Jump to content

Why economics and politics ARE important to Cinematography.com


Brian Dzyak

Recommended Posts

No, what's ridiculous is suggesting that a Middle Class worker should take a pay cut because someone randomly decides that the job is too simplistic to merit that person living a decent life with a home, insurance, a car, and enough to take care of a family.

 

Way back prior to the Reagan-era, it was decided that individuals truly didn't "need" more than $3 million per year. So, moderate taxes were placed on the first $3 million in income and then a tax-rate of around 75% was placed on income after $3 million per year. Why was this fair and necessary? Because, in order for a free society to survive, it was recognized that allowing wealth to consolidate into the hands of a small percentage of the population would be inherently detrimental on many levels. Then the Reagan era arrived and we've witnessed the effects of what unfettered greed does to a civilization as infrastructure and education becomes compromised due to the overwhelming lack of tax revenue coming in like it used to.

 

So, yes, people with skills and talent should be allowed to earn more than a basic bolt turner, however just as there is a minimum wage to protect individuals and society at large, we need a return to the de facto "maximum wage" (in addition to a variety of other necessary policies) to return our economy (in the USA and around the world) to a place where a strong Middle Class can thrive.

 

Well fortunately America was founded as a nation based on maximum individual liberty, and strict rules were written into our Constitution to prohibit the type of socialism or communism you are advocating. There are hundreds of other countries in the world where socialism and communism and "maximum wages" could be allowed. America is pretty much the only place on earth where such things are not allowed under an iron-clad constitution. If you want to introduce communism, price controls, wage controls, etc, here, you have to amend the Constitution. It is possible to do, but it is unlikely to pass.

 

But anyway, we are drifting WAAAY off subject now, so I am going to duck out of this conversation. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

Not exactly sure how the Founding Fathers managed to write the Constitution in a way to prevent socialism, especially since the theory of socialism hadn't been developed yet... but if they had, it doesn't explain how we got things like public schools, public libraries, a national highway system, how we got to the Moon, nor truly socialist programs like Social Security and Medicare.

 

I'd also submit that workers unions & guilds are a natural outgrowth of capitalism and have existed in some form or another since the Middle Ages.

 

We don't live in an either-or world, history has shown that economies rise and capitalism is healthy when it exists in a partnership with a government that provides a certain amount of stability in society by providing military defense, a legal system, and institutions that cater to, regulate, or protect public needs like sanitation, transportation, food & housing, and heath care. Without the stability that comes from a general public feeling safe, fed, in good health, etc. it's very hard for markets to thrive over long, stable stretches of time.

 

So it doesn't have to be some ideological war where people with impractical ideas of either extreme provide the only path to follow.

 

In that vein, let's get off of our high horse and admit that not all unions are the same and not all industries are the same. And that union wages are only one part of the problem facing businesses in a sagging economy -- rising healthcare costs are another factor. Besides, people look back to the 1960's are some golden age when the U.S. economy was strong, and that was when we had a lot more union workers in the U.S. and a much healthier middle class. And I'm not saying that that's proof that unionism is good for the economy, I'm saying that it suggests that it is not antithetical to a good economy.

 

Certainly the excesses of unions, just as the excesses of upper management, the excesses of governments, etc. are all appalling and have to be changed. One group alone doesn't have a monopoly of excessive behavior and financial reward that does not match the level of work performed.

 

It's just a sign of my middle class background that I'm a bit less appalled by some "lazy" union worker that manages to keep his suburban house and station wagon and kid in college than I am by some executive at a Wall Street financial institution getting an extra million dollars in bonus for not doing a whole lot to help the U.S. either. But eventually everyone equally has to take a hit in salary and benefits in a down economy, and it bothers me when unions fail to accept this reality just as it bothers me when upper management doesn't seem to want to suffer either during the bad times.

 

Sure, you can take a purely capitalist attitude and say that on a movie shoot, the star should make millions of dollars but the crew that shoots the movie should make minimum wage because they don't contribute really to box office sales in a measurable way. But if you look at the economy as a whole, if enough of the general population have their wages drop, who will have the money to buy those movie tickets or tickets to sporting events that pay for these million-dollar salaries? Even Henry Ford understood that a general workforce that made a decent living would be the ones who bought his products, so it doesn't really help ANYONE, high or low, to have more and more wealth tied up in fewer and fewer individuals -- it doesn't even help the rich in the long run!

