"and to this day companies are finding out video does not in fact have better returns than text. this is before hosting costs. youtube is now the homepage of the internet, but who pays for youtube..."
https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2024/02/ai-is-clipart.html?showComment=1707392946583#c808861110112440419
Text has awful returns, so that's savage.
It's true that folk are illiterate, but of course illiterates have no money. You don't exactly make it up on volume. ("The food is awful, and such small portions." "...you wanted more of this trash?")
Did TV ever pay for itself? I bet it didn't. That would explain why it's garbage: they can't even afford the garbage, let alone quality. Ads were especially bad precisely because they don't work as ads. Making them good is just dumb.
Certainly what's happening to anime is they're realizing they can't afford quality. Then that they can't even afford low quality.
Movies are subsidized. Nobody would make movies if they had to pay for it.
Youtube is pretty obviously paid for by the CIA. Twitter released their twitter files, but youtube, of course, hasn't. Of course facebook is paid for by DARPA, possibly in partnership with the FBI. "Our peasants want to build their own character profiles on themselves? What are you waiting for? Sign them up right now!" FBI = Facial Books Infiltrators, (inc). "How do I avoid FBI infiltration?" "Don't make it a facebook group under your legal name, dingus."
Of course this is why arts used to use patrons. You can't make art as a commercial enterprise, it loses money at least 99% of the time. Not unless you scam someone.
Though come to think, the Communism is lowering the price too. Maybe it's not as bad as it seems to me. If the State supplied you free cars, would I say that it's impossible to sell cars commercially? They would definitely be garbage. It would definitely be impossible to sell anything of quality for more than it cost to build. The problem wouldn't be inherent to cars, though. No, the key would be to properly surf the subsidies, riding the line where you just barely get to sell without spending a single dime of your own money that don't have to.
Result: nobody could have a good car.
Result: nobody can have good art.
I guess we've finally found an argument for mercantilism. Mercantilists certainly have no good arguments for it...
If some other country (California) is subsidizing junk, then you need to tariff the junk so it doesn't push quality out of your own market. Of course, it should also be possible for communities to impose tariffs. The central government shouldn't be permitted to forbid tariffs to individual towns or neighbourhoods. That caveat aside, when some other country subsidizes and exports, go, "Awesome, free tax dollars." If China wants to put their tax dollars in your coffers, congratulate and encourage them.
Basically if Facebook wants to operate in your country, charge them tens of thousands of dollars per profile. Net win for you...so they probably just refuse. Charge them, retroactively, even if your citizens get a profile via VPN or whatever.
Though if I were a multibillionaire I would 100% commission my own bespoke video games. They would lose money but I would have made billions of dollars precisely so I could afford it. Also my own bespoke farms, by the way. Maybe they do, but they also buy secrecy so we don't hear about it. Democracy enforcing even sharper class distinctions; you're not allowed to play a noble's video games even if it would make them lose less money. Ref: Chamley-Judd redistribution impossibility theorem. Any attempt to make the poor rich makes the poor even poorer.
Democracy, Communism in general, in chosen precisely because the demotists know about the perversity of redistribution.
3 comments:
it occurs to me this sort of thing could be an explanation for the curious costs i saw once on transferring money between financial institutions.
transferring digitally between accounts in the same institution: free
transferring via paper check between accounts between same or different institutions: free
transferring digitally between accounts in different institutions: fee
same institution requires no verification, paper is itself verification (or the costs there are very old and built in), digital is new, and more expensive to verify than paper, therefore costs extra.
this doesnt line up with credit costing the same as cash, but that turns out to be because part of visa TOS (in operating a POS terminal? can't remember where enforcement point is) is to give visa most-favored-nation status. even though visa itself takes a cut where cash doesn't. any time visa can't/doesn't enforce, the cost difference between credit and cash becomes apparent: small sellers charge extra for cards.
World simpler when you strip out the advertising propaganda.
Paper is old, therefore easy, therefore cheap.
Digital is new, complicated, expensive.
Same way biking somewhere is ~50% cheaper than driving there. Turns out expensive things cost money, who knew.
Even gold itself, come to think. In theory banknotes are cheaper to mess around with than gold, but in the long term, turns out that's not the case. To get banknotes, you need banks, and banks are very expensive to have around.
Music videos lose money. Peacocking, not capitalism. Reason: video, not just audio.
Post a Comment