Monday, August 1, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
In light of Pandora's recent I.P.O., I thought I'd publish my July 2009 email correspondence with founder Tim Westergren; a short exchange that started with the following bulk email he sent out to his users:
Hi, it's Tim-
I hope this email finds you enjoying a great summer Pandora soundtrack.
I’m writing with some important news. Please forgive the lengthy email; it requires some explaining.
First, I want to let you know that we’ve reached a resolution to the calamitous Internet radio royalty ruling of 2007. After more than two precarious years, we are finally on safe ground with a long-term agreement for survivable royalty rates – thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our listeners who voiced an absolute avalanche of support for us on Capitol Hill. We are deeply thankful.
While we did the best we could to lower the rates, we are going to have to make an adjustment that will affect about 10% of our users who are our heaviest listeners. Specifically, we are going to begin limiting listening to 40 hours per month on the web. Because we have to pay royalty fees per song and per listener, it makes very heavy listeners hard to support on advertising alone. Most listeners will never hit this cap, but it seems that you might.
We hate the idea of capping anyone's usage, so we've been working to devise an alternative for listeners like you. We've come up with two solutions and we hope that one of them will work for you:
Your first option is to continue listening just as you have been and, if and when you reach the 40 hour limit in a given month, to pay just $0.99 for unlimited listening for the rest of that month. This isn't a subscription. You can pay by credit card and your card will be charged for just that one month. You'll be able to keep listening as much as you'd like for the remainder of the month. We hope this is relatively painless and affordable - the same price as a single song download.
Your second option is to upgrade to our premium version called Pandora One. Pandora One costs $36 per year. In addition to unlimited monthly listening and no advertising, Pandora One offers very high quality 192 Kbps streams, an elegant desktop application that eliminates the need for a browser, personalized skins for the Pandora player, and a number of other features: http://www.pandora.com/
If neither of these options works for you, I hope you'll keep listening to the free version - 40 hours each month will go a long way, especially if you're really careful about hitting pause when you’re not listening. We’ll be sure to let you know if you start getting close to the limit, and we’ve created a counter you can access to see how many hours you’ve already used each month.
We’ll be implementing this change starting this month (July), I’d welcome your feedback and suggestions. The combination of our usage patterns and the "per song per listener" royalty cost creates a financial reality that we can't ignore...but we very much want you to continue listening for years to come.
Please don't hesitate to email me back with your thoughts.
I had a few issues with this email. Because I had never met 'Tim', I didn't like that he addressed me as if I knew him personally, which I felt (and feel) is an abuse of basic human manners and decency in the interests of making money. Don't make me feel like your friend in order to ask me for cash. Don't show images of intimate family life with moving music and then have the good-natured father character turn to the camera and say, 'Shouldn't you be insured with us?' Don't force employees to blatantly fake their emotions in the course their work; there is genuine service and then there is that psuedo-service stuff that is painful for everyone involved. In sociology they call this 'The Commodification of Affect' which can range from a cashier telling you to 'Have a Nice Day' (my sociology professor used to jokingly reply, 'Thanks, but I have other plans.' - I think I was one of the few in the class that found that funny) to a complete stranger extending his hand only to reveal his effort at solicitation, to a waiter forcing a smile, etc.
This is not trivial; it belies much deeper and more fundamental concerns regarding the permanent effect of commodification on our emotional and personal lives. After a certain point we unconsciously accept and embody much of this fake shite - shite has no bearing on true emotional expression and resonance.
There is an excellent (well, very dull, academic, and soporific) book on this subject: "The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling" by Arlie Russell Hochschild.
Anyhow in light of these sensitivities of mine I sent poor Tim a mean email:
Tim -To my complete shock Tim himself actually responded. This I rather liked; here's what he had to say:
The subscription model isn't going to cut it for your nascent service; while appealing on some fronts (unique music delivery, discovery of new music), it is problematic enough on others (redundant song selection, intrusiveness) that I'm not ready to pay for it. In other words, in the event this new "cap" effects my experience, I'm just not that attached to pandora to do anything but leave. It already asks me if I'm "still listening" far too often.
