#market analysis pro | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

beastmarketing · 2 years ago

Text

guide to keyword research that is compatible with search engines

New Post has been published on https://abnoubshenouda-digitalmarketer.com/guide-to-keyword-research-that-is-compatible-with-search-engines/

guide to keyword research that is compatible with search engines

As a business owner or marketer, you are always looking for ways to improve your website’s visibility on search engines. One way to do this is by conducting effective keyword research. Keyword research is the process of identifying the words and phrases that your target audience is using to search for products, services, or information related to your business. By incorporating these keywords into your website content, you can optimize your website for search engines and increase your chances of ranking higher in search engine results pages (SERPs).

In this article, we will provide you with a comprehensive guide to keyword research that is compatible with search engines. We will cover everything you need to know to conduct effective keyword research, including:

Why keyword research is important for SEO

How to conduct effective keyword research

Tips for choosing the right keywords

Tools to help you with keyword research

How to analyze and refine your keyword strategy

By the end of this article, you will have a solid understanding of how to conduct effective keyword research and how to use this information to improve your website’s visibility on search engines.

Why Keyword Research is Important for SEO

Keyword research is a critical component of search engine optimization (SEO). When people search for information or products online, they use specific words and phrases to find what they’re looking for. By identifying the keywords that your target audience is using, you can optimize your website content for these terms and increase your chances of ranking higher in SERPs.

Keyword research can help you in the following ways:

Helps you understand your target audience: Keyword research can provide valuable insights into what your target audience is looking for and how they are searching for it. By understanding their search behavior, you can create content that meets their needs and helps you connect with them.

Improves your website’s visibility: By incorporating relevant keywords into your website content, you can increase your chances of ranking higher in search engine results pages (SERPs). This can help you attract more traffic to your website and increase your brand’s visibility online.

Enhances your content strategy: Keyword research can help you identify topics that are relevant to your target audience and create content that addresses their needs. This can help you establish your brand as an authority in your industry and build trust with your target audience.

How to Conduct Effective Keyword Research

Effective keyword research involves several steps. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you get started:

Step 1: Brainstorm Keywords

The first step in keyword research is to brainstorm keywords related to your business or industry. Think about the products or services you offer, the topics you cover, and the questions your target audience might have. Make a list of these keywords and phrases.

Step 2: Analyze Keyword Data

Once you have a list of potential keywords, it’s time to analyze the data to determine their search volume and competition level. There are several keyword research tools available that can help you with this, including:

Google Keyword Planner: This is a free tool that allows you to see the estimated search volume and competition level for specific keywords.

SEMrush: This is a paid tool that provides in-depth keyword analysis, including keyword difficulty, search volume, and competitor analysis.

Ahrefs: This is another paid tool that provides detailed keyword data, including search volume, keyword difficulty, and competitor analysis.

Using one of these tools, you can enter your list of keywords and analyze the data to determine which ones are most relevant to your business and have the highest search volume.

Step 3: Prioritize Keywords

Once you have analyzed the keyword data, it’s time to prioritize your keywords. Focus on the keywords with the highest search volume and relevance to your business. These are the keywords that your target audience is searching for and that are��most likely to drive traffic to your website.

Step 4: Refine Your Keyword List

Now that you have prioritized your keywords, it’s time to refine your list. Remove any keywords that are not relevant to your business or have low search volume. You should also consider the competition level for each keyword. Highly competitive keywords may be difficult to rank for, so it’s important to focus on keywords with a moderate level of competition.

Step 5: Analyze Competitor Keywords

It’s also important to analyze your competitors’ keywords. Identify your top competitors and analyze their website content to see what keywords they are targeting. This can help you identify new keywords to target and refine your existing keyword list.

Tips for Choosing the Right Keywords

Choosing the right keywords is essential for effective keyword research. Here are some tips to help you choose the right keywords for your business:

Use Long-Tail Keywords: Long-tail keywords are longer, more specific phrases that have less competition than shorter, more general keywords. They are often easier to rank for and can attract more qualified traffic to your website.

Consider Search Intent: When choosing keywords, consider the search intent behind them. Are people searching for information, products, or services? By understanding the search intent, you can create content that meets your target audience’s needs and drives conversions.

Use Local Keywords: If you have a local business, be sure to include local keywords in your keyword research. This can help you attract more local traffic to your website and improve your local search rankings.

Use Keyword Variations: Use different variations of your keywords to attract more traffic to your website. For example, if your main keyword is “SEO,” you could also target variations like “search engine optimization” or “SEO services.”

