--- Finally got caught up on my Economist
reading last night. And I have to say, every time I̢۪ve been in need
of a laugh this past week, all I needed to do was read their opinion
article on Vladimir Putin---the one that decried him as Vlad the
Impaler. In case you haven̢۪t heard about what̢۪s going on in Russia
these past few weeks I̢۪ll sum up for you. The richest man in Russia,
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was thrown in jail for tax evasion and fraud. Mr.
Khodorkovsky̢۪s wealth comes
from owing a large chunk of Yukos shares---the largest oil company in
Russia, which as everyone knows is a serious source of the black goop.
Yukos is currently working on a merger with Sibneft which will make it
the fourth largest oil company in the world. So, there̢۪s lots of money involved.

According to the Economist
the real reason this particular oligarch was thrown in the pokey was
because he was becoming too powerful and was beginning to challenge
good ol̢۪ Vlad. Reportedly, Putin made a deal with the oligarchs when
he came to power: you don̢۪t piss in my well, I won̢۪t piss in yours.
And every oligarch who̢۪s even thought of perhaps pulling down his fly
was thrown in the can until he thought the better of the action. It
remains to be seen what Khodorkovsky will do. His main “error”
seems to have been backing Putin̢۪s enemies in the Duma who helped
stop taxation changes on Russia̢۪s oil economy. Then Khodorkovsky
decided to push the envelope by alleging corruption at state
organizations at a public meeting with Putin, which, “provoked a
sharp presidential rebuke.” His main goal in running his business has
been transparency---the western kind. Paying taxes, running a clean
shop, “leading the way in corporate governance.” It seems as if
he̢۪s learned the hard way that slipping cash under the table does not
solve the problems of running a business: it only makes it harder in
the long run to walk away from that kind of behavior. And with this
newfound sense of altruism, it seems Khodorkovsky ran afoul of Putin,
who generally likes things the way they are because then he has a way
to hang someone who does something he doesn̢۪t like. If Khodorkovsky
toughs it out, rather than caving and just moving his business
interests elsewhere, he could force Putin̢۪s hand. This story is
fascinating to me because it has a goodly amount of prospect for change
in Russia. Yeah, sure, companies are doing well there now, but there
are still too many under the table transactions that don̢۪t help
anyone other than the oligarchs. It would seem as if Khodorkovsky wants
to change that. Whether he has the guts to do that, I don̢۪t know, but
it should be interesting to see how it plays out. But the Economist published perhaps the most naïve editorial I’ve ever seen from them. They seem to have been working under the assumption that Putin was a good guy.

Mr Putin, it has become plain, is not the sort of politician who
brooks either critics or rivals. He has shut down or stifled most of
Russia's independent media. As the recent elections in Chechnya and St
Petersburg illustrated so graphically, he has intimidated or bought his
way towards ensuring that his preferred candidates emerge as winners of
any vote. Few doubt that, by hook or by crook, he will retain majority
support in the Duma after December's elections: it was, indeed, the
approach of those elections that gave him reason to attack Mr
Khodorkovsky now. Nor does anybody expect him to tolerate any serious
challenge to his re-election as president next March. In other words,
the arrest of Mr Khodorkovsky must be seen as only part of a broader
pattern confirming that Mr Putin is no democrat.

In other words, the arrest of Mr Khodorkovsky must be seen only as
part of a broader pattern confirming that Mr Putin is no democrat .
Whoooooooo-eeeee! {laughing so hard tears are flowing} Jesus, Mary and
Joseph, people! Where the hell have you been for the past three years?
I can understand that you wanted to give him a chance to prove himself,
particularly when you had very little information on which to base your
opinions, but hell, it didn̢۪t strike you as odd in early 2001 when he
allied with the Germans, of all countries, on the ABT debacle? No, you
chalked it up to countering U.S. hegemony and his fondness for Germany
after being stationed there for years when he ---AHEM---worked for the KG-frickin-B.
It didn̢۪t ring a totalitarian, typical Russian strongman bell when he
cracked down on Chechnya under the guise of “going after the same
terrorists who attacked the US” after 9/11? That didn’t strike you
as a wee bit opportunistic? Putin does what̢۪s best for Putin: it̢۪s
that simple. What made you think he̢۪d act any different with
political enemies? This hope for the good of Russia under Vladimir
Putin is a naïve position to hold---it smacks of knee pants and
licking lollipops---and for me, at least, much hilarity. And don̢۪t
give me that stability argument, oh, but wait, you did already.