Alarm bells should go off anytime you are compelled to write a lengthy letter to a consumer. I don't know you on a first name basis, nor you I, so don't pretend that you do - it's evil. To commodify affect is wrong; don't fool yourself into doing it. A friendly message asking me to pay for something is one I learned long ago to ignore. The proof of your consumer sincerity is in the user's experience - nowhere else - and you are already sliding down a slippery slope.
If you cannot make money off of advertising, then you have a problem, as yours is already too invasive. Constantly apologizing for it only makes it worse.
Whether you like my blunt message or not, in me you have an ideal
early adopter. Yours is the type of service, if executed properly, that I would and have told others about. So why penalize what should be the segment of your consumer base you value most?
Hi Jeff -
Thanks a lot for taking the time to write such a lengthy and thoughtful reply. These really mean a lot to us – even if it’s something we don’t enjoy hearing!
Blunt is just fine.
Regarding the points you make, let me take a shot at responding:
Subscription is not something we expect more than a small percentage of listeners to choose. We know people rarely pay for such things. What we’re really saying is we can only afford 40 hours per month free per listener – that reflects the reality of advertising revenue.
You certainly make a worthy point on the mass ‘personal’ email. But I’m not sure what is a better alternative. We mean every word, and feel it’s important to provide an explanation to listeners who want to know why things have changed. Also, if anyone replies, we answer EVERY note personally and directly, like this.
In terms of making money off of advertising, if you feel our advertising is already too invasive, then I think subscription is the right answer for you. Services have to make money somehow, and the federally-mandated royalties are very high. That leaves advertising – and advertisers want to be noticed. If they’re not, they won’t pay for the placement. We try to be as elegant as we can, and I feel we strike a reasonable balance.
I welcome your advice on what we should do instead.
Here's my reply:
Tim,A bit more; he actually replied back to this:
I truly appreciate your personal reply - on that front you have
completely won me over and culminated a certain degree of loyalty,
therefore it was well worth your effort.
If i can offer any - perhaps less blunt - value in return, I'll tell you my thoughts solely from a consumer point of view, which I know you probably welcome. The last thing you need is a sycophant.
I am the type of consumer for whom everything on the web is still
"free". I don't pay for any service, and if one wants to charge me, I will find an alternative until one no longer exists (which hasn't happened yet). So that's out. I'm willing to bet I'm not alone and that your income from subscriptions is nominal.
By capping me you're actually encouraging me to find that alternative. So this week, for instance, I started listening to last.fm, something I'd never bothered to do before. Thus in effect you're chasing away an "early adopter" at the most critical time in the game. In five years the number of consumers using these kinds of services will be exponentially larger, so my suggestion is simply to hold on to what you have and do everything you can to grow your audience. Reward your heavy users, don't penalize them. The short term monetary gain pales in comparison to the long term benefit of a "word of mouth" consumer like myself. I spread the word, which has tangible value.
As far as advertising, I might ask if your site is really set up to fully utilize advertising potential. The layout seems an afterthought. Is it necessary for pandora to be flash-based? To what end do things need to glide and move? (For example, if I dislike a song, up glides a window that I then have to close, which says only that it won't play the song any more. That sort of thing could be designed more elegantly.) These things use up valuable real estate that could be making you more money.
Bottom line: "intelligent" radio is a revolution in music listening that will quickly become ubiquitous. Pandora is right on the crest of that wave. The rewards of preserving long-term vision are right around the corner. It will pay off to stick diligently to the principles that got you here: preserving the consumer experience.
Thanks again for your reply, much appreciated
- J.T. Storey
Thanks, Jeff. Really appreciate all the thought you put into this.
Alas, I agree with a lot of what you’re saying – and know that this impact is not going to be a good one. But I still don’t see an alternative.
Believe me, we’re doing everything we can to get the monetization engine running. It’s just a bloody expensive service to run !
I also think companies like ours need to be careful about competing with free. Eventually, anyone wanting to offer something like this either has to cope with the same economic realities as us, or become illegal. It hurts to get negative feedback, but I don’t know there’s another way.