Tools to Help You with Keyword Research

Keyword research can be time-consuming, but there are several tools available that can help you streamline the process. Here are some of the best keyword research tools to consider:

Google Keyword Planner: This free tool provides keyword ideas, search volume data, and competition level for specific keywords.

SEMrush: This is a paid tool that provides in-depth keyword analysis, including keyword difficulty, search volume, and competitor analysis.

Ahrefs: This is another paid tool that provides detailed keyword data, including search volume, keyword difficulty, and competitor analysis.

Moz Keyword Explorer: This is a paid tool that provides keyword suggestions, search volume data, and keyword difficulty.

Ubersuggest: This is a free tool that provides keyword ideas, search volume data, and competition level for specific keywords.

How to Analyze and Refine Your Keyword Strategy

Keyword research is an ongoing process. Once you have implemented your keyword strategy, it’s important to regularly analyze and refine it to ensure it’s still effective. Here are some tips to help you analyze and refine your keyword strategy:

Monitor Your Rankings: Use a tool like Google Analytics or SEMrush to monitor your keyword rankings. This can help you identify keywords that are driving traffic to your website and those that need more attention.

Identify New Keyword Opportunities: Regularly review your website content and identify new keyword opportunities. Use keyword research tools to determine the search volume and competition level for these new keywords.

Analyze Competitor Keywords: Keep an eye on your competitors and analyze their keyword strategy. Identify new keywords to target and refine your existing keyword list.

Update Your Content: Regularly update your website content to include new keywords and ensure it remains relevant and useful to your target audience.

Conclusion

Keyword research is an essential component of search engine optimization. By identifying the keywords your target audience is using, you can optimize your website content and improve your chances of ranking higher in SERPs. Follow the

steps outlined in this guide to conduct effective keyword research for your business:

Start with a seed list of keywords.

Use keyword research tools to expand your list.

Prioritize your keywords based on relevance, search volume, and competition level.

Refine your list by removing irrelevant keywords and focusing on moderately competitive keywords.

Analyze your competitors’ keyword strategy to identify new keywords to target.

Remember to choose the right keywords for your business, using long-tail keywords, considering search intent, using local keywords, and using keyword variations. Use keyword research tools like Google Keyword Planner, SEMrush, Ahrefs, Moz Keyword Explorer, and Ubersuggest to streamline your keyword research process.

Once you have implemented your keyword strategy, regularly analyze and refine it to ensure its effectiveness. Monitor your keyword rankings, identify new keyword opportunities, analyze competitor keywords, and update your content regularly.

Effective keyword research can help you drive more traffic to your website and improve your search engine rankings. By following the steps outlined in this guide, you can conduct effective keyword research and develop a keyword strategy that works for your business.

read also

The Basics of Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

Why SEO is Essential for Your Digital Marketing Strategy

Maximizing Your ROI: The Science of Pay-Per-Click Advertising

2 notes · View notes

financefever · 2 years ago

Text

Forex - Has no End?

Riddle: What has no end, yet always comes back around?

Forex trading and stock trading are both popular investment options, but many people are unsure which one is better. Both forex and stocks offer the potential for profitability, but they also bring their own unique risks. To help you decide which one is right for you, let’s take a look at the pros and cons of forex trading versus stock trading.

When it comes to forex trading, the primary benefit is that it is a 24-hour market. This means that you can trade any time of day or night, regardless of the stock market hours. This can be particularly advantageous for investors who have busy schedules or who trade from different parts of the world. Additionally, forex trading allows you to trade on multiple currency pairs, giving you the potential to diversify your portfolio.

The downside of forex trading is that it is a highly leveraged market. This means that you can leverage your investments to a greater degree than you can with stocks, which can result in greater potential losses. Additionally, the forex market can be extremely volatile, making it difficult to predict future movements.

When it comes to stock trading, the primary benefit is that it is a regulated market. This means that stocks are traded under set rules and regulations, making it easier to protect your investments. Additionally, stock trading allows you to invest in individual companies and funds, giving you the potential to diversify your portfolio more than you can with forex.

The downside of stock trading is that you have to pay fees to trade stocks. These fees can add up quickly, making it difficult to make a profit on small trades. Additionally, stock markets tend to be less liquid than forex markets, making it more difficult to buy and sell stocks quickly.

Overall, forex trading and stock trading both offer the potential for profitability, but they also bring their own unique risks. Forex trading allows you to trade on multiple currency pairs and offers the potential for 24-hour trading, but it is highly leveraged and can be extremely volatile. Stock trading offers the potential to invest in individual companies and funds and is regulated, but it also comes with fees and is less liquid. Ultimately, the best choice for you will depend on your own personal goals and risk tolerance.