This, of course, may not upset the foreigners who have been pouring
money into the country over the past couple of years. Stability and
economic growth are what they, and arguably most Russian voters,
want—and they are what Mr Putin has managed, largely thanks to high
oil prices, to deliver. As the markets settled their initial nerves
after this week's dramas, investors seemed to be signalling again that
they would put stability above all else. Big foreign companies that
have bought into Russia, such as the British oil firm BP, were quick to
declare that they still had faith in the Russian government.
Now, I̢۪m not the best versed person to be commenting on Russian
politics, but it seems to me that to always think that Russians will
vote for stability each and every time seems to discount the
possibilities of the ̢۪91 Fall of Communism. Russians believed
democracy was a good thing: they wanted it so, throwing their weight
behind Yeltsin, they helped to bring the dregs of a weak system to
justice. Now, I̢۪ll be the first to admit, Russians do whine when they
can̢۪t get their black bread and cheap vodka because of a faulty
market economy, but it seems unrealistic to believe that Russians will
always consider stability first. Yes, yes. I know. Peter, Catherine,
and Ivan all kept things under control because they were harsh. And the
Russians like this. I will admit that they do like a strongman. But
this “they will always vote with stability” is unrealistic with
twelve years of market reform under their belts. They̢۪ve seen that
capitalism can work: that stability is something that the markets
make---not something that some leader will grant them magically. Yes,
Putin created a situation for stability, but the time is coming that
democracy, emboldened by market successes, will make another leap
forward. And Putin will fight that leap with every bone in his body
because it will mean a quantitative loss of power---his. Oil prices are
unlikely to drop dramatically; hence the success of the Russian economy
is bound to keep going for a long while. It is possible, that within
that period of time, that democracy in Russia will make serious strides
forward, perhaps under the leadership of Mr. Khodorkovsky. Who knows?
He may yet chicken out. But if he really wants a better situation for
his country, like its alleged he says he does, well, there̢۪s hope of
the non-naïve sort, isn’t there? --- More Economist
for you today. (Don̢۪t you feel special?) This time it's about one of
my favorite subjects: whether file sharing is, in fact, piracy and is
forcing the likes of Celine Dion to worry about her monthly income. We
have optimism on Celine̢۪s behalf:
PEOPLE in the music industry are feeling more optimistic than they
have for years. Apple's digital music-download service, iTunes, has won
customers in far greater numbers than once seemed possible. This week
saw the launch of Napster 2.0, a paying version of the service shut
down by big music and the courts in 2002 because its software allowed
people to share songs for free. Legal, paid-for online services, music
executives hope, together with lawsuits against file-sharers, could
save the industry from internet piracy.
In April, in its first week, iTunes sold over 1m downloads. By the end
of October it had sold about 14m. Now that Apple has made the service
available to PC users—previously, only a Mac system would
work—sales should soar still higher. Napster 2.0 has a library of
500,000 songs to choose from, 100,000 more than iTunes. Its strong
brand makes it a formidable addition to the market.

Sounds impressive, eh? Pffft.

But the fact that more people are willing to buy music online than
seemed likely does not mean that the industry's problems are anywhere
near over. In the next five years, says Informa Media Group, a media
information publisher, digital sales of à la carte downloads and
subscription services will grow 20-fold. But they will account for only
$1.8 billion, or under 6%, of the global music market. Peer-to-peer
file sharing will deprive the industry of $4.7 billion of revenues in
2008. For impecunious teenagers and students, the fact that
peer-to-peer sharing is free will always be compelling. Paying 99 cents
for a song on iTunes, says one British teen, is unappealing because at
that price she may as well buy the CD in a shop. Nor do the new
services yet come close to matching the libraries of nearly all music
ever recorded that the peer-to-peers boast. As for the risk of a
lawsuit from the Recording Industry Association of America, the selling
point for new versions of peer-to-peer networks in recent months is
that they can guard the identity of users. The most popular now is
Earth Station 5, based in, of all places, the Jenin refugee camp on the
West Bank. After the RIAA said it would sue, its software was
downloaded more than 16m times in 90 hours. So far, it seems to work.
Celine̢۪s going to the bread line. Britney̢۪s going to be out on the
street, whoring herself the old fashioned way. And that little prick
Lars Ulrich will soon have to pawn his drum kit to buy new sticks so he
can beat on an empty five gallon bucket. And why are these well-paid
artiste̢۪s going to be hitting the streets, scouring for spare change?
Because they support an association that̢۪s shortsighted enough to sue
twelve-year-olds. But wait, it gets betterâ€Â¦
To glimpse the future, big music companies should look not at
iTunes' encouraging numbers but at September's price cut by Universal
Music Group, the biggest record company of all, which reduced CD prices
for consumers by nearly a quarter. One reason for slumping music sales
is that customers believe that CDs cost too much. Now, other firms will
have to lower prices to compete with Universal. Discount stores such as
Wal-Mart, Circuit City and Best Buy will drive them down more.

And then shocker of all shockers---Moby comes out with my argument: the one I̢۪ve been spouting ever since the RIAA sued Napster.

In the end, says Moby, an influential musician, the record industry
will have to throw out its current business model. It will no longer be
able to make huge profit margins on CDs that cost next to nothing to
manufacture. To compensate for lower prices, he says, the industry
needs to cut its marketing for artists by as much as four-fifths. Once
the record companies have less marketing clout, and with internet
distribution, says Moby, artists will be in a powerful position.
“Why”, he asks, “is a record company any more qualified to send
an MP3 to iTunes than I am?”
AMEN Brother! (Although I should probably tell you right now, Moby,
that I̢۪m not likely to ever buy any of your music because most of the
time you̢۪re a pretentious prick who would like nothing better than
telling me what to do with my life. And besides, your music really
doesn̢۪t do all that much for me, ya dig? Synthesizers, for your
information, pretty much went out in the 80̢۪s. Sorry.)
But the point would be that AHEM going after the people who swap files is bad for business. The music industry took the wrong tack and now they̢۪ve screwed themselves!

Ok, stopping the Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy dance now.

--- As you will have noticed, the husband has posted his Matrix essay. Enjoy.

As far as Finding Nemo
is concerned, well, wow. Disney is finally producing something of worth
by funding that company. Nemo is a fabulous film. I don̢۪t care
whether you̢۪re my three year old niece, M. who̢۪s pout resembles
Nemo̢۪s and she̢۪s smart enough to pick up on that, or if you̢۪re a
ninety-year-old codger who doesn̢۪t smile about anything. It̢۪s a
wonderful film. It̢۪s not only beautiful to look at---their ocean is a
wondrous place---but it̢۪s humorous. Rent it, even if you don̢۪t have
any kids. You̢۪ll thank me.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2213 words, total size 15 kb.