Yet another thing Boomers maximized to their benefit. 'Excessive' inflation that *doesn't* turn into runaway inflation and returns to 'Normal' inflation is tough in the short term, good in the medium term, and awesome in the long term - for them that had debts during it.
Sure, but that really craters the middle-market of folks who have enough to dedicate a certain amount to a viewing experience.... just enough.
I think it still leaves the Upscale and Downscale markets available... esp once new tech is introduced.
Contra new tech: 3D hasn't done much, iMax seems stuck, and the Disney 'feelies' that they were pushing 20-30 years ago haven't arrived. So VR? But why go to a special place for VR? Unless it's the really really good VR?
Coda... meant to get to the main point which is that ScarJo is worth $70M because she makes the Advertising blitz work... without ScaJo, the Advertising would cost a *lot* more. She's a risk/cost mitigation strategy.
Which goes to the tangential point that you can pump out a lot of middling garbage without advertising, but who cares?
To whit... the counter point is: it doesn't matter anymore if we're not selling tickets to Movies, but to a service.
Reasonable... though I wonder if the 'low end' doesn't have to provide a new 'hook' to go to the trouble of getting to the theater and paying for something you can watch on your phone (even the poor have phones, I'm told). On the one hand, 'The Big Screen' experience might be better... but I'm not sure it's that much better any more... not with 4k screens, even if they are small. I'm imagining moving from Movies to 'Feelies' (h/t Brave New World) or some such other technological enhancement.
On the boutique side, agreed... we started going to the Alamo (which is definitely middlebrow) on account of reserved seating and beer/apps. There was a place in NoVA that was touted as boutique-y... but it was merely pretentious-Middle Brow, which is worse. Other than a private screening room, I've yet to be somewhere that I'd consider upscale.
That would make sense if content is consumed over time; though now that I think on it, there's no actual need for anyone to watch your movies... just subscribe to the service (as long as you're not modeling a premium charge for movies).
In this scenario, the goal is to be 'perceived' as having good content (or just enough) to warrant the $9.99 or $19.99 or whatever... whether you ever watch is not relevant anymore.
Tangentially, Lady Marchmaine and I were discussing how we cannot find anything we'd like to watch together despite our subscriptions to Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime (not to mention Cable with HBO). There's certainly a lot of content and to the industry's credit they've captured a lot of $$ from a household that isn't 'mainstream' ... but honestly, we're more lazy than anything else and not averse to cancelling subscriptions (which we do from time to time). For us, the content is neither good nor what we're looking for... but that's definitely a tangent.
"so any funds that might be moved to a recalcitrant Democratic Senator’s state will have to be applied for in the general plus ups that would be enacted."
I didn't quite follow the logic in this paragraph:
"That in itself would create a precedent that sets up the studios to see streaming as potentially a bigger platform to gross money with than the box office, and it could set up talent to really need major sway to get their films an exclusive theatrical run. It could also in a way be the death of “the movie star” as we know it, as major sought out talent could suddenly be pushed to the side by streaming giants who won’t have to pay as much now for said talent."
Are we assuming that 'block-buster movies' as streaming events will be similar to or replaced by, say, Game of Thrones type content where the ensemble cast is paid significantly less than a Scarlett Johansson? Perhaps.
But, I thought the economics of an SJ (or any 'Star') is that they generate revenue by anchoring the movie... in which case, SJ signing on for a retainer of $20M plus a projected $50M +/- in bonuses is just a business math project of cost/value. I'm not seeing how streaming as a medium changes that calculus, unless we're killing the block-buster itself.
What I think is really going on is a vertical integration/disruption of the distribution model where the Content Providers are eating their distributors and in so doing can provide their products at a lower price for the same net return... especially if they are using (legal or not) loopholes in distributing those revenues to the talent.
The most likely upshot is that actors like SJ will close the streaming loophole such that their projected value of $70M to the project is captured one way or another.
