresh milk tastes very different than the stuff your buy in the supermarket too. So does home-grown vegetables and fruit, meat and fresh-caught fish. But you pay a steep price (or grow your own and discount your time and effort spent) for that freshness and quality as opposed to the convenient of picking it up at the supermarket. Just sayin'...
No...Curmudgeon had it right. While it's true that pirates would have killed the business if legit digital downloads didn't come along, what is killing the music business right now is the transition back to the single as the primary music "product". I don't have the numbers in front of me, but digital downloads are not even coming close to making up for the loss of CD album sales. In fact, even if Apple (and others) had charged $2 a track instead of a dollar, it STILL wouldn't have made up for those losses. (And manufacturing/distribution cost was the lowest cost in producing the product - general overhead, sales, marketing and artist advances are the highest costs.)
And unlike the 1950s and early 60s, where an artist would go into a studio and record 2-3 tracks in a single session, artists spend six months to a year on an album, working in multiple studios and with multiple producers and multiple mixing and mastering engineers/studios. Singles cannot sustain that kind of recording/production.
At the current rate of decline, which is about 20% a year, there won't be much of a music industry left in five years.
Is in fact the overhead. The entire music recording industry is built around the overhead - not the production and delivery. One of the issues here is that fact that the recording industry is losing control of the music. They cannot, as they did for so long, cherry-pick the music they wanted aired to drive sales where they wanted them.
Another issue is they built a lot of profit into production - CDs, as consumers discovered, are really cheap to produce in mass quantities, and with digital processing, the entire stream from studio to pressing has lost much of the cost overhead it once had. How artists produce the music varies widely from artist to artist and group to group. That was a very sweeping statement to make about studio time and not really reflective of reality across the board.
The problem with album sales is not that they are losing money on them but that they have not created a compelling argument with the average consumer FOR them. Usually the marketing captures one or more cuts that they choose to put out there and then are surprised that consumers only want those cuts. Album sales were higher when radio stations hit the FM band and played whole album sides, giving the attention to the whole of the music not just the cuts thought to be most popular or saleable. That dropped off when they returned programming to highlighted cuts with supporting music videos.
Most audio/visual content these days is targeted at non-critical, non-savvy, casual and impatient consumers. While marketed as quality, the product is actually crap.
The same can be said for playback devices. I'm under the impression that people watch movies on their iPad using the built-in mono speaker. I'm also under the impression that Apple is selling bazillions of iPads.
I find the viewpoint that the online sale of music inadvertently torpedoed CD sales to laughable.
That was the quote that leapt out at me too. Looks like it did for several others here, before this thread descended into political bickering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crustyjusty
What torpedoed CD sales was that physical copies of music offer no benefit to downloaded versions. They're more expensive, stores have incomplete selection and I have to drive to get them. This is the same issue that newspapers and books are running into (I know, reading a real book just feels better, but 2x the price better?)..
I somewhat disagree. What torpedoed CD sales was greed on the part of the RIAA and the corporate retail giants they struck deals with. Even though CDs were cheaper to produce than tape or vinyl, offered superior sound quality to the former, the same portability as the former, and was more durable than the latter. Yet after a while, CD prices climbed such that the average CD was $13 to $14. What happened?
Well the big box stores like Circuit City and Best Buy made a deal with the RIAA. Let us sell your CDs cheaper than our competition. They sold/bought the RIAA on this and the big box stores were able to drive the small music stores - who actually catered to music fans and not just top 40 listen-in-their-car folds - out of business. Once the competition was out of the way, the big box stores slowly could demand their own price until most older material was normally priced in that $13-$14 range.
People, of course, weren't going to tolerate this forever. Especially for the top 40 listeners who only wanted the latest radio hit and not all the fluff that constitutes most of your normal album.
About the same time as the big box stores had solidified their monopoly of CD sales, Napster hit the scene. Right away it attracted two distinct groups of music listener - the aforementioned top 40 listener who wanted only wanted a song or two off an album, and the music affacionados who wanted out-of-print material or import stuff that the RIAA wouldn't release in to all countries.