 

So rather than turn this into a socialism vs. capitalism debate which has no real practical value or meaning, why not look at the situation from the point of view as to what works for, what benefits, the most number of people over the long term, rich and poor? Or is that socialism too? Or is that the key to a healthy democracy? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that you'd prefer to have all of the "Hollywood" projects in Canada AND have every position and cast member be filled by Canadians?

 

Yes please. :o

 

After all of these posts, I'd just like to reiterate that this thread is really meant to just explain the world IS so that current and aspiring "filmmakers" can understand in order to make wiser choices for their own careers. For every state/nation that gets excited to be the "New Hollywood North/South/East/or West," there are others that USED to think that but were abandoned because some other place handed out bigger bribes and/or encouraged the workers there to make concessions. The guy in the opening article went to Thailand and he blamed the high costs of crew in Los Angeles for it. I hope that some of this discussion helps all of us understand just why he is so very wrong.

 

Ah finally we agree on some thing. There is an arms race mentality out there with regard to film tax credits

as each jurisdiction tries to out do the other. Several US states have "borrowed" the Canadian system, with Michigan being the most generous. Of course the long range goal must be for Canada to develop it's own domestic film industry. When it does I'm sure Americans will graciously line up to see Canadian movies the way millions of Canadians graciously line up to see American movies. Thereby helping to keep film workers in S. Calif employed.

 

Until then, tax credit schemes are not going any where. Unless of course if you happen to live in New York state or Iowa, where they introduced film tax credits, and then yanked the rug out :blink:

 

R,

 

PS: I should like to point out that I am posting this aboard an American airlines flight that is LA bound. Upon arrival in LA I plan to spend money in the economy of S. Calif for food, gas, hotels, body armour, etc. Thereby once more pumping Canadian dollars into the economy of S. Calif.

 

PSS: Me posting this aboard an airplane once again demonstrates my complete dedication to c.com.

 

PSSS: Please scratch "gas" from my list of above purchases since I will just be buying back the oil we shipped to the USA in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm sure some of these globalization trends will shift when fuel is so expensive that it doesn't make much sense to travel far to make a movie except for the scenery... or sell Chinese garlic in a California grocery store for less than garlic grown in California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful, David, you're going to get hit with a lead pipe talking down on Unions ;-)

 

 

Thanks again, BTW, for your advice today. . .

 

 

 

 

 

Brian, you are living in a darkened movie theatre, living the fantasy you see on the screen. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in the real world, just so many different shades of grey.

 

If it weren't for my grandfather's Union work, my father wouldn't have his degree, nor would my mother. My mother is in a union. Father, not per se, but the Federal government is a great place to work.

 

 

At the same time, excessive union benefits crippled the American automotive industry, and they stand ready to cripple film work and other industries in this country too.

 

We live in a time of union concesssions, not union gains. If you look at union wages, they haven't even kept pace with inflation. They've been steadily loosing ground for decades. That isn't because of Milton Freedmanism/Republicans, that's because fo the REALITY of a global economy.

 

 

The United States has been riding high on the tail end of WWII. But, guess what: It's sixty-nine years later. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah finally we agree on some thing. There is an arms race mentality out there with regard to film tax credits

as each jurisdiction tries to out do the other. Several US states have "borrowed" the Canadian system, with Michigan being the most generous.

 

 

Until then, tax credit schemes are not going any where. Unless of course if you happen to live in New York state or Iowa, where they introduced film tax credits, and then yanked the rug out :blink:

 

You say "yanked the rug out" as if it was a bad thing. Browse through the articles about tax incentives here http://realfilmcareer.com/?cat=11 and you'll see just what the competition is AND if you read far enough in, you'll also see that many governments are now questioning the benefits of such programs. While on the surface it looks like a good thing to offer bribes to Corporations in order to get some short-term jobs into those areas, the long-term ramifications of tax breaks are proving to be detrimental.