I don't see shifting the platform changing the $$, unless changing the platform also changes the paradigm... which it might.
Will streaming services become more expensive? Yes. Will we pay for 'premium content' - we already do.
Prediction: Once the theatres have been killed, theaters will re-open but only show, say, Disney+ content for a boutique viewing experience.
Right. What if years and years of practical reinforcement simply makes the CDC a grant distributing machine? It studies studies and funds studies for more studies. Someone has to do it. But, that's its core competency then. Not Pandemic Response Policy Making. Or let's say it moves at the speed of your average infectious disease. Like the way the FDA moves at the speed of cancer or chronic illness.
Yeah, but I'm not even interested in the Mask Efficacy wars... the point was to make the curve look, well, how it looks now.
I get that maybe we're seeing something that could get worse... but it isn't worse... the science and the data show that the vaccines are doing what we want them to do... make the pandemic manageable and reduce deaths. The answer is still vaccinations, not masks.
To be sure... every election someone wins no matter what.
That's the game structure I'm looking to alter... it's not enough to not-lose, we should encourage a system that places hurdles to that minimalist behavior.
Change the rules, change the outcomes. Not saying I'll agree with the outcomes... but I already know the rules currently favor bad outcomes.
LF4: Don't have a detailed opinion on the CDC and that's probably how it should be. I do think, though, that institutionally it is adrift without any idea of what it's role is supposed to be. Could be a congressional issue, could be and Executive issue, could be plain bureaucratic mismanagement, could be all of the above or something else. No idea. But adrift it is.
I thought they completely botched the Mask easing, and honestly can't see any logic or 'science' behind their new 'guidance'. For me, it isn't that they were wrong at one point or another, its that they can't really articulate why and how they were wrong and why and how they are less wrong now.
I go to their own website to look at the information they are publishing regarding this 4th wave Delta variant... and see nothing but Vaccine public policy success.
To be fair to everyone involved (self included) I'm keeping an eye on Excess deaths and will alter behavior if and when we see them spike in a manner that isn't as obviously mitigated as it is now. But no, I won't be masking in any form given the information we have now.
As a coda, while I'm personally surprised at how quickly daily vaccination rates dropped... it is still hovering at around 500k/day... and, given we're in the middle of summer, a natural dip in the flu cycle, and enjoying the collective benefits of 60% adult vaccination rates it doesn't surprise me that uptake is sluggish; I anticipate that as flu season approaches, and/or virulence noticeably increases vaccinations will increase.
If this were still the Trump presidency, I'd think the CDC was actively attempting to undermine his Presidency.
I guess I would say they are not category errors, and here's why.
In the first case you mention the Neo-Con Consensus as a category error... but it's not a category error, it's exactly what a Political Consensus looks like in a multi-faction alignment. That is, the Neo-Con policy as it was embraced in it's anti-communist form was a more aggressive point-defense against communism... the SoCons and Libertarians had their own reasons to take a 'back-seat' to what this meant in practice. The Crack-up comes in the aftermath of 'victory' and the failure to pivot by the Neo-Cons such that the Existential Threat of Communism was replaced by the Existential Threat of Terrorism which began to expose aspects of the Neo-Con foreign Policy that, let's say, exceeded the scope of the consensus. Especially once the trigger event of 9/11 had faded (decades) into the distance. That's a pretty organic tale of a consensus drifting apart. Everyone in the consensus agreed with the Neo-Cons on the nature of our Existential threats, until we didn't.
Regarding the other example of a category error, Never Trump. I don't think that's mooted as an actual category/consensus rather than a brand. That is, all Democrats are Never Trump in one sense, but not obviously in the Brand sense. It's also why in my future predictions there's no consensus around who's *not* part of the consensus. My objection to Never Trump is precisely this sort of non-sense... it doesn't mean anything to be Never Trump and you don't build consensus politics around a void. Or, well, you oughn't.