So what really killed CDs wasn't digital downloads, it was the greed of the RIAA and the big music retailers who built up public apathy to the point that when digital downloads became available to the masses, they flocked to it and never looked back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
I don't it laughable at all. What was lost was the sale of the complete album. People are buying 2-3 tracks at a buck a apiece, instead of buying the $12-13 album. I definitely think that is a concern to all music producers.
Yes it's a concern but CD sales were slowing well before iTMS, maybe even before Napster came along.
I could also make the case that the changes to way we get our music - namely radio - has changed too. Thanks in large part to corporate monoloplies of our radio airwaves, we have more radio stations than before but they play less and less variety of music. Everything is some slice of adult contemporary, classic rock, or modern country, often with very narrowly defined playlists compared to just 20 years ago. Jazz and classical tend to only exist on public radio, and any other format (indie rock, folk, bluegrass, etc.) is not available except in the largest of markets.
This means that many of bands and music formats that specialized in the album format don't get widespread attention. The acts that do get the radio airplay are - wait for it - tailored for the radio and its 4 minute pop format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321
iTunes did not destroy CD sales. It was the invention of blank CD's that destroyed music CD sales. Ask anyone who worked at Tower Records before they went bankrupt, and they will tell you that blank CD sales actually SURPASSED music CD sales for many years before iTunes was introduced. Then Napster made getting free music even easier. iTunes actually SAVED the music industry, and finally gave consumers what they wanted: the ability to buy individual songs. Too bad that the greedy music executives -- who make millions of dollars per year for doing nothing except acting as unnecessary middlmen -- don't like it.
The sales of the blank CD suprassing music CDs is new to me but it makes perfect sense. I agree completely that iTMS saved the music industry from complete piracy. The RIAA wanted to live on their CD monopoly forever and the public wasn't going to sustain it. Even if digital distribution over the Internet was delayed a few years it would have been more apparant that CD sales would have plummeted on their own. The emergence of Napster gave the RIAA a scapegoat. Instead of giving up their old-wolrd monopoly and embracing digital distribution before it destroyed them, the RIAA tried to sue their way back to the status quo. Before they had time to watch that fail, in came Apple with iTMS which embraced the new world while still making a profit off of it and the rest is history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tampa Tom
We are a DVR house and sometimes we need to record/watch more than 2 shows at the same time. Rental would be a big plus. The alternative is grabbing it off a bittorrent site but I'd rather pay a FAIR fee and 99 cents seems fair.
The TV and film industry are just starting to hit the growing pains that the music industry has hit. While TV and film are not as easily consumed as music, they are still commodity items that people buy faster than they can consume. Note that no one bought whole seasons of shows on VHS (which would fill a row on your bookshelf each year) but they became popular with the DVD format. Few wants the same mountain of DVDs at home like that they had with CDs and of course with the emergence of mobile devices, digital video has greater portability than DVD.
And more and more people that their montly cable or satellite bill, which just keeps growin, is just not sustainable.
In comes Apple again, offering these old-world industries a chance to jump into the new world quickly and profitably. But they all want the same lofty pre-recession profits they once had when money was flowing freely (and arguable, irresponsibly and unsustainably) even though all the predictions and guidance suggest they will lose more and more if they don't change with the times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crustyjusty
So, I imagine I'll get mostly agreement on AI's message board, but the TV executives need to realize a la carte pricing is the only business model that will work over time. People don't want crap, and they'll watch some ads, if the product is cheaper, or pay more for ad-free content.
And if TV goes the way of apps, then they can create engaging content around shows that keep viewers engaged and more passionate about content. And it also democratizes the content so that anyone, a la the podcast universe, can get their product in front of people.
I can't wait to see what happens over the next 5 years.
Agreed wholeheartedly Crusty. It will be an intereting 5 years. And whoever can get the content people want in the way people want will win the spoils.
Is Obama a capitalist because he's a millionaire? His spread the wealth mentality tells me no.
No, he is a millionaire because he is a capitalist and was hand-picked by big moneyed interests as the one to most effectively make them even richer.
