Political Irony

© Mike Stanfill

It is no coincidence that immediately after federal courts invalidated the FCC’s rules enforcing network neutrality (which means that your ISPs can discriminate against any content that competes with them, or which they simply don’t like), that Comcast announces that they are paying billions of dollars to acquire Time Warner Cable. The death of network neutrality gives them the ability to extort as much money as they want from you, the internet consumer. But first they have to eliminate their main competition.

How bad is Comcast acquiring Time Warner? Even business friendly Bloomberg news says that it will be bad for America:

The reason this deal is scary is that for the vast majority of businesses in 19 of the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the country, their only choice for a high-capacity wired connection will be Comcast. Comcast, in turn, has its own built-in conflicts of interest: It will be serving the interests of its shareholders by keeping investments in its network as low as possible — in particular, making no move to provide the world-class fiber-optic connections that are now standard and cheap in other countries — and extracting as much rent as it can, in all kinds of ways. Comcast, for purposes of today’s public , is calling itself a “cable company.” It no longer is. Comcast sells infrastructure subject to neither competition nor a cop on the beat.

For a country attempting to compete on the global stage, this is a problem. It’s time to recognize that industrial policy — true leadership, the kinds of initiatives that brought us the federal highway system and national electrification — is called for. If regulating these guys is too difficult, let’s allow mayors to build alternative fiber-optic networks such as the one in Chattanooga, Tennessee, that has lured businesses and spurred economic growth. We can’t allow our future to be captured by the short-term cash flow desires of Comcast’s investors.

If all of this sounds technical, try this: We’re all the people of Fort Lee, New Jersey, trying to get on the George Washington Bridge. There’s a bully narrowing our access to the world whose interests aren’t aligned with ours. What we need is for that bridge to be maintained, for traffic to flow and for the bully to get punched in the nose, collectively, by the entire country. Let’s be clear: This is old-school monopolistic behavior.

It is time to contact our representatives and insist that we get a law protecting network neutrality and eliminating this new kind of monopoly in our increasingly important technology infrastructure.

UPDATE: Comcast has given millions of dollars to the members of Congress who are supposed to responsible for the FCC. As we always say, follow the money!

UPDATE 2: Michael Copps, who was an FCC commissioner from 2001 until 2011, says that the Comcast merger with Time Warner is a terrible idea and that the merger would “run roughshod over consumers in the end.” And he should know, since he watched similar mergers create monsters out of News Corp (owner of Fox News) and Clear Channel (home of Rush Limbaugh and many other conservative talk radio shows). But according to Copps, the worst consolidation by far was the Comcast merger with NBCUniversal. Copps was the only commissioner to vote against that merger.

© Ted Rall

As I’ve mentioned in the past, I firmly believe in capitalism. So why am I posting this comic by Ted Rall that condemns capitalism as a system where income inequality is a core feature? Because I agree with Rall that capitalism, at least as currently practiced, has lost its way and has serious problems. It has become corrupt and overly greedy. But I disagree that this is a core feature. Democracies have become corrupt too, but that does not mean that democracies are bad.

The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, was deeply concerned about social justice, where everyone had equal worth and was entitled to equal opportunity. Indeed, Smith believed that a balance existed between self interest and sympathy, but that the latter had greater importance. His view was that “mercantilism” (which in his era drove colonial expansion and resulted in frequent European wars) was wrong and he worked to improve the living conditions of the poor.

What we call “capitalism” today is more like corporate mercantilism and has things in common with fascism (where corporate rights are more important than individual rights).

Want evidence? Banks that are “too big to fail” is not capitalism. Capitalism is where you take risks and you are rewarded if your efforts succeed, but also where you pay the price if your efforts fail.

Large corporations hiring lobbyists to write bills that become laws by thinly veiled bribes to politicians is not capitalism. Capitalism is where you have a level playing field, so that the smallest company has the opportunity to compete with the largest. Capitalism is where monopolies are strictly prohibited, and power is not based on how much money you have, but on how well you use that money.

Capitalism is where trademarks and copyrights are limited to the minimum time necessary to encourage innovation, and where patents are only allowed on things that are provably novel and non-obvious. In true capitalism, the copyright on Micky Mouse should have run out a long time ago, and “one click” would never have been awarded a patent.

I believe that people are entitled to reap the rewards of their success, but are not entitled to use those rewards to tilt the playing field in their own favor. That destroys capitalism.

I also believe that progress requires death. The charters of corporations should have a limited time frame and scope, and inheritance should be severely taxed and limited.

I believe that in true capitalism, people would have a guaranteed right to have the opportunity to achieve their greatest potential. This means that full education and health care should be guaranteed to all.

Ironically, these beliefs would prompt some people to call me a socialist. But that’s because they have somehow perverted the idea of capitalism into something that is based purely on greed and where social goals have been sadly eliminated. And that’s too bad, because repeated studies have shown that as inequality increases, everybody (including the rich) suffer. When a corporation spends more time and money on legal fees to destroy competition than it does on innovating, that is not capitalism.

Capitalism may be based on self interest, but it must be about enlightened self interest. Money and power have never been a zero-sum game.

As anyone who has started a company knows, you do much better when you have competition. Heck, as anyone who enjoys sports know, you do far better when you have good competition. How much fun is a sporting event where the “field” is tilted to give one team an unfair advantage? Not much.

We do best when everyone has the right and the ability to compete. That’s capitalism. Or at least what it should be.

British actor Russell Brand has an excellent rant about the death of US actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the stupidity of drug prohibition. You should go read the whole thing; it is short. But here is just one paragraph to entice you to go read it:

Countries like Portugal and Switzerland that have introduced progressive and tolerant drug laws have seen crime plummet and drug-related deaths significantly reduced. We know this. We know this system doesn’t work – and yet we prop it up with ignorance and indifference. Why? Wisdom is acting on knowledge. Now we are aware that our drug laws aren’t working and that alternatives are yielding positive results, why are we not acting? Tradition? Prejudice? Extreme stupidity? The answer is all three. Change is hard, apathy is easy, tradition is the narcotic of our rulers. The people who are most severely affected by drug prohibition are dispensable, politically irrelevant people. Poor people. Addiction affects all of us but the poorest pay the biggest price.

© Keef Knight

I know there are many out there who think that football is included in the Bill of Rights guarantee of freedom of religion, but seriously, why is the National Football League given a massive tax break?

In fact, some senators are trying to end the nonprofit status of the NFL, saying that it is only fair to taxpayers. Under the bill, the NFL foundation would remain tax exempt (like any charitable foundation). Only the league itself, which takes in around $180 million a year, would become taxable.

Incidentally, is the salary of the NFL commissioner — one person — really more than 16% of their entire budget? ($29 million out of $180 million)

© John Backderf

Conservatives seem to think that the poor deserve their fate because they are too lazy to do anything about their situation. And you know, in a funny way, they might be right. After all, somebody has to be voting for these politicians who claim that the rich are the “job creators” and that cutting taxes on the rich and getting rid of environmental and health regulations will make the world a better place.

On the other hand, now that the rich control all the major media in this country, we are constantly showered with propaganda, so it is no surprise that people believe it. But still, the people do have the power to vote these jokers out. What will it take for them to wake up?

Of course, corporations have now succeeded in eliminating net neutrality, which means that now rich corporations will be able to control your access to blogs such as this one. So even more propaganda and fewer dissenting voices.

Are we doomed to descend into some kind of multinational corporate feudalism? Call me crazy, but I’m still optimistic that the spirit that founded this great country is still alive and that we have a bright future. And, at least for now, I’m still on the air.