Looked at this way, some people who voted for Trump were Never Romney and Some were Never Obama and Some were Never Clinton and others Never (another) Bush. We don't build coalitions around Nevers; or, well, we oughtn't. But that's also my consistent Meta-critique of Parties as lifestyle brands... they are bad parties and bad politics. If 'your' party is co-opted by people you'd 'Never' vote for, time for a new party. The fact that we have an ossified Duopoly is a problem for all of us, not just disaffected Never-/Anti-Trumpers. I've altered some of my political conversations to tactically deal with just the Duopoly first... RCV, Run-off systems, plurality systems, etc. Non-constitutional logistical reforms to elections to end the Lifestyle Party Brand system. It's doable. Precisely because we need consensus politics where the consensus can break and re-form tactically a'la politics and not require existential Regime change.
To make politics meaningful, we have to make them meaningless.
[Ahem] I believe table stakes 'round these parts for criticizing predictions about the future are putting your predictions on the table first.
Sure they are broad... that's the request... what can the party rally around. But honestly not sure which are so broad that either party is already proposing much less both.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Infrastructure Week shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d
I see in your eyes the same greed that would quicken the heart in me.
A day may come when the lust of men fails,
when we forsake our donors and break all bonds of patronage,
but it is not this day.
Mighty kind, I was going to comment on your fine steel-manning of the opposition views above... but wasn't sure which one to single out... so consider this a blanket recognition.
Won't that just drive worsening housing and infrastructure problems? Why wouldn't we take a 21st century approach and leverage technology to put people and companies where the potable water *is* and the angry rising water *isn't*
If relocation is in the cards, I'm not seeing why we aren't actively relocating lots of things with, say, an Infrastructure Bill.
Good post. I feel like we've trod this ground since at least 2012... but the old consensus is dead, long live... well, that's the problem that your post is pretty good at... there's no new consensus. That's the really interesting thing.
I still think that 2016 was a failed re-alignment and 2020 will fail differently, but fail nonetheless (assuming Biden/Trump are still the prime movers)... but 2024? We'll know we're on the other side of the realignment when we're talking about how 2016 and 2020 were obviously transitionary periods that we all should have seen were harbingers for what we have (future) now. Duh.
So... my 'Duh' predictions:
*Economic Consensus: Stakeholder Capitalism... consider this an anti-Galt and anti-Technocrat synthesis.
*Social Consensus: Whole Life Policies... pro-natalist, pro-ethnic synthesis (anti-balkanization), pro-family, pro-multi-generational transition (which ties into Economic Transition)
*Government Consensus: Govt will be 'right-sized' not too big, not too small... most importantly, circumscribed to things it does well vs. things it doesn't.
*Global Consensus Foreign Policy: US will maintain military pre-eminence, under a restrained policy that is designed to preserve trade and isolate conflict, not resolve it.
*Global Consensus Economic: With Stakeholder Capitalism comes Labor Solidarity which disincentivizes Capital Flight/Arbitrage via Labor as Stakeholders and beneficiaries of Capital decisions.
I think there will be Leftish and Rightish flavors of the above... so never fear, plenty of things to find fault with how the other guys are doing things... but realignment stalks both parties.
On “Money For Nothing: Inflation Is Not Free”
Yes, but is the value re-normalized? No, it accrues. That's the 20th/21st century lesson we haven't adjusted to.
"
"Excessive or runaway inflation is bad."
Yet another thing Boomers maximized to their benefit. 'Excessive' inflation that *doesn't* turn into runaway inflation and returns to 'Normal' inflation is tough in the short term, good in the medium term, and awesome in the long term - for them that had debts during it.
Most of us are debtors...
On “The Lawsuit That Could Define The Future Of The Film Industry”
Sure, but that really craters the middle-market of folks who have enough to dedicate a certain amount to a viewing experience.... just enough.
I think it still leaves the Upscale and Downscale markets available... esp once new tech is introduced.
Contra new tech: 3D hasn't done much, iMax seems stuck, and the Disney 'feelies' that they were pushing 20-30 years ago haven't arrived. So VR? But why go to a special place for VR? Unless it's the really really good VR?