Answer to Riddle: The Stock Market

#“forex vs stocks which is more profitable”#“which is best forex or stock market”#“forex vs stocks for beginners”#“is technical analysis the same for forex and stocks”#“pros and cons of forex vs stocks”#“forex market vs stock market size”#“forex vs stocks which is more profitable reddit”#“forex stock price”#stock market #investors #investment #invest

4 notes · View notes

bitcoinversus · 2 months ago

Text

Record High for MicroStrategy Stock Fueled by Bitcoin Treasury

MicroStrategy Inc., led by Michael Saylor, has achieved a new all-time high in its stock price, reflecting the company’s strategic investments in Bitcoin. The stock’s surge aligns with Bitcoin’s recent ascent to unprecedented levels, surpassing $90,000. Record High for #MicroStrategy Stock Fueled by #Bitcoin Treasury.#BTC $BTC $MSTR pic.twitter.com/RKNtuuJCsw— BitcoinVersus.Tech…

#Bitcoin #corporate holdings #cryptocurrency #Donald Trump #investment #market analysis #Michael Saylor #MicroStrategy #pro-crypto sentiment #stock price

0 notes

cryptonewscentral · 5 months ago

Link

🔮✨ Unlock the magic of your trading strategy with Coinrule’s Backtesting Wizard! 🧙‍♂️🔍 See the future and fine-tune your portfolio with ease. Don’t let opportunities slip away—discover how backtesting can elevate your trading game! 💹🚀

#crypto trading #trading strategies #financial freedom #invest smart #trade like a pro #blockchain #crypto investment #market analysis #trading tips #crypto communiry

0 notes

karan777 · 5 months ago

Text

https://introspectivemarketresearch.com/reports/pro-speaker-market/

#Pro Speaker Market #Pro Speaker Size #Pro Speaker Growth #Pro Speaker Trend #Pro Speaker segment #Pro Speaker Opportunity #Pro Speaker Analysis 2024 #Pro Speaker Forecast

0 notes

awaketake · 1 year ago

Text

youtube

Exploding Topics Pro Pricing

This video is going to answer the question "How much does Exploding Topics Pro cost".

All Software-As-A-Service (SAAS) hosted online charge a subscription to keep their lights on.

That subscription also allows devs to improve the software on a daily basis. Exploding Topics Pro also costs a subscription.

But it has a huge database of topics, products, startups and trends.

That data + premium features gives you a big competitive advantage and profitable topics to pursue!

We are going to explore all plans: Entrepreneur, Investor and Business.

At the end of this Exploding Topics Pro Pricing video, you should be able to pick the best plan for you depending on your goals and budget.

If you are still on the fence, I will also show you how you can try any plan for 14 Days ($1 Paid Trial). No strings attached.

1 note · View note

yashvicmi01 · 1 year ago

Text

Global KVM and PRO AV Market Is Estimated To Witness High Growth Owing To Increasing Demand for High-Quality Audiovisual Products and Growing Adoption of Cloud-Based Solutions.

The global KVM and PRO AV market is estimated to be valued at US$284,522.3 million in 2021 and is expected to exhibit a CAGR of 10.8% over the forecast period 2021-2027, as highlighted in a new report published by Coherent Market Insights. A) Market Overview: The KVM and PRO AV market involve the integration of audiovisual technology with KVM (Keyboard, Video, and Mouse) switches to create immersive and interactive audio and visual experiences. These technologies find applications in various sectors such as healthcare, education, entertainment, corporate, and government. KVM switches enable centralized control and management of multiple devices, while PRO AV technologies enhance the quality and delivery of audio and video content. B) Market Dynamics: 1. Growing demand for high-quality audiovisual products: One of the major drivers of the KVM and PRO AV market is the increasing demand for high-quality audiovisual products. With the rise in digitalization and remote working trends, organizations require advanced audiovisual solutions to enhance communication, collaboration, and productivity. High-definition displays, video conferencing systems, and digital signage solutions are witnessing significant demand, driving the growth of the market. 2. Growing adoption of cloud-based solutions: Another driver of the market is the growing adoption of cloud-based solutions. Cloud-based PRO AV solutions offer flexibility, scalability, and cost-effectiveness, enabling organizations to streamline their audiovisual infrastructure. Cloud-based platforms also facilitate remote management and monitoring of audiovisual devices, providing enhanced control and convenience. The shift towards cloud-based solutions is expected to fuel the market growth during the forecast period. C) Segment Analysis: The KVM and PRO AV market can be segmented based on products, end-users, and regions. In terms of products, the market can be categorized into KVM switches, audio equipment, video equipment, control systems, and others. Among these, the video equipment segment is expected to dominate the market as it includes displays, projectors, and video walls, which are widely used in various applications. The increasing demand for large displays and digital signage for advertising and promotional activities is driving the growth of this segment. D) PEST Analysis: Political: The political landscape may influence the KVM and PRO AV market in terms of government regulations and policies related to the adoption and usage of audiovisual technologies. Economic: The economic factors, such as GDP growth, disposable income, and consumer spending, can impact the market's growth. The increasing investments in infrastructural development and technological advancements contribute to the market's expansion. Social: The socio-cultural factors, such as changing consumer preferences and increasing demand for digital entertainment and communication platforms, drive the growth of the KVM and PRO AV market. Technological: The technological advancements in audiovisual technologies, including 4K displays, wireless connectivity, and cloud-based solutions, propel the market's growth. The integration of AI and IoT in audiovisual devices is enhancing the user experience and driving market demand.