What friggin planet do you live on if you don't think Obama is a capitalist? You think he'd get to be president if he intended to upset the apple cart? How do you imagine these things work? You think he got elected via contributions from Daily Worker readers? He's a Democrat. He represents huge wealth.
the standards expressed are entirely unworkable for the average consumer. A trip through most Best Buys, Walmarts or other big box suppliers will demonstrate this conclusively, as most of the equipment affordable for the average consumer is woefully inadequate,.
Does that explain why Best Buy and WalMart sell so little Apple product?
I don't it laughable at all. What was lost was the sale of the complete album. People are buying 2-3 tracks at a buck a apiece, instead of buying the $12-13 album. I definitely think that is a concern to all music producers.
That SHOULD be a concern! They got so used to filling albums with crap and selling them on the basis of one or two songs, there's no wonder they want to keep the status quo.
Hope this drives them to fill albums with songs that are worth buying. I still buy some albums. Some are class, some are not. The good producer + artist combinations will still move albums.
I see no reason for someone like Keisha to move albums, songs yes. Albums no.
MSNBC is owned by rich white men who would do anything and everything to preserve the current capitalistic economic system. They are far, far from "leftists". The last thing in the world that they would support is worker ownership of the means of production.
Get real.
Wow. "worker ownership of the means of production"? Right out of Pravda - and nearly all American Universities during the 60's. Love the rhetoric.
Nice misdirection there. I could care less about the 'dems' and their projected losses. I care about Murdock.
As a stockholder, I DO care about the folks Apple gets in bed with, as should you.
So it's important to you that no Apple TV customer have the opportunity to view Fox content because you don't like Murdock? You're seriously full of yourself, huh?
He is using the proper terminology of economic theory. You don't have to be a communist to use the correct language to describe it. Lighten up.
exactly. Give the kid a break, he probably just learned that term in his first week of Econ 101 and he's eager to share his new "expertise." Classes DID just get back in session for the youngsters, after all.
No, he is a millionaire because he is a capitalist and was hand-picked by big moneyed interests as the one to most effectively make them even richer.
What friggin planet do you live on if you don't think Obama is a capitalist? You think he'd get to be president if he intended to upset the apple cart? How do you imagine these things work? You think he got elected via contributions from Daily Worker readers? He's a Democrat. He represents huge wealth.
He is not a communist or a socialist.
I beg to differ. Certainly all his policies lean socialistic. More government control of everything.
Comments
I don't it laughable at all. What was lost was the sale of the complete album. People are buying 2-3 tracks at a buck a apiece, instead of buying the $12-13 album. I definitely think that is a concern to all music producers.
solution: make better albums.
I'll have to assume that you don't really listen critically to your music, or at least not on anything more than earbuds. A downloaded track has nowhere near the detail nor dynamic range of a CD, as it's both compressed, in a bitstream sense, and compressed, in a musical sense. That's a real benefit of CDs (and vinyl...) to some, who still *listen* to their music as a foreground activity.
Also, as others have mentioned, CDs are albums, with planned multitrack content (often, amazingly, longer than 2-3 minutes per track
I won't defend CD pricing, though... greed is everywhere.
As a related issue, people are loving downloading/streaming "HD" content to their new flatscreen TVs, without realizing that the actual amount of data used to render a pixel has been severely limited from that in a Blu-Ray or DVD. A 25:1 compression makes a downloaded HD movie more or less equivalent to a regular old NTSC or PAL signal, OK for an iPad or iPhone, but not much else without losing all the visual detail they likely bought the TV for in the first place. Not an issue for a casual watcher, but critical for a critical one.
Most audio/visual content these days is targeted at non-critical, non-savvy, casual and impatient consumers. While marketed as quality, the product is actually crap.
Back to media barons, we'd buy more papers if they'd employ more editors...
you are downloading anything more compressed than lossless. The average consumer does not have a critical enough ear nor the equipment to appreciate the difference - and won't. For the average consumer it is good if it is "good enough". For ardent audiophiles who love the hiss and rumble of tube technology because it makes the music "warm" then nothing short of pure vinyl or master discs in CDs will suffice. Given the amount of noise that has to be removed after studio recording, let alone "live" venue recording, it's a wonder anyone claiming to be an audiophile can listen to any recording at all! If it isn't live - it isn't music!!