My last reply:
Thanks Tim. Rooting for you and will continue to spread the word. Best of luck and hope my feedback helped.In this last bit I'm afraid I was still a bit caught up in the novelty of receiving an actual reply. Because of the Pandora subscription fee I did indeed switch over to last.fm (vastly superior). To further illustrate my fickle nature, in the last few months I have moved from last.fm to grooveshark.com, which actually allows you to type in any song and create a library that you can play in any order, giving me no reason to ever purchase a song again (not sure what the purpose is of the iCloud, for instance, when with grooveshark you can listen to any song on demand. Then again, not sure how grooveshark is even legal, but I digress).
- J.T. Storey
Having exposed myself to all these services, my initial criticism of Pandora stands firm: their catalog is too limited (a 'radio station' quickly starts playing repeats), their algorithm is limited (experts should group and link genres/songs, not similarities in sound waves; this generally has a ways to go), and their interface is very poor (go away flash!). UPDATE: Interface is changed for the better! But radio station loop identical to a year ago - same bloody songs!!!
Anyhow all this aside, I did appreciate my latest update from Pandora. It wasn't personal, but it was validating:
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Here's the quote:
"Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."This notion was really quite novel at the time. A new, fresh, and contemporary principle that trumped previous social structures and contributed greatly to the success of this country.
So why would we so foolishly abandon it now?
It is in the best interests of the aristocracy (why call it anything else?) to encourage and maintain as large and thriving a middle class as possible. When aristocrats begin to greedily sabotage our revolutionary American class structure (a structure perhaps more important than Representative Democracy itself, I would argue), then bad things will inevitably follow.
No matter where you stand on this issue, the pattern of 25% of wealth in 1% of the populace is indisputably wrong (unless you believe in a tiny elite class!). It is also a very familiar pattern, a mere shadow of the true social stratification evident in Europe in the 19th century and all over the world today.
To return to such a structure is absolute insanity, particularly when an historical precedent already exists regarding how such structures typically come to an end. We already know what will happen: systemic economic collapse, revolution, civil war, human suffering, etc.
And yet, there seems to be a movement afoot of near-giddy, gleeful destruction of basic programs and services. It is one thing to advocate small, streamlined government and a rigid scrutiny of how our public funds are used and misused.
It is another thing altogether to cut into the bone of basic American principles - for instance, the right of every child to receive a quality public education (no matter what your view on union power, etc. that right is indisputably in peril).
More important than ideology (as we all have valid and reasonable opinions, ideas, etc. on how society should work), are the emotional patterns that resonate throughout this debate. A polarizing fracture is underway consisting of seemingly innocuous complaints, poor jokes, innuendo, etc. - that belies a deeper and more fundamental schism tied up in long-standing notions of race, class, and culture.
Let us tackle difficult social issues (like a bloated and unsustainable deficit) with ethical integrity and empathy for our fellow man. This should be true of all of us, but particularly those so fortunate to reside in positions of relative privilege, power, and wealth.
If you make more than a few dollars a day, that's you!!!!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
If you call yourself 'American', let me ask you: What is remotely American about pointing fingers over our problems? Aren't we great pragmatists? Don't we roll up our sleeves and get the job done? As far as I know, this country was not built on blaming each other, but rather on working together to find real solutions, putting our petty quarrels aside for the greater good, always the GREATER GOOD.
If any of you are able to project into the future (and clearly, based on your childish behavior, you aren't), what do you suppose all this partisan posturing will ultimately lead to?
Do you see matters somehow miraculously resolving? Do you see 'the other side' somehow coming to their senses and agreeing with everything 'your side' believes?
Based on how viscerally you condemn one another, how wholeheartedly you distort each others' beliefs, ideas, and perspectives, you don't. (and HISTORY for the love of God! Where have all these 'historians' come from!?! Never have I witnessed such incredible interest in early American history, and never have I seen said history so painfully manipulated! With apologies to the ancestral residents of BOSTON, that fine Atlantic city!).
You see, when the two sides ignore the Greater Good and begin to behave only to spite, to inhibit, to arrest the other, then things do not miraculously get better, they GET WORSE. The behavior of one provokes a similar response from the other and vice versa - tit for tat so to speak (that should be French) - until the two perspectives are so divided that 'divided' is indeed the only way to describe them!