#KVM And PRO AV Market #KVM And PRO AV Market Analysis #KVM And PRO AV Market Overview #Information and Communication technologies

0 notes

furryrun · 1 year ago

Text

CRYPTOAİSİGNALS - PRO+

Navigate Crypto Markets with Precision: CryptoAISignals

Introduction:

In the dynamic world of cryptocurrency trading, staying ahead of market trends is crucial for success. At CryptoAISignals.com, we empower traders with cutting-edge tools, including Whale Hunter Signals and advanced crypto indicators. Elevate your trading experience with our premium services designed to keep you one step ahead in the crypto arena.

Whale Hunter Signals: Unlocking Market Secrets

Real-Time Whale Movement Analysis: With Whale Hunter Signals, gain insights into the movements of significant players in the crypto market. Stay informed about large transactions that can impact market dynamics.

Strategic Trading Opportunities: Identify strategic entry and exit points based on whale activities. Our signals are meticulously crafted to help you make informed decisions, enhancing the precision of your trading strategy.

Customized Alerts: Receive real-time alerts directly to your device, ensuring you never miss a significant market event. Tailor your notifications to suit your preferences and trading style.

Crypto Indicators: Navigating Market Trends

Comprehensive Technical Analysis: Our platform provides a range of crypto indicators, empowering you with the tools needed for in-depth technical analysis. Make well-informed decisions backed by robust market insights.

Market Sentiment Analysis: Understand market sentiment through our indicators, offering a comprehensive view of how traders feel about various crypto indicators. Use this valuable information to refine your trading strategy.

User-Friendly Interface: Accessing advanced indicators doesn't have to be complicated. Our user-friendly interface ensures that both novice and experienced traders can seamlessly incorporate these tools into their trading routine.

Trading Signals Telegram: Real-Time Updates at Your Fingertips

Instant Notifications: Join our Trading Signals Telegram channel for instant updates on market movements, new signals, and other crucial information. Stay connected with the market wherever you are.

Community Collaboration: Engage with a community of like-minded traders. Share insights, discuss market trends, and exchange ideas in a collaborative environment.

Accessible Information: Receive concise and actionable trading signals directly on Telegram, providing you with the information you need without overwhelming you with unnecessary details.

Why CryptoAISignals.com?

Precision and Accuracy: Crypto signals and indicators are designed with precision to provide accurate insights into market movements.

User-Centric Approach: Whether you are a beginner or an experienced trader, our user-friendly platform ensures an accessible and efficient trading experience.

Comprehensive Insights: From whale hunter signals to advanced indicators crypto trading signals offers a comprehensive suite of tools to meet all your trading needs.

Real-Time Updates: Stay ahead of the curve with real-time updates, ensuring you never miss a lucrative trading opportunity.

CryptoAISignals.com is your go-to platform for navigating the complex world of cryptocurrency trading. With whale hunter signals, advanced crypto indicators, and real-time updates on trading signals telegram, we provide the tools you need to trade with confidence. Join us at http://cryptoaisignals.com/ and embark on a journey of informed and successful crypto trading.

#Crypto #Crypto signals #Whale hunter

1K notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 year ago

Text

Brian Merchant’s “Blood In the Machine”

Tomorrow (September 27), I'll be at Chevalier's Books in Los Angeles with Brian Merchant for a joint launch for my new book The Internet Con and his new book, Blood in the Machine. On October 2, I'll be in Boise to host an event with VE Schwab.