Critical videophiles and audiophiles are a tiny, tiny minority who wax vocal from time to time, but somehow fail to realize that the standards expressed are entirely unworkable for the average consumer. A trip through most Best Buys, Walmarts or other big box suppliers will demonstrate this conclusively, as most of the equipment affordable for the average consumer is woefully inadequate, introduces sonic and visual artifacting that would (and does) drive a purist nuts.
So yeah. And for the record, fresh milk tastes very different than the stuff your buy in the supermarket too. So does home-grown vegetables and fruit, meat and fresh-caught fish. But you pay a steep price (or grow your own and discount your time and effort spent) for that freshness and quality as opposed to the convenient of picking it up at the supermarket. Just sayin'...
Yet you quote the BBC?!
A vulgar, propaganda spewing, socialist ideals emitting, nation suppressing, asshole of an institution.
Never trust the BBC.
David Attenborough's not bad though.
No...Curmudgeon had it right. While it's true that pirates would have killed the business if legit digital downloads didn't come along, what is killing the music business right now is the transition back to the single as the primary music "product". I don't have the numbers in front of me, but digital downloads are not even coming close to making up for the loss of CD album sales. In fact, even if Apple (and others) had charged $2 a track instead of a dollar, it STILL wouldn't have made up for those losses. (And manufacturing/distribution cost was the lowest cost in producing the product - general overhead, sales, marketing and artist advances are the highest costs.)
And unlike the 1950s and early 60s, where an artist would go into a studio and record 2-3 tracks in a single session, artists spend six months to a year on an album, working in multiple studios and with multiple producers and multiple mixing and mastering engineers/studios. Singles cannot sustain that kind of recording/production.
At the current rate of decline, which is about 20% a year, there won't be much of a music industry left in five years.
Is in fact the overhead. The entire music recording industry is built around the overhead - not the production and delivery. One of the issues here is that fact that the recording industry is losing control of the music. They cannot, as they did for so long, cherry-pick the music they wanted aired to drive sales where they wanted them.
Another issue is they built a lot of profit into production - CDs, as consumers discovered, are really cheap to produce in mass quantities, and with digital processing, the entire stream from studio to pressing has lost much of the cost overhead it once had. How artists produce the music varies widely from artist to artist and group to group. That was a very sweeping statement to make about studio time and not really reflective of reality across the board.
The problem with album sales is not that they are losing money on them but that they have not created a compelling argument with the average consumer FOR them. Usually the marketing captures one or more cuts that they choose to put out there and then are surprised that consumers only want those cuts. Album sales were higher when radio stations hit the FM band and played whole album sides, giving the attention to the whole of the music not just the cuts thought to be most popular or saleable. That dropped off when they returned programming to highlighted cuts with supporting music videos.
Most audio/visual content these days is targeted at non-critical, non-savvy, casual and impatient consumers. While marketed as quality, the product is actually crap.
The same can be said for playback devices. I'm under the impression that people watch movies on their iPad using the built-in mono speaker. I'm also under the impression that Apple is selling bazillions of iPads.
I find the viewpoint that the online sale of music inadvertently torpedoed CD sales to laughable.
That was the quote that leapt out at me too. Looks like it did for several others here, before this thread descended into political bickering.
What torpedoed CD sales was that physical copies of music offer no benefit to downloaded versions. They're more expensive, stores have incomplete selection and I have to drive to get them. This is the same issue that newspapers and books are running into (I know, reading a real book just feels better, but 2x the price better?)..
I somewhat disagree. What torpedoed CD sales was greed on the part of the RIAA and the corporate retail giants they struck deals with. Even though CDs were cheaper to produce than tape or vinyl, offered superior sound quality to the former, the same portability as the former, and was more durable than the latter. Yet after a while, CD prices climbed such that the average CD was $13 to $14. What happened?