My sense is that most Americans still don’t understand this reality. They still imagine that when push comes to shove, our politicians will come together to do what’s necessary. But that was another country.- Paul Krugman, NY Times
In our recent election we had some paid 'progressive' political activist holding up a provocative sign and generally acting foolish until she was tackled by a cohort of 'tea partiers', one of which stepped on her head so violently she received a concussion. The media discussed things ad nauseum, the partisans pointed fingers at one another, the campaign suspended the fellow, the girl gave her interviews, all neither here nor there.
The real point was simple: violence.
Of the mildest variety.
Sooner or later we will see more of said violence, and it will be far bloodier. Someone will be killed. Maybe many. It will be spontaneous, reactionary, chaotic, and sudden, like all violence in history that portends what is to inevitably come - a fracture, a schism, a divide - reconciled only by... God knows.
And all the partisan folk (which apparently is everyone, as no one can think clearly enough to act in genuinely conciliatory and solution-oriented good faith), yes all the partisan folk will condemn this act of violence as the fault of 'the other'. It will only reinforce and reiterate all the things they already believe, and both sides will perceive it only as an attack on them, no matter how nuanced (or not, such things are rarely nuanced, are they?) the truth may really be.
And when people begin to spill blood over the divide, if history is any guide there is no going back (there is probably no going back now, but when blood is spilled, there is no going back from spilling more blood). And so we have....
A real one. Ugly. Horrific. As terrible a thing as we poor living creatures have ever known. Apparently our memories are short and we have forgotten that the last American Civil War, a mere 150 years ago (but a second of history), left more casualties then all other American wars combined, before or after.
At the moment we seem to be senselessly, almost gleefully, wishing this on ourselves, and that, in my humble opine, is foolish.
If you think I exaggerate, or go overboard, then how is it you see the future? Everyone kissing and making up later? All of this hyperbole and rhetoric evaporating into the ether? Perhaps 'YOUR' party taking power, solving everything? Have you really thought about that?
In the present milieu, if the country, a faltering ship in heavy seas, tips liberal, the conservatives scream and shout and do everything they can to prevent whatever they can. When they 'START' to undermine policies that they would clearly otherwise support, it is all a sham. All they want is power. The conch shell. And if the country tips conservative, remember all those masses marching in the streets not so long ago? Do you think they will be marching so peacefully? And what will you be doing to stop them? And how effective will it be?
Fracture. Divide. Tell me it isn't so.
I haven't lived long but I've read enough to see all the identical signs happening now that have, in the past, preceded terrible civil conflict. The parallels are astonishing. And once the dominoes are lined up it is only a matter of time before someone tips one over. Really, we have come that far (I think), and in today's accelerated, senselessly media-magnified world we would be surprised if what once took 50 years to happen now took but five.
What fools we are! I feel like Pierre in Tolstoy's 'War and Peace', looking around wonderingly at everything, marveling at that unseen force that compels us to move and act so wretchedly, so inhumanely!
Partisan fools, come to your senses!
If it is not already too late, reach out to your brother or sister and roll up your sleeves to genuinely work together! The lives of your loved ones may depend upon it!
Paul Krugman of the N.Y. Times is the first credible figure I know of to first state what to me seems very obvious. Read his article here.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Published in segments from 1873-77, Anna Karenina occupies a most ideal temporal location for sociopolitical discussion: mere years removed from the emancipation of the serfs (and American Civil War), mere years from the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, but a few years from the publication of Marx's Capital, and amidst a growing/continuing storm of discontent among the Russian people.
We, the reader, are recipients of the most wonderful gift literature can bestow upon us: we are allowed to eavesdrop on lives literally frozen in time upon the page. The issues of the age, the personalities, the characters, the society, and so forth are preserved (perfectly, thanks to Tolstoy) for us to observe and admire. We are so fortunate for it.
What I find interesting is how the topics of debate back then are not terribly dissimilar to now. What is different, however, is the cognitive framework in which these discussions take place.
Social issues, for instance, are rooted in individual morality, an inversion of how today's social sciences tend to construct what is essentially the same thing. (Chernyshevsky's "What is To Be Done?" follows this same pattern of inverted self/society).
Thus when the characters of Anna Karenina examine socioeconomic issues, we see a greater connection between the larger, general problem and the moral/ethical basis of the individual actions comprising that general problem.
