Okay, here we go.
I find “blind spots” in capitalism. So I must be a Socialist, right?
No, and here’s why.
I have this rhetorical question I dredge up when I am
debating with myself – I am generally my most accessible adversary – I say, in
the context of a slight deviation from lockstep orthodoxy:
“If a person is six-foot-five and another person is
six-foot-three, does that make the six-foot-three person a midget?”
(Sorry. I should have
said “Little Person” but I am trying to be colorful.)
You see what I am going for there? You take the tiniest step away from “uncritical
about capitalism”, and instantaneously, you’re “The Evil Empire.” I may not be six-foot-five about
capitalism. But I am still an
enthusiastic six-foot-three.
“Socialist!”
Stop it!
Here’s my position.
Capitalism is great. But it is
not perfect.
“Socialist!”
I hate adversarialism.
I just hate it!
So here’s the thing.
When I see two articles on the same day printed in the same
section of the newspaper concerning the same issue, a compelling voice inside
of me says,
“That’s something you should write about.”
Why? One, because it
caught my attention by being two articles on the same day printed in the same
section of the newspaper concerning the same issue. And two, because the issue’s evidentiary
ubiquitousness – trying saying that
fast three times – indicates that “There is a lot of that going on.”
The two issue-related stories appeared in the “Sports
Section” of the Los Angeles Times on
Saturday April the 4th.
“And you are writing
about it today?”
I like to let things percolate.
The first story involves, well, this is actually the second
year of it. And it shows no signs of
coming to an end.
Here, in a capsulized version, is what happened.
Time-Warner Cable
paid the Los Angeles Dodgers over eight billion dollars – you read that right – for
the exclusive rights to air Dodger
games, with the intention of subcontracting those rights (or something) to other Pay-Tv providers such as DirecTV for an agreed upon amount of
money.
It turns out, however, the amount Time-Warner is asking is considered so astronomically high, the
Pay-Tv providers are adamantly refusing to agree to it.
As a result, for the past year and now entering Year Two, more
than seventy percent of Los Angeles viewers are unable to watch Dodger games on television.
Who’s to blame for this fiasco?
Nobody.
It is simply capitalism.
Watch.
The Dodgers: “They paid us over eight billion dollars for
those rights. They have a right to make
their money back.”
Time-Warner Cable: “We
shelled out over eight billion dollars for those rights. We have a right to make our money back.”
DirecTV (and
other Pay-Tv providers): “They have a
right to make their money back, but we have an obligation to prevent Time-Warner from shoving it up our…”
Is anybody wrong in what they’re saying? No. (Though did they have to be that graphic about
it?)
It’s just business.
Three capitalistically-related decisions, all reasonable, legal and
understandable.
But more than seventy percent of Los Angeles is not getting
the Dodger games. And until somebody budges, they never will.
Capitalism, let me assert before somebody burns my house
down, is not the villain here. Why
not? Because, as a system – whether
natural or humanly constructed – capitalism is a generically unfeeling
enterprise.
Like the proverbial perpetual motion machine, capitalism
just goes.
As it is not an issue for a lion to feel sorry for the gazelle
it is tearing to pieces, it is not in capitalism’s essential DNA to care.
Leading to “Story Number Two”.
Josh Hamilton is a troubled, former superstar caliber
ballplayer (whose abilities have seriously eroded.) Hamilton had had drug problems in the past,
and recently, rehabbing from injury-related surgery, he admitted to have
reverted to his previous behavior.
In handling matters concerning drug-taking recidivism, Major League Baseball requires an
arbitration hearing. Here’s what was at
stake.
If Hamilton wasn’t suspended, he could return to the game
when he was healthy. If Hamilton was suspended, then his team, the Los Angeles Angels, would be relieved of
paying Hamilton some or all of the eighty-one million dollars they still owe
him on his contract.
At his arbitration hearing, it was determined that Hamilton
would not be suspended.
Here’s how the Angels
responded, to that announcement.
Team president John Carpino opined that it “defies logic”
that Hamilton’s behavior did not violate the drug program.
Translation:
“We are upset that our own player did not get suspended.”
Sure, they had reasons, but capitalism always has
reasons. Though they are rarely without
consequence. Large and small.
The first example – that the Dodger games are not universally available on TV – affects people. The second example… I mean, how do you think
that guy feels?
IMAGINED JOSH
HAMILTON RESPONSE: “And they
want me to play my heart out for them when I get back?”
I don’t know, it appears we have a runaway machine on our
hands. It decimated every “Main Street”
in the country. It closed local post
offices, rerouted flight destinations, it played havoc with blue-collar
employment. (We watch a show called “How
It’s Made”, where they demonstrate how they make products like Tootsie Rolls and Barcaloungers. The factories
have, like, eight people working in them.
The rest is adapted technology.)
I know it’s – and always has
been – about money. And it should
be. It keeps prices down. And it benefits shareholders, which could
possibly be us.
I’m just wondering…
Does it have to be only
about money?
2 comments:
The first thought that strikes me is that there's capitalism and then there's the market, which is an element of capitalism and one that libertarians seem to believe can solve all problems. (Clearly not true: see also water in California, the demographics of the prison population vs that of the nation as a whole, and the lack of new antibiotics.) In the baseball-on-TV case the market has clearly failed - and into that failure marches people on the Internet with "pirate" servers the 70% can use to view the game. All of which will make it slightly harder for TWC to stay in business.
I don't know if that makes you feel any better.
wg
In Toronto, where I live, I recently attended a Liberal Party “forum” on legalizing marijuana. Quickly, because this was Canada, the question became not about whether the weed should be legalized, but how it could be properly distributed.
The thought never arose that marijuana for medical use should be freely available to those who require it, yet could not afford what was surely (the way the conversation was headed) going to be a costly expense.
When I pointed this out to the the party operative running the forum, he uttered offhandedly,”Free? You’re living in a capitalist society!”
As usual, I didn’t have the quick-wittedness to retort, “That’s Economy! We live in a capitalistic Economy!”
The sad fact is, however that the possible apparatchik-in-ascendence may be right.
Nowadays, to those we elect to lead us, Society is just a market. And not a fair one.
Post a Comment