Well the big box stores like Circuit City and Best Buy made a deal with the RIAA. Let us sell your CDs cheaper than our competition. They sold/bought the RIAA on this and the big box stores were able to drive the small music stores - who actually catered to music fans and not just top 40 listen-in-their-car folds - out of business. Once the competition was out of the way, the big box stores slowly could demand their own price until most older material was normally priced in that $13-$14 range.
People, of course, weren't going to tolerate this forever. Especially for the top 40 listeners who only wanted the latest radio hit and not all the fluff that constitutes most of your normal album.
About the same time as the big box stores had solidified their monopoly of CD sales, Napster hit the scene. Right away it attracted two distinct groups of music listener - the aforementioned top 40 listener who wanted only wanted a song or two off an album, and the music affacionados who wanted out-of-print material or import stuff that the RIAA wouldn't release in to all countries.
So what really killed CDs wasn't digital downloads, it was the greed of the RIAA and the big music retailers who built up public apathy to the point that when digital downloads became available to the masses, they flocked to it and never looked back.
I don't it laughable at all. What was lost was the sale of the complete album. People are buying 2-3 tracks at a buck a apiece, instead of buying the $12-13 album. I definitely think that is a concern to all music producers.
Yes it's a concern but CD sales were slowing well before iTMS, maybe even before Napster came along.
I could also make the case that the changes to way we get our music - namely radio - has changed too. Thanks in large part to corporate monoloplies of our radio airwaves, we have more radio stations than before but they play less and less variety of music. Everything is some slice of adult contemporary, classic rock, or modern country, often with very narrowly defined playlists compared to just 20 years ago. Jazz and classical tend to only exist on public radio, and any other format (indie rock, folk, bluegrass, etc.) is not available except in the largest of markets.
This means that many of bands and music formats that specialized in the album format don't get widespread attention. The acts that do get the radio airplay are - wait for it - tailored for the radio and its 4 minute pop format.
iTunes did not destroy CD sales. It was the invention of blank CD's that destroyed music CD sales. Ask anyone who worked at Tower Records before they went bankrupt, and they will tell you that blank CD sales actually SURPASSED music CD sales for many years before iTunes was introduced. Then Napster made getting free music even easier. iTunes actually SAVED the music industry, and finally gave consumers what they wanted: the ability to buy individual songs. Too bad that the greedy music executives -- who make millions of dollars per year for doing nothing except acting as unnecessary middlmen -- don't like it.
The sales of the blank CD suprassing music CDs is new to me but it makes perfect sense. I agree completely that iTMS saved the music industry from complete piracy. The RIAA wanted to live on their CD monopoly forever and the public wasn't going to sustain it. Even if digital distribution over the Internet was delayed a few years it would have been more apparant that CD sales would have plummeted on their own. The emergence of Napster gave the RIAA a scapegoat. Instead of giving up their old-wolrd monopoly and embracing digital distribution before it destroyed them, the RIAA tried to sue their way back to the status quo. Before they had time to watch that fail, in came Apple with iTMS which embraced the new world while still making a profit off of it and the rest is history.
We are a DVR house and sometimes we need to record/watch more than 2 shows at the same time. Rental would be a big plus. The alternative is grabbing it off a bittorrent site but I'd rather pay a FAIR fee and 99 cents seems fair.
The TV and film industry are just starting to hit the growing pains that the music industry has hit. While TV and film are not as easily consumed as music, they are still commodity items that people buy faster than they can consume. Note that no one bought whole seasons of shows on VHS (which would fill a row on your bookshelf each year) but they became popular with the DVD format. Few wants the same mountain of DVDs at home like that they had with CDs and of course with the emergence of mobile devices, digital video has greater portability than DVD.
And more and more people that their montly cable or satellite bill, which just keeps growin, is just not sustainable.
In comes Apple again, offering these old-world industries a chance to jump into the new world quickly and profitably. But they all want the same lofty pre-recession profits they once had when money was flowing freely (and arguable, irresponsibly and unsustainably) even though all the predictions and guidance suggest they will lose more and more if they don't change with the times.
So, I imagine I'll get mostly agreement on AI's message board, but the TV executives need to realize a la carte pricing is the only business model that will work over time. People don't want crap, and they'll watch some ads, if the product is cheaper, or pay more for ad-free content.