 

To that I say, DUH! :blink: This Reagan-esque/Milton Friedman concept of handing over all the cash to the "top" so that it will "Trickle Down" has proven to fail time and time again. Why some people still hang on to that lie even when they aren't the one's benefiting from that ideology is beyond me. Rich people and Corporations don't just "create jobs" because they've got some extra money laying around. As David reiterated above, businesses create jobs and hire people when there is a demand for their products. And there can't be a demand for products if consumers don't have income to spend. So, the WORST thing to do in a down-economy is to hand over Corporate Welfare because that Corporation will merely just keep all of the financial gain with NO incentive to use it to invest back into the economy. Heck, our own Bank Bailout situation proves that. Banks were given BILLIONS with the purpose of allowing small-businesses to take loans so that the economy would get moving again because people would have jobs. That idea was pushed by Government officials who subscribe to the Milton Friedman school of lies. Guess what is happening? NOTHING. Those banks still aren't loaning money, but instead, are continuing the same risky behavior that the Reaganites allowed which got us all into this mess.

 

So, "yanking the rug out" of a tenuous situation anyway is a ridiculous way to describe this. Those cities/states had no business trying to build "Hollywood East" in the first place and thinking that they'd have the movie-business forever.

 

Again, as David reiterated above, if the Milton Friedman dream comes true, all of the world's markets WILL eventually fail to a point where it will become too expensive to travel or transport equipment, so maybe, filmmaking WILL return to Southern California, where the Corporate Executives are and all of the infrastructure. Time will tell.

 

 

Of course the long range goal must be for Canada to develop it's own domestic film industry.

 

R,

 

Why does that have to be a "long range goal?" Why not work to make that happen right now? Hollywood is the Goliath, you say? Well, work to fix THAT instead of just going along with the Fascist's goals. It's a tall order, I know, but it'll never happen if people don't believe in it enough.

 

 

PS: I should like to point out that I am posting this aboard an American airlines flight that is LA bound. Upon arrival in LA I plan to spend money in the economy of S. Calif for food, gas, hotels, body armour, etc. Thereby once more pumping Canadian dollars into the economy of S. Calif.

 

Your quarters mess up our vending machines. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Milton Friedman

 

This is a public announcement to all c.com members.

 

If Brian Dzyak uses the words "Milton" & "Friedman" in a sentence one more time I will throw myself in front of an LA bus!!

 

R,

 

PS: Notice I am threatening myself with bodily harm and not Brian :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a public announcement to all c.com members.

 

If Brian Dzyak uses the words "Milton" & "Friedman" in a sentence one more time I will throw myself in front of an LA bus!!

 

R,

 

PS: Notice I am threatening myself with bodily harm and not Brian :D

 

Please don't do that. Your opinion is valued. :)

 

 

I use those two "words" together because it is an ideology that people of both US Political Parties subscribe to in varying degrees. I'm merely attempting to be as accurate as possible, understanding that there are likely many readers out there who don't have a clear understanding of what that ideology claims and what the realities of it have been. Like I've said, I think that it's very important for everyone "out there" to understand the state of the world in regard to our industry and why things are the way they are and how they got that way. One can agree or disagree about whether that ideology is good or bad, but acknowledging facts above the usual partisan rhetoric is the first step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

In Brian's defense, it has been the dominant mindset of American financial elites and all the climbers (way biggest category) trying to get there. It is a repeatedly, manifestly, erroneous approach. Check your bank account for verification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We live in a time of union concesssions, not union gains. If you look at union wages, they haven't even kept pace with inflation. They've been steadily loosing ground for decades. That isn't because of Milton Freedmanism/Republicans, that's because fo the REALITY of a global economy.

 

Actually, it IS because of Milton Friedmanism/Republicans. How so? Because the "global economy" that you do blame it on is BECAUSE OF Milton Friedman/Republicans. Prior to 1980, things were more or less working quite swimmingly. Naturally, there were some minor ups and downs, but for the most part, the US economy was strong because FDR's policies as well as policies enacted afterward, helped build a strong Middle Class. This was primarily achieved by regulating the financial markets and banking.