Take, for instance, this fascinating discussion between Stepan Arkadyevitch Oblonsky (a very likable, but sort of morally lax fellow), Konstantin Dmitrievitch Levin (more rigid), and Vassenka Veslovsky (more or less a fool). In this scene Oblonsky is describing his visit to the very lavish estate of a nobleman who had "made his money by speculation in railway shares." The debate that follows is this:
"I don't understand you," said Levin, sitting up in the hay; "how is it such people don't disgust you? I can understand a lunch with Lafitte is all very pleasant but don't you dislike just that very sumptuousness? All these people, just like our spirit monopolists* in old days, get their money in a way that gains them the contempt of every one. They don't care for their contempt, and then they use their dishonest gains to buy off the contempt they have deserved."What is most striking about this is the degree of moralizing taking place: Levin (and apparently others) find profit gained via "speculation on the railways" to be dishonest! Today such gains would be considered either shrewd or lucky; inherently dishonest does not enter the equation.
Oblonsky smiled. "I simply don't consider him more dishonest than any other wealthy merchant or nobleman. They've all made their money alike: by their work and their intelligence."
"Oh, by what work? Do you call it work to get hold of concessions and speculate with them?"
"Of course its work. Work in this sense, that if it were not for him and others like him, there would have been no railways."
"But that's not work, like the work of a peasant or a learned profession."
"Granted, but its work in the sense that his activity produces a result - the railways. But of course you think the railways useless."
"No, that's another question; I am prepared to admit that they're useful. But all profit that is out of proportion to the labor expended is dishonest."
"But who is to define what is proportionate?"
"Making profit by dishonest means, by trickery," said Levin, conscious that he could not draw a distinct line between honesty and dishonesty. "Such as banking, for instance," he went on. "It is an evil - the amassing of huge fortunes without labor, just the same thing as with the spirit monopolies, it's only the form that's changed. Le roi est mort, vive le roi. No sooner were the spirit monopolies abolished then the railways came up, and banking companies; that, too, is profit without work."
That is because we find the idea of "profit out of portion to the labor expended" an entirely foreign one. Consider Levin's next culprit: banking. He does not condemn a corrupt bank or an irresponsible lender - no - he condemns banking in general as an evil: an example of the 'amassing of huge fortunes without labor'.
This, it seems to me, does indeed resonate with some of the earlier arguments I have made pertaining to contemporary America. Doesn't that sound like 'fictional wealth'? My own position does not go remotely so far; I am concerned with artificial and/or predatory means of pumping up a market, their necessity to economic obesity, and the inevitable consequences that follow: inequity, social stratification, widening disparity between rich and poor, etc.
I suggest we quickly begin to reconsider this question in a contemporary light, only perhaps we frame it so:
And where do find profit out of proportion to real value?
But let us first return to Anna Karenina and another conversation, this time between our good friend Stepan Arkadyevitch Oblonsky and Alexey Alexandrovitch Karenina:
The notion that a salary ought to conform to supply and demand, is, from a contemporary point of view, nearly incomprehensible. 'Immense salaries' in disproportion to the actual value of a position are so commonplace today that we really don't even consider the moral/ethical abuse inherent in them, as does Alexey Alexandrovitch in the example above. The best some of us can do is feebly protest the very highest, most ludicrously astronomical salaries (ever-decreasingly assigned via merit). Indeed, this sort of consideration falls entirely outside our lexicon.
"I consider, and I have embodied my views in a note on the subject, that in our day these immense salaries are evidence of the unsound economic assiette [basis] of our finances."
"But what's to be done?" said Stepan Arkadyevitch. "Suppose a bank director gets ten thousand - well he's worth it; or an engineer gets twenty thousand - after all, it's a growing thing, you know!"
"I assume that a salary is the price paid for a commodity, and it ought to conform with the law of supply and demand. If the salary is fixed without any regard for that law, as, for instance, when I see two engineers leaving college together, both equally well trained and efficient, and one getting forty thousand while the other is satisfied with two; or when I see lawyers and hussars, having no special qualifications, appointed directors of banking companies with immense salaries, I conclude that the salary is not fixed in accordance with the law of supply and demand, but simply through personal interest. And this is an abuse of great gravity in itself, and one that reacts injuriously on the government service."