And if TV goes the way of apps, then they can create engaging content around shows that keep viewers engaged and more passionate about content. And it also democratizes the content so that anyone, a la the podcast universe, can get their product in front of people.
I can't wait to see what happens over the next 5 years.
Agreed wholeheartedly Crusty. It will be an intereting 5 years. And whoever can get the content people want in the way people want will win the spoils.
Is Obama a capitalist because he's a millionaire? His spread the wealth mentality tells me no.
No, he is a millionaire because he is a capitalist and was hand-picked by big moneyed interests as the one to most effectively make them even richer.
What friggin planet do you live on if you don't think Obama is a capitalist? You think he'd get to be president if he intended to upset the apple cart? How do you imagine these things work? You think he got elected via contributions from Daily Worker readers? He's a Democrat. He represents huge wealth.
He is not a communist or a socialist.
For ardent audiophiles who love the hiss and rumble of tube technology
I would be shocked if any audiophiles love hiss and rumble.
Your premise appears to be extremely flawed.
the standards expressed are entirely unworkable for the average consumer. A trip through most Best Buys, Walmarts or other big box suppliers will demonstrate this conclusively, as most of the equipment affordable for the average consumer is woefully inadequate,.
Does that explain why Best Buy and WalMart sell so little Apple product?
I don't it laughable at all. What was lost was the sale of the complete album. People are buying 2-3 tracks at a buck a apiece, instead of buying the $12-13 album. I definitely think that is a concern to all music producers.
That SHOULD be a concern! They got so used to filling albums with crap and selling them on the basis of one or two songs, there's no wonder they want to keep the status quo.
Hope this drives them to fill albums with songs that are worth buying. I still buy some albums. Some are class, some are not. The good producer + artist combinations will still move albums.
I see no reason for someone like Keisha to move albums, songs yes. Albums no.
MSNBC is owned by rich white men who would do anything and everything to preserve the current capitalistic economic system. They are far, far from "leftists". The last thing in the world that they would support is worker ownership of the means of production.
Get real.
Wow. "worker ownership of the means of production"? Right out of Pravda - and nearly all American Universities during the 60's. Love the rhetoric.
the pirates killed the music business
apple stepped in and gave them a low overhead way to make money again.
no brick and mortar
no discs
no shipping
no carbon / paper / plastic
how soon we forget how bad it had gotten !!
Exactly.
Nice misdirection there. I could care less about the 'dems' and their projected losses. I care about Murdock.
As a stockholder, I DO care about the folks Apple gets in bed with, as should you.
So it's important to you that no Apple TV customer have the opportunity to view Fox content because you don't like Murdock? You're seriously full of yourself, huh?
Wow. "worker ownership of the means of production"? Right out of Pravda - and nearly all American Universities during the 60's. Love the rhetoric.
He is using the proper terminology of economic theory. You don't have to be a communist to use the correct language to describe it. Lighten up.
Rupert Murdoch became an 'American' to take over our media. Murdoch is a threat to Apple and all of us.
So is hysteria.
He is using the proper terminology of economic theory. You don't have to be a communist to use the correct language to describe it. Lighten up.
exactly. Give the kid a break, he probably just learned that term in his first week of Econ 101 and he's eager to share his new "expertise." Classes DID just get back in session for the youngsters, after all.
No, he is a millionaire because he is a capitalist and was hand-picked by big moneyed interests as the one to most effectively make them even richer.
What friggin planet do you live on if you don't think Obama is a capitalist? You think he'd get to be president if he intended to upset the apple cart? How do you imagine these things work? You think he got elected via contributions from Daily Worker readers? He's a Democrat. He represents huge wealth.
He is not a communist or a socialist.
I beg to differ. Certainly all his policies lean socialistic. More government control of everything.
Rupert Murdoch became an 'American' to take over our media. Murdoch is a threat to Apple and all of us.
Joseph Pulitzer became an 'American' to take over our media. Pulitzer is a threat to Apple and all of us.
See how that works!
.