 

But this approach really irked a lot of very greedy people, so enter guys like Milton Friedman, Thomas Friedman and generations of impressionable youth who read Ayn Rand when they were 14 years old. Socialistic programs were quite popular after FDR rescued our economy from the Republican Great Depression and a strong Middle Class thrived. But for a number of reasons, the idea of "Socialism" became a bad word (guys like McCarthy helped that along) and thirty years of Reagan-like brainwashing resulted in all of this. Manufacturing was encouraged (and still is) to exit stage left and the enormous tax cuts given to the top 1% has resulted in a massive lack of quality jobs in the US and a failing infrastructure do to the lack of adequate tax revenue. Toss in a couple of unpaid-for wars, healthy Corporate Welfare to various Corporations including the Pharmaceutical and Medical industries, thirty years of little to no regulations on financial elements, and it's a recipe for complete economic breakdown. This is the "New World Order" (George Bush's words, not mine) that they wanted to build and we are in the thick of it whether we wanted it or not.

 

 

Not that it matters what I think, but personally, I would have no problem with Globalization if it was an even playing field. Amongst other things, that would mean a single world currency. But at present, that isn't the world we live in so it is unreasonable to expect people in a place with a higher cost of living to reasonably compete with people who live in a place with an inherently lower cost of living. And, earlier, the idea of "highly paid" Union workers was denounced as unsustainable, but there was no mention that allowing CEOs et al to hoard massive amounts of wealth is also unsustainable.

 

I mean, just take a look at these salaries of individuals: http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/ Picking one of them at random, Stephen Hemsley received $13.2 million in compensation in 2007. That's just ONE guy. Earlier, someone blamed Union members for making too much money. Let's say that just one of them makes $80/hr for turning a wrench and he does that five days a week. Let's assume that he's making $4,000/week for that menial task. Now lets pretend that there are fifty of these guys making the same money doing menial jobs. That's $200,000 a week for that factory in labor costs. That's $800,000 per month x 12 = $9,600,000 for 50 people.

 

So ONE guy at the top is taking home $13.2 million per year while 50 people share $9.6 million per year.

 

And people are blaming the workers for earning too much and taking Corporations down? :blink: It doesn't take a genius to see how insanely ridiculous that kind of statement is.

 

But let's play that game and pretend that they are overpaid. So what happens when we cut their wages by half? Now, a worker is bringing home $2,000 a week and out of that he has to pay for rising health care insurance, out of pocket expenses, car insurance, house payments (if he has one, or he is trying to save money for a 20% downpayment), groceries, school supplies and/or tuition, home expenses, and if there's anything left over, entertainment and vacations.

 

So what has cutting his pay accomplished? He now has LESS money to contribute to the economy because he can't buy things because he can't spend money that he doesn't have. Meanwhile, Mr. CEO is sitting on $13.2 million which is likely similar to what he earned the previous five years or so and what he'll earn several years from now. Is Mr. CEO taking his excess to open a new factory to employ fifty more people at $40/hr? Not likely. Why? Because like his own company, other companies are cutting worker wages or just shipping those jobs overseas. Now Mr. CEO's customers aren't buying his products so he has no incentive to open another factory anywhere because there isn't enough demand for his product. But is Mr. CEO's compensation getting cut too because of this? NO. Why? Because he "saved" his company umpteen millions of dollars last quarter by cutting labor costs by shipping those jobs overseas. Even though sales are down, the company profits APPEAR to be up because of the savings in labor. Mr. CEO collects a bigger paycheck and a healthy bonus for looking out for the company no matter the long-term effects to the nation he lives in or the people who live beyond the gates that protect his mansion.

 

This, in a nutshell, IS what has happened to the US over the past thirty years, because evidently, unfettered Free Market Capitalism is the very best economic system in the world. Or so they claim. Like I've said, we can agree or disagree about whether it is the way our world economy should work, but this is the way it IS and why some people are having trouble maintaining a stable life for themselves and their families while those at the top think that everything is just fine. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it IS because of Milton Friedmanism/Republicans.

 

THAT DOES IT!!

 

I am walking out onto Vine right now Brian, my death be upon thy hands.

 

Good-bye cruel world!!

 

I just hope the bus driver doesn't swerve at the last minute and leave me a cripple and not kill me.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THAT DOES IT!!

 

I am walking out onto Vine right now Brian, my death be upon thy hands.

 

Good-bye cruel world!!

 

I just hope the bus driver doesn't swerve at the last minute and leave me a cripple and not kill me.

 

R,

 

Rush Limbaugh "threatened" to leave the USA for Costa Rica if the current "Health Reform" bill passes. Of course, like most Republicans/Libertarians/Conservatives, Rush is a hypocrite. Costa Rica has Socialized Medicine.