The point is that in matters of economics today when it comes to ethics and morality we are able to offer only the most rudimentary considerations. Our country is young; thus we are suffering from a sort of Old World (and its global influences) amnesia. We have chosen to ignore the moral/ethical consequence of the 'immense salary' (i.e.; corporate management, wall street bonuses, etc.) and the 'huge amassed profit out of proportion to real value' (i.e.; 'housing debacle', predatory lending, etc.).
Due to this amnesia we are rediscovering and reinventing the very same world we once streamed out of in droves, and unless we are able to first acknowledge and then expel (forcefully) these immoral and repugnant practices, the promise and possibility that America represents will wane.
Thus senior corporate management earning obscene amounts so wildly out of line with what they actually do has a literal socioeconomic consequence and, in light of this, a moral one as well. In today's world we see virtually none of our actors taking moral responsibility - or even consideration - for their actions; instead they seem too busy defending and rationalizing indefensible positions. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Anywhere we can identify a set value wildly disproportionate to a product or service's real value, we know that trouble will eventually and necessarily ensue. We are slicing from a finite pie of social value: where one place receives some absurd amount disproportionate to its value, the other loses it. And where and who is this 'other' place? The poor, of course, hence the growing discrepancy.
The medical and insurance industries are perfect examples. Insurance companies, when they are in fact accountable for a bill, only agree to pay a portion of it (meaning the bill in full is a fiction). In response to this the hospital hikes its fees, and a game of cat and mouse ensues in which the consumer (or rather, the patient) becomes the ultimate victim, because in the event they must pay their own outrageous bill, they (for some reason) lack the leverage/rights afforded to the insurance companies to pay a reduced amount. They are stuck with the fictional value, so absurd most just throw up their hands and declare bankruptcy.
The fee hike is fictional because it is arbitrary. It does not reflect the real value of the product or service. Evidence of this is simply the obscene profits of insurance, medical, drug companies, etc... Something is out of whack, and it will necessarily catch up to us in terms of our overall economy, just as did the fictional wealth created by the banks and the housing market.
It is money unjustly made.
When we think of our economic health in an ethical sense - is profit derived from hard work? Ingenuity? Creativity? Persistence? Innovation? That is health. Is profit derived from trickery? Deception? Irresponsibility? Neglect? Predation? These are signs of sickness.
In short, call a doctor.
We need to return to a true sense of individual, moral/ethical accountability if our system is to have any future.
I heard on the radio today a woman talking about how their bank was 'unhappy' when she and her husband decided to purchase a house below their approved amount. As she put it, "We wanted to decide what we could afford, not the bank." The truth is they were very wise. The bank has some (MBA derived) equation that maximizes the very limits of affordability. They care absolutely nothing for their customer; it is all a means to derive the largest profit possible on the very margins of risk. That is wrong (as is the artificial cost of a home relative to earnings, but that is for another post).
Our economy and nation would be a far better place if we could only realize that genuine (not fabricated) consumer/citizen care and consideration results in a healthier life for all.
The current consumer/citizen is woefully exploited, especially the lesser among us. It is high time we realized the moral depravity of our current system.
Instead we seem hellbent on irrationally defending it. On the subject of 'immense salary', for instance, why is it a whole slew of Americans are engaged in a bizarre hero-worship of these very same characters who control a grossly disproportionate percentage of our nation's wealth (23.5%)? We seem no better than adoring sycophants. The best we can muster is jealousy, the worst a sort of delusional imitation. Sorry, but a fake Louis Vuitton purse, or for that matter a real one, does not make you a wealthy aristocrat!
To conclude, not too long ago these sorts of issues were discussed and considered quite freely among Americans. But since then, somehow, this notion of unrestrained capital - devoid of ethics, of morals, indeed of honor (to coin an oft-used word of late) - has sought and found refuge behind a protective shield of jingoism/patriotism. That, it strikes me, is a shame.
And not a terribly wise place to hide.
* Spirit Monopoly: The taxes on vodka became a key element of government finances in Tsarist Russia, providing at times up to 40% of state revenue. In 1863, the government monopoly on vodka production was repealed, causing prices to plummet and making vodka available even to low-income citizens