In Blood In the Machine, Brian Merchant delivers the definitive history of the Luddites, and the clearest analysis of the automator's playbook, where "entrepreneurs'" lawless extraction from workers is called "innovation" and "inevitable":

https://www.littlebrown.com/titles/brian-merchant/blood-in-the-machine/9780316487740/

History is written by the winners, and so you probably think of the Luddites as brainless, terrified, thick-fingered vandals who smashed machines and burned factories because they didn't understand them. Today, "Luddite" is a slur that means "technophobe" – but that's neither fair, nor accurate.

Luddism has been steadily creeping into pro-labor technological criticism, as workers and technology critics reclaim the term and its history, which is a rich and powerful tale of greed versus solidarity, slavery versus freedom.

The true tale of the Luddites starts with workers demanding that the laws be upheld. When factory owners began to buy automation systems for textile production, they did so in violation of laws that required collaboration with existing craft guilds – laws designed to ensure that automation was phased in gradually, with accommodations for displaced workers. These laws also protected the public, with the guilds evaluating the quality of cloth produced on the machine, acting as a proxy for buyers who might otherwise be tricked into buying inferior goods.

Factory owners flouted these laws. Though the machines made cloth that was less durable and of inferior weave, they sold it to consumers as though it were as good as the guild-made textiles. Factory owners made quiet deals with orphanages to send them very young children who were enslaved to work in their factories, where they were routinely maimed and killed by the new machines. Children who balked at the long hours or attempted escape were viciously beaten (the memoir of one former child slave became a bestseller and inspired Oliver Twist).

The craft guilds begged Parliament to act. They sent delegations, wrote petitions, even got Members of Parliament to draft legislation ordering enforcement of existing laws. Instead, Parliament passed laws criminalizing labor organizing.

The stakes were high. Economic malaise and war had driven up the price of life's essentials. Workers displaced by illegal machines faced starvation – as did their children. Communities were shattered. Workers who had apprenticed for years found themselves graduating into a market that had no jobs for them.

This is the context in which the Luddite uprisings began. Secret cells of workers, working with discipline and tight organization, warned factory owners to uphold the law. They sent letters and posted handbills in which they styled themselves as the army of "King Ludd" or "General Ludd" – Ned Ludd being a mythical figure who had fought back against an abusive boss.

When factory owners ignored these warnings, the Luddites smashed their machines, breaking into factories or intercepting machines en route from the blacksmith shops where they'd been created. They won key victories, with many factory owners backing off from automation plans, but the owners were deep-pocketed and determined.

The ruling Tories had no sympathy for the workers and no interest in upholding the law or punishing the factory owners for violating it. Instead, they dispatched troops to the factory towns, escalating the use of force until England's industrial centers were occupied by literal armies of soldiers. Soldiers who balked at turning their guns on Luddites were publicly flogged to death.

I got very interested in the Luddites in late 2021, when it became clear that everything I thought I knew about the Luddites was wrong. The Luddites weren't anti-technology – rather, they were doing the same thing a science fiction writer does: asking not just what a new technology does, but also who it does it for and who it does it to:

https://locusmag.com/2022/01/cory-doctorow-science-fiction-is-a-luddite-literature/

Unsurprisingly, ever since I started publishing on this subject, I've run into people who have no sympathy for the Luddite cause and who slide into my replies to replicate the 19th Century automation debate. One such person accused the Luddites of using "state violence" to suppress progress.

You couldn't ask for a more perfect example of how the history of the Luddites has been forgotten and replaced with a deliberately misleading account. The "state violence" of the Luddite uprising was entirely on one side. Parliament, under the lackadaisical leadership of "Mad King George," imposed the death penalty on the Luddites. It wasn't just machine-breaking that became a capital crime – "oath taking" (swearing loyalty to the Luddites) also carried the death penalties.

As the Luddites fought on against increasingly well-armed factory owners (one owner bought a cannon to use on workers who threatened his machines), they were subjected to spectacular acts of true state violence. Occupying soldiers rounded up Luddites and suspected Luddites and staged public mass executions, hanging them by the dozen, creating scores widows and fatherless children.

The sf writer Steven Brust says that the test to tell whether someone is on the right or the left is simple: ask whether property rights are more important than human rights. If the person says "property rights are human rights," they are on the right.

The state response to the Luddites crisply illustrates this distinction. The Luddites wanted an orderly and lawful transition to automation, one that brought workers along and created shared prosperity and quality goods. The craft guilds took pride in their products, and saw themselves as guardians of their industry. They were accustomed to enjoying a high degree of bargaining power and autonomy, working from small craft workshops in their homes, which allowed them to set their own work pace, eat with their families, and enjoy modest amounts of leisure.

The factory owners' cause wasn't just increased production – it was increased power. They wanted a workforce that would dance to their tune, work longer hours for less pay. They wanted unilateral control over which products they made and what corners they cut in making those products. They wanted to enrich themselves, even if that meant that thousands starved and their factory floors ran red with the blood of dismembered children.