"
Coda... meant to get to the main point which is that ScarJo is worth $70M because she makes the Advertising blitz work... without ScaJo, the Advertising would cost a *lot* more. She's a risk/cost mitigation strategy.
Which goes to the tangential point that you can pump out a lot of middling garbage without advertising, but who cares?
To whit... the counter point is: it doesn't matter anymore if we're not selling tickets to Movies, but to a service.
"
Reasonable... though I wonder if the 'low end' doesn't have to provide a new 'hook' to go to the trouble of getting to the theater and paying for something you can watch on your phone (even the poor have phones, I'm told). On the one hand, 'The Big Screen' experience might be better... but I'm not sure it's that much better any more... not with 4k screens, even if they are small. I'm imagining moving from Movies to 'Feelies' (h/t Brave New World) or some such other technological enhancement.
On the boutique side, agreed... we started going to the Alamo (which is definitely middlebrow) on account of reserved seating and beer/apps. There was a place in NoVA that was touted as boutique-y... but it was merely pretentious-Middle Brow, which is worse. Other than a private screening room, I've yet to be somewhere that I'd consider upscale.
"
That would make sense if content is consumed over time; though now that I think on it, there's no actual need for anyone to watch your movies... just subscribe to the service (as long as you're not modeling a premium charge for movies).
In this scenario, the goal is to be 'perceived' as having good content (or just enough) to warrant the $9.99 or $19.99 or whatever... whether you ever watch is not relevant anymore.
Tangentially, Lady Marchmaine and I were discussing how we cannot find anything we'd like to watch together despite our subscriptions to Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime (not to mention Cable with HBO). There's certainly a lot of content and to the industry's credit they've captured a lot of $$ from a household that isn't 'mainstream' ... but honestly, we're more lazy than anything else and not averse to cancelling subscriptions (which we do from time to time). For us, the content is neither good nor what we're looking for... but that's definitely a tangent.
On “Infrastructure Bill: Read It For Yourself”
"so any funds that might be moved to a recalcitrant Democratic Senator’s state will have to be applied for in the general plus ups that would be enacted."
That's what I said.
"
[ctrl-f] West Virginia
Results (1)
hmmn, looks like congress is on to us gang.
On “A Bad Number in A Good Cause: A Scientist’s Plea About COVID Vaccine Numbers”
"It is the opinion of Committee Minority Staff, based on the preponderance of available
information...."
send tweet.
On “Infrastructure Bill: Read It For Yourself”
Be right back...
...oh dear.
On “The Lawsuit That Could Define The Future Of The Film Industry”
Hey, why say in one sentence what I say in 9 paragraphs? This ain't twitter, bud.
"
I didn't quite follow the logic in this paragraph:
"That in itself would create a precedent that sets up the studios to see streaming as potentially a bigger platform to gross money with than the box office, and it could set up talent to really need major sway to get their films an exclusive theatrical run. It could also in a way be the death of “the movie star” as we know it, as major sought out talent could suddenly be pushed to the side by streaming giants who won’t have to pay as much now for said talent."
Are we assuming that 'block-buster movies' as streaming events will be similar to or replaced by, say, Game of Thrones type content where the ensemble cast is paid significantly less than a Scarlett Johansson? Perhaps.
But, I thought the economics of an SJ (or any 'Star') is that they generate revenue by anchoring the movie... in which case, SJ signing on for a retainer of $20M plus a projected $50M +/- in bonuses is just a business math project of cost/value. I'm not seeing how streaming as a medium changes that calculus, unless we're killing the block-buster itself.
What I think is really going on is a vertical integration/disruption of the distribution model where the Content Providers are eating their distributors and in so doing can provide their products at a lower price for the same net return... especially if they are using (legal or not) loopholes in distributing those revenues to the talent.
The most likely upshot is that actors like SJ will close the streaming loophole such that their projected value of $70M to the project is captured one way or another.