 

The BEST thing the US Government could do right now would be to pass a "Socialized Health Care Bill" if for no other reason than to rid our nation of Hypocritical liar blow-hards like Rush Limbaugh.

 

 

But like David said, you'll be taken care of up there. If any of us tried that down here, the very best thing that could happen would be death. Otherwise, we'd go bankrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's like my "3rd World" instructor says; money can walk across borders. People can't. That's just the way things are.

 

 

But they don't have to be. This wasn't the case until Reagan and it can be better again, but only if the non-Billionaires stop supporting the current system and create real fundamental change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, in a nutshell, IS what has happened to the US over the past thirty years, because evidently, unfettered Free Market Capitalism is the very best economic system in the world. Or so they claim.

 

Brian, can you break that down into even simpler terms due to the blinders I'm wearing and my propensity to discount rationalization when it amounts to my having to sacrifice something.

 

Now, I'm off to refinance my house (again) and by that 130" LED so Rush will be an even bigger part of my life!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, can you break that down into even simpler terms due to the blinders I'm wearing and my propensity to discount rationalization when it amounts to my having to sacrifice something.

 

Now, I'm off to refinance my house (again) and by that 130" LED so Rush will be an even bigger part of my life!

 

 

This is as simple as it gets:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-...3912&sr=1-1

 

http://www.amazon.com/Screwed-Undeclared-A...3951&sr=1-2

 

http://www.amazon.com/Threshold-Western-Cu.../ref=pd_sim_b_3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. but you have universal healthcare in Canada so you'll be just fine! ;)

 

David, I am in LA right now, which is why I said I's walk out onto Vine and wait for the bus. My motel is on Vine. So if I get taken to a US hospital they'll charge me $10, 000.00 just to open the back door of the ambulance. :blink:

 

Any way I waited out there for three hours, no bus!! Typical.

 

Ok Brian, I am giving you one last chance, if you speak the names that must never be spoken again. I am heading back out onto Vine.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, never-mind then.

 

*International Relations 101 Hat OFF*

 

*EDIT* the thrust of my original post is that countries squabble. Groups of people argue and fight with other groups of people. To keep those tensions down cool heads try to work out agreements between the conflicting parties.

 

For the media freelancer it means that his wages, on an international market, are dictated by whatever producer feels he can get the most for his dollars. And if that means shooting in Vietnam or Thailand, as opposed to some local area, then the freelancer either needs to travel there, or find another gig or line of work entirely.

 

You can't really blame unions too much, though I think their wage demands are a significant part of the problem. The simple fact is people want money, and get as much as they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abra cadabra.

 

 

 

 

We've transitioned to all-digital acquisition.

 

We don't need a film union anymore. Now everyone gets paid equally: $10/hr.

 

 

????????

 

 

Does that mean the Actors, Directors, Producers, Writers, and Studio Execs too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody will "slam" you for asking.

I've learned that you should tread ever so gently when discussing politics on the internet.

 

Anyway. I believe you're mixing up corporatism and free market capitalism. Capitalism doesn't serve the rich, it doesn't serve anybody, or everybody. Because it's free. The only way to gain power and earn unfair money is through corporatism. Socialism, fascism and any other totalitarian ideology always ends with corporatism.

Don't think, for even a minute, that there wasn't any rich people in the USSR. There were, and they were powerful. The government and the capitalists go hand in hand if there is corporatism. That's where the oppression of the poor comes from. That together with high taxation.

 

DP's CAN operate, but it isn't really in anyone's best interest when it comes to the quality and efficiency of the movie which directly impacts th entire project

Oh, but that's up to the director/producer isn't it? Not the unions. And in Europe we do it that way all the time. And I don't think you complain over the quality of, say, Sven Nykvist's cinematography? Or if you've seen Jan Troell's masterpieces "the Emigrants" and "the New Land" where he directed, were the cinematographer and operated? Because it is a beautiful film.

I just don't believe in forcing people to work in a special way. People are different.

Edited by klas persson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've learned that you should tread ever so gently when discussing politics on the internet.

 

Anyway. I believe you're mixing up corporatism and free market capitalism. Capitalism doesn't serve the rich, it doesn't serve anybody, or everybody. Because it's free. The only way to gain power and earn unfair money is through corporatism. Socialism, fascism and any other totalitarian ideology always ends with corporatism.