The Luddites destroyed machines. The factory owners killed Luddites, shooting them at the factory gates, or rounding them up for mass executions. Parliament deputized owners to act as extensions of law enforcement, allowing them to drag suspected Luddites to their own private cells for questioning.

The Luddites viewed property rights as just one instrument for achieving human rights – freedom from hunger and cold – and when property rights conflicted with human rights, they didn't hesitate to smash the machines. For them, human rights trumped property rights.

Their bosses – and their bosses' modern defenders – saw the demands to uphold the laws on automation as demands to bring "state violence" to bear on the wholly private matter of how a rich man should organize his business. On the other hand, literal killing – both on the factory floor and at the gallows – was not "state violence" but rather, a defense of the most important of all the human rights: the rights of property owners.

19th century textile factories were the original Big Tech, and the rhetoric of the factory owners echoes down the ages. When tech barons like Peter Thiel say that "freedom is incompatible with democracy," he means that letting people who work for a living vote will eventually lead to limitations on people who own things for a living, like him.

Then, as now, resistance to Big Tech enjoyed widespread support. The Luddites couldn't have organized in their thousands if their neighbors didn't have their backs. Shelley and Byron wrote widely reproduced paeans to worker uprisings (Byron also defended the Luddites in the House of Lords). The Brontes wrote Luddite novels. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was a Luddite novel, in which the monster was a sensitive, intelligent creature who merely demanded a say in the technology that created him.

The erasure of the true history of the Luddites was a deliberate act. Despite the popular and elite support the Luddites enjoyed, the owners and their allies in Parliament were able to crush the uprising, using mass murder and imprisonment to force workers to accept immiseration.

The entire supply chain of the textile revolution was soaked in blood. Merchant devotes multiple chapters to the lives of African slaves in America who produced the cotton that the machines in England wove into cloth. Then – as now – automation served to obscure the violence latent in production of finished goods.

But, as Merchant writes, the Luddites didn't lose outright. Historians who study the uprisings record that the places where the Luddites fought most fiercely were the places where automation came most slowly and workers enjoyed the longest shared prosperity.

The motto of Magpie Killjoy's seminal Steampunk Magazine was: "Love the machine, hate the factory." The workers of the Luddite uprising were skilled technologists themselves.

They performed highly technical tasks to produce extremely high-quality goods. They served in craft workshops and controlled their own time.

The factory increased production, but at the cost of autonomy. Factories and their progeny, like assembly lines, made it possible to make more goods (even goods that eventually rose the quality of the craft goods they replaced), but at the cost of human autonomy. Taylorism and other efficiency cults ended up scripting the motions of workers down to the fingertips, and workers were and are subject to increasing surveillance and discipline from their bosses if they deviate. Take too many pee breaks at the Amazon warehouse and you will be marked down for "time off-task."

Steampunk is a dream of craft production at factory scale: in steampunk fantasies, the worker is a solitary genius who can produce high-tech finished goods in their own laboratory. Steampunk has no "dark, satanic mills," no blood in the factory. It's no coincidence that steampunk gained popularity at the same time as the maker movement, in which individual workers use form digital communities. Makers networked together to provide advice and support in craft projects that turn out the kind of technologically sophisticated goods that we associate with vast, heavily-capitalized assembly lines.

But workers are losing autonomy, not gaining it. The steampunk dream is of a world where we get the benefits of factory production with the life of a craft producer. The gig economy has delivered its opposite: craft workers – Uber drivers, casualized doctors and dog-walkers – who are as surveilled and controlled as factory workers.

Gig workers are dispatched by apps, their faces closely studied by cameras for unauthorized eye-movements, their pay changed from moment to moment by an algorithm that docks them for any infraction. They are "reverse centaurs": workers fused to machines where the machine provides the intelligence and the human does its bidding:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/17/reverse-centaur/#reverse-centaur

Craft workers in home workshops are told that they're their own bosses, but in reality they are constantly monitored by bossware that watches out of their computers' cameras and listens through its mic. They have to pay for the privilege of working for their bosses, and pay to quit. If their children make so much as a peep, they can lose their jobs. They don't work from home – they live at work:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/22/paperback-writer/#toothless

Merchant is a master storyteller and a dedicated researcher. The story he weaves in Blood In the Machine is as gripping as any Propublica deep-dive into the miserable working conditions of today's gig economy. Drawing on primary sources and scholarship, Blood is a kind of Nomadland for Luddites.