I don't see shifting the platform changing the $$, unless changing the platform also changes the paradigm... which it might.
Will streaming services become more expensive? Yes. Will we pay for 'premium content' - we already do.
Prediction: Once the theatres have been killed, theaters will re-open but only show, say, Disney+ content for a boutique viewing experience.
On “Linky Friday: But Wait…There’s More! Edition”
Right. What if years and years of practical reinforcement simply makes the CDC a grant distributing machine? It studies studies and funds studies for more studies. Someone has to do it. But, that's its core competency then. Not Pandemic Response Policy Making. Or let's say it moves at the speed of your average infectious disease. Like the way the FDA moves at the speed of cancer or chronic illness.
"
Yeah, but I'm not even interested in the Mask Efficacy wars... the point was to make the curve look, well, how it looks now.
I get that maybe we're seeing something that could get worse... but it isn't worse... the science and the data show that the vaccines are doing what we want them to do... make the pandemic manageable and reduce deaths. The answer is still vaccinations, not masks.
On “From GOP to Grand New Party: Starting A New Party With An Old Name”
To be sure... every election someone wins no matter what.
That's the game structure I'm looking to alter... it's not enough to not-lose, we should encourage a system that places hurdles to that minimalist behavior.
Change the rules, change the outcomes. Not saying I'll agree with the outcomes... but I already know the rules currently favor bad outcomes.
On “Linky Friday: But Wait…There’s More! Edition”
LF4: Don't have a detailed opinion on the CDC and that's probably how it should be. I do think, though, that institutionally it is adrift without any idea of what it's role is supposed to be. Could be a congressional issue, could be and Executive issue, could be plain bureaucratic mismanagement, could be all of the above or something else. No idea. But adrift it is.
I thought they completely botched the Mask easing, and honestly can't see any logic or 'science' behind their new 'guidance'. For me, it isn't that they were wrong at one point or another, its that they can't really articulate why and how they were wrong and why and how they are less wrong now.
I go to their own website to look at the information they are publishing regarding this 4th wave Delta variant... and see nothing but Vaccine public policy success.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailytrendscases
To be fair to everyone involved (self included) I'm keeping an eye on Excess deaths and will alter behavior if and when we see them spike in a manner that isn't as obviously mitigated as it is now. But no, I won't be masking in any form given the information we have now.
As a coda, while I'm personally surprised at how quickly daily vaccination rates dropped... it is still hovering at around 500k/day... and, given we're in the middle of summer, a natural dip in the flu cycle, and enjoying the collective benefits of 60% adult vaccination rates it doesn't surprise me that uptake is sluggish; I anticipate that as flu season approaches, and/or virulence noticeably increases vaccinations will increase.
If this were still the Trump presidency, I'd think the CDC was actively attempting to undermine his Presidency.
On “From GOP to Grand New Party: Starting A New Party With An Old Name”
I guess I would say they are not category errors, and here's why.
In the first case you mention the Neo-Con Consensus as a category error... but it's not a category error, it's exactly what a Political Consensus looks like in a multi-faction alignment. That is, the Neo-Con policy as it was embraced in it's anti-communist form was a more aggressive point-defense against communism... the SoCons and Libertarians had their own reasons to take a 'back-seat' to what this meant in practice. The Crack-up comes in the aftermath of 'victory' and the failure to pivot by the Neo-Cons such that the Existential Threat of Communism was replaced by the Existential Threat of Terrorism which began to expose aspects of the Neo-Con foreign Policy that, let's say, exceeded the scope of the consensus. Especially once the trigger event of 9/11 had faded (decades) into the distance. That's a pretty organic tale of a consensus drifting apart. Everyone in the consensus agreed with the Neo-Cons on the nature of our Existential threats, until we didn't.