Don't think, for even a minute, that there wasn't any rich people in the USSR. There were, and they were powerful. The government and the capitalists go hand in hand if there is corporatism. That's where the oppression of the poor comes from. That together with high taxation.

 

I'm not mixing up anything. :)

 

To this end, we need to stop and define terms.

 

Unfettered Free Market Capitalism suggests that "the Market" is "Best" served when it is entirely uninhibited. This means absolutely NO regulations, rules, restrictions of any kind imposed by a government or anyone at all. The idea being that if a "market" is allowed to just "exist," then the bad/unworthy businesses and people will die while only the strongest/most worthy will survive and thrive.

 

Fascism is when an established government is essentially run by Corporations. Corporate/Business interests take precedence in public policy no matter what, not matter how much people suffer or die.

 

Socialism is when a government runs businesses for the things that the people need/want. For example, a government may decide that privatized automobile companies aren't a good idea, so the government owns and operates the car company.

 

True Democracy is when "The People" have a say in how their nation works, from the economy to the justice system.

 

 

So, to that end, it is undeniable that a true "Socialist" society has never truly existed, so any suggestion that "it" doesn't work is based on no true facts. What is true about Socialism, if it were ever allowed to exist, is that no one would suffer as the system is designed to not let anyone fall through the cracks no matter their race, creed, or status in life.

 

And arguably, no true unfettered Free Market Capitalist society has ever truly existed either. What is true about unfettered Free Market Capitalism is that if it ever were allowed to exist, that many many many people would likely suffer and die while just a small percentage of humans would hoard most of the resources and survive. It is a very discriminatory system designed to let only a few live and enjoy their 80ish years of life.

 

 

Corporatism is an extension of Fascism in that Corporations are encouraged, as an extension of unfettered Free Market Capitalism, to do whatever it takes to create short-term profits. To this end, it means not only shipping jobs to whatever arena is necessary to lower manufacturing costs, but to influence governmental policies to benefit the Corporations no matter the effects on nations, the environment, or democracies. Profit is the God for Corporatists. Fascists are merely enabling the Corporatist ideology by subverting government controls in favor of Corporate desires.

 

 

What has been proven over the years is that a well-regulated mix of Socialist policies with regulated Capitalistic ideas is the ONLY system that allows real progress/innovation while still protecting Democracy and protecting the weak and formerly oppressed (ie, minorities, poor).

 

What IS true today is that USA Republicans/Conservatives favor Fascist ideology that serves Corporations regardless of its overall effect on Democracy, the US Constitution, and on real lives in our own nation and abroad. In other words, Republicans really don't give a sh** who lives or dies so long as their own profit making ideology is allowed to continue unfettered without regulations and laws to hold them back.

 

And THAT ideology, whether you agree to it or not, has brought the world to this point. The significant push for this "New World Order" (their words) began about thirty years ago. (details about it all here: http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-...0798&sr=1-1 ) (this book also explains the realities of Russia that you bring up)

 

"High taxation," as you put it, used to be equitable prior to 1980, in order to maintain and build a strong society (middle class) and keep a strong democracy (in the USA). A society simply cannot be sustained when just 1% of the population is allowed to hoard the majority of the wealth and power. It is unsustainable for any real economy and for a true democracy to exist. So, I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say, "High Taxation," but what is clear is that the eroding Middle Class (in the USA) has been bearing the brunt of the costs of society while the very wealthy have gotten off with very little taxation since 1980. Toss in "runaway" manufacturing to foreign lands where Corporations can get VERY cheap labor (they'd take slaves if they could get away with it), and the USA has steadily been eroded from the inside out.... all so that the very rich can get even richer.

 

The point of all of this is for film industry professionals to recognize and understand the macro forces that are at work here. It's important to understand why so many governments are handing out bribes to Corporations/Movie Studios just to get some temporary work in their areas. It's important to understand all of this so that the aspiring film industry professionals can make the wisest choices they can as they embark on their desired careers. You can choose to agree with this strategy of the "Unfettered Free Market Capitalists" (Milton Friedmanism) or not, but it's important to know WHY the global economy is the way it is so that we can all do our best to survive the mess they've made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...