Today, Merchant is the technology critic for the LA Times. The final chapters of Blood brings the Luddites into the present day, finding parallels in the labor organizing of the Amazon warehouse workers led by Chris Smalls. The liberal reformers who offered patronizing support to the Luddites – but didn't imagine that they could be masters of their own destiny – are echoed in the rhetoric of Andrew Yang.

And of course, the factory owners' rhetoric is easily transposed to the modern tech baron. Then, as now, we're told that all automation is "progress," that regulatory evasion (Uber's unlicensed taxis, Airbnb's unlicensed hotel rooms, Ring's unregulated surveillance, Tesla's unregulated autopilot) is "innovation." Most of all, we're told that every one of these innovations must exist, that there is no way to stop it, because technology is an autonomous force that is independent of human agency. "There is no alternative" – the rallying cry of Margaret Thatcher – has become our inevitablist catechism.

Squeezing the workers' wages conditions and weakening workers' bargaining power isn't "innovation." It's an old, old story, as old as the factory owners who replaced skilled workers with terrified orphans, sending out for more when a child fell into a machine. Then, as now, this was called "job creation."

Then, as now, there was no way to progress as a worker: no matter how skilled and diligent an Uber driver is, they can't buy their medallion and truly become their own boss, getting a say in their working conditions. They certainly can't hope to rise from a blue-collar job on the streets to a white-collar job in the Uber offices.

Then, as now, a worker was hired by the day, not by the year, and might find themselves with no work the next day, depending on the whim of a factory owner or an algorithm.

As Merchant writes: robots aren't coming for your job; bosses are. The dream of a "dark factory," a "fully automated" Tesla production line, is the dream of a boss who doesn't have to answer to workers, who can press a button and manifest their will, without negotiating with mere workers. The point isn't just to reduce the wage-bill for a finished good – it's to reduce the "friction" of having to care about others and take their needs into account.

Luddites are not – and have never been – anti-technology. Rather, they are pro-human, and see production as a means to an end: broadly shared prosperity. The automation project says it's about replacing humans with machines, but over and over again – in machine learning, in "contactless" delivery, in on-demand workforces – the goal is to turn humans into machines.

There is blood in the machine, Merchant tells us, whether its humans being torn apart by a machine, or humans being transformed into machines.

Brian and I are having a joint book-launch tomorrow night (Sept 27) at Chevalier's Books in Los Angeles for my new book The Internet Con and his new book, Blood in the Machine:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-internet-con-by-cory-doctorow-blood-in-the-machine-by-brian-merchant-tickets-696349940417

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/26/enochs-hammer/#thats-fronkonsteen

#pluralistic #books #reviews #brian merchant #luddism #automation #history #gift guide #steampunk #makers #tina #inevitablism #reverse centaurs #amazon #arise

548 notes · View notes

alwaysbewoke · 7 months ago

Text

49 notes · View notes

waitmyturtles · 1 year ago

Text

THE MORNING AFTER: ONLY FRIENDS, EPISODE 12 -- WHEN ONLY FRIENDS GOT 2GETHER-ED

TRIGGER WARNING: EVERYONE'S UP FOR CRITICISM HERE, JOJO AND TEAM, FORCEBOOK, FIRSTKHAO, ALL OF THEM. Read at your peril.

Well. Big deep breaths. I spent a lot of time on a show that had been marketed as not-a-BL, that ended as a BL. As a mom with not that much time to spend on watching and writing on dramas that were marketed incorrectly, I am feeling some kinda way (fucking pissed off).

So many people had amazing takes yesterday, on both sides of the aisle, regarding how the show ended (pro-ending here, anti-ending here, here, here, here, here, and here, and my dear friends @neuroticbookworm and @lurkingshan did heavy lifting on reblogs yesterday, so stroll on over to their blogs for more).

I want to set up a constellation of points to touch upon before I get into the meat of this post.

1) I referred quite a bit to my review of Theory of Love throughout my watch of Only Friends. In that review, I meditate on how the majority of the general global public judges sex, and casual sex, and people who have sex and/or casual sex. Generally speaking -- even in countries that makes as progressive art on sex and sexuality as Thailand and the United States -- that's a rule of thumb that I can rely on. Sex is judged by the majority of the global public.

2) I hate to say it. I cannot believe this happened. But I was right about monogamy being an ultimate theme in Only Friends. Not just a theme, fam. A theme by which people judged others for having open, casual, and consensual sex. Queer sex. Queer sex that is so very often had outside of the constraints of a monogamous relationship.

There was a reason why that holiday party was populated by couples, except for Boston, and Boston had to grovel to them in apology for their friendship. In Only Friends: monogamy wins, and casual queer sex loses.