Regarding the other example of a category error, Never Trump. I don't think that's mooted as an actual category/consensus rather than a brand. That is, all Democrats are Never Trump in one sense, but not obviously in the Brand sense. It's also why in my future predictions there's no consensus around who's *not* part of the consensus. My objection to Never Trump is precisely this sort of non-sense... it doesn't mean anything to be Never Trump and you don't build consensus politics around a void. Or, well, you oughn't.
Looked at this way, some people who voted for Trump were Never Romney and Some were Never Obama and Some were Never Clinton and others Never (another) Bush. We don't build coalitions around Nevers; or, well, we oughtn't. But that's also my consistent Meta-critique of Parties as lifestyle brands... they are bad parties and bad politics. If 'your' party is co-opted by people you'd 'Never' vote for, time for a new party. The fact that we have an ossified Duopoly is a problem for all of us, not just disaffected Never-/Anti-Trumpers. I've altered some of my political conversations to tactically deal with just the Duopoly first... RCV, Run-off systems, plurality systems, etc. Non-constitutional logistical reforms to elections to end the Lifestyle Party Brand system. It's doable. Precisely because we need consensus politics where the consensus can break and re-form tactically a'la politics and not require existential Regime change.
To make politics meaningful, we have to make them meaningless.
"
[Ahem] I believe table stakes 'round these parts for criticizing predictions about the future are putting your predictions on the table first.
Sure they are broad... that's the request... what can the party rally around. But honestly not sure which are so broad that either party is already proposing much less both.
On “Rejoice, Ye Peoples of the Land, ‘Tis Infrastructure Week Again!”
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Infrastructure Week shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d
"
I see in your eyes the same greed that would quicken the heart in me.
A day may come when the lust of men fails,
when we forsake our donors and break all bonds of patronage,
but it is not this day.
On “From GOP to Grand New Party: Starting A New Party With An Old Name”
Mighty kind, I was going to comment on your fine steel-manning of the opposition views above... but wasn't sure which one to single out... so consider this a blanket recognition.
"
Won't that just drive worsening housing and infrastructure problems? Why wouldn't we take a 21st century approach and leverage technology to put people and companies where the potable water *is* and the angry rising water *isn't*
If relocation is in the cards, I'm not seeing why we aren't actively relocating lots of things with, say, an Infrastructure Bill.
"
Companies of course... were you thinking *people* would just up and move?
"
Sure... that's why realignment keeps failing. Money/Power/Influence are all on the other team(s).
Worst case for me personally is the rhetoric is co-opted and the HR/Murdock Empire solidifies into, well, Mustapha Mond.
"
Good post. I feel like we've trod this ground since at least 2012... but the old consensus is dead, long live... well, that's the problem that your post is pretty good at... there's no new consensus. That's the really interesting thing.
I still think that 2016 was a failed re-alignment and 2020 will fail differently, but fail nonetheless (assuming Biden/Trump are still the prime movers)... but 2024? We'll know we're on the other side of the realignment when we're talking about how 2016 and 2020 were obviously transitionary periods that we all should have seen were harbingers for what we have (future) now. Duh.
So... my 'Duh' predictions:
*Economic Consensus: Stakeholder Capitalism... consider this an anti-Galt and anti-Technocrat synthesis.
*Social Consensus: Whole Life Policies... pro-natalist, pro-ethnic synthesis (anti-balkanization), pro-family, pro-multi-generational transition (which ties into Economic Transition)
*Government Consensus: Govt will be 'right-sized' not too big, not too small... most importantly, circumscribed to things it does well vs. things it doesn't.
*Global Consensus Foreign Policy: US will maintain military pre-eminence, under a restrained policy that is designed to preserve trade and isolate conflict, not resolve it.
*Global Consensus Economic: With Stakeholder Capitalism comes Labor Solidarity which disincentivizes Capital Flight/Arbitrage via Labor as Stakeholders and beneficiaries of Capital decisions.
I think there will be Leftish and Rightish flavors of the above... so never fear, plenty of things to find fault with how the other guys are doing things... but realignment stalks both parties.