3) Unfortunately, in part though an analysis of Cheum inside of last week that I accidentally started (ha), I see that points 1 and 2 come together to have created a fabric and framework of judgement that Only Friends ended on.

The last paragraph in this excellent post by @benkaaoi notes that the assumption by a large portion of the OF fandom that the creative choices that were made to end this series were designed to save the sanctity -- economic and otherwise -- of the shipped pairs of ForceBook and FirstKhao. This rings true to me.

Most of the BL shows that I've watched this year are older shows, through my Old GMMTV Challenge, in which I've been studying the changes over time that GMMTV and other Thai networks, have made towards their editorial choices, attitudes, and risks in producing BLs. I included Only Friends on this syllabus to note the show's impact as a kind of zeitgeist measure of how much heat and literary controversy GMMTV could take in airing increasingly progressive queer media -- even though Only Friends wasn't originally intended to be a BL.

To the theory that Only Friends needed to save the ships... and to another theory that the ships needed to be saved in the most moralistically judgmental way that I could have ever imagined (I was actually blown away by how heavy-handed this messaging was) -- I look to the ending of 2gether.

The majority general reaction to the ending of 2gether from within the existing BL fandom in 2020, was one of guffawed incredulousness. BrightWin/SarawatTine did not kiss in the first season of 2gether. It took Aof Noppharnach to come in to make Still 2gether to indicate that these two young men may have been at least vaguely sexual with each other throughout the course of their fictional relationship.

Yet, 2gether was a massive success. Many theorize it was because 2gether was the first big BL to air during the start of the COVID pandemic, and new BL fans had time to be at home and watch shows. But I posit in my 2gether/Still 2gether review that 2gether was also successful PRECISELY BECAUSE IT LACKED SEX (and by sex here, I mean plain old kissin').

As I stated earlier: sex is judged by the majority of the global public. With BrightWin NOT kissing, new fans who may have been implicitly and/or explicitly turned off by physical depictions of queer love could glom comfortably onto 2gether, and watch a BL without the "threat" of physical depictions of two men expressing their love to each other.

Subsequently, BrightWin gained massive social media followings, 2gether made GMMTV buckets of money, and GMMTV went -- well, hot diggity.

Many of us had impressions of Only Friends as...something else than it ended up being. Early on, Jojo Tichakorn, for instance, cited an early non-GMMTV, non-BL show, Gay OK Bangkok, that he and Aof Noppharnach worked on in 2016 and 2017, as being referential to Only Friends. Gay OK Bangkok centered on a group of queer friends, mostly cisgender men with Jennie Panhan in the mix, as they lived their lives and dated away in Bangkok.

I'll tell ya, GOKB didn't end the way Only Friends did, and I'll get into that more in a bit. I believe @benkaaoi, @lurkingshan, and others are absolutely right that the ultimate moralization on casual sex that this show depicted -- and how Only Friends punished Boston for his casual sex -- was an economic decision designed to reflect on the sanctity of monogamy that shipped couples like ForceBook and FirstKhao can sell back to their fans, fans that may have actually flocked to GMMTV shows from 2gether, and that demand a fantasy of devoted monogamy from both fictional characters and professional actors who are actually only just doing fan service to earn their livings. GMMTV has known for a long time how to make money, and money the network doth has made from Only Friends, and from shipping their ships around the world to service the growing fandom.

Casual sex in fiction, casual sex that breaks up the ships.... fucks that economic shit all up.

GMMTV has taught us our lesson, a lesson that we had already learned from the no-kissing rule of 2gether. Loose lips shall not sink ships at this network. And I think we lost a chance for a big and progressively artistic zeitgeist that GMMTV could have taken risks on, if it had the courage to risk depicting something truly novel.

I want to note quickly another framework that I dug into while I was watching this show. I sent a flare to @lurkingshan before I started watching the episode that I was going to, in part, watch this last episode from my personal Asian lens. I wanted to ask myself, as I was watching this disaster -- is there anything happening here that strikes my heart with fear and doom as an Asian?

Indeed, yes. I didn't expect it, but there was a dialogue on individualism vs. collectivism.

Boston. My dear, sweet Boston. Boston, named after a city so very distant from Bangkok.

Boston was punished by his group of friends because he didn't adhere to the rules of the group. His individualistic actions and preferences -- his preferences to "roll alone," as Nick stated, would not work in the frameworks of either monogamy with Nick and/or the group dynamics of the hostel crew.

The link I linked above is an amazing answer to an inquiry I posed to dear @absolutebl last year about how Asian social collectivist paradigms are depicted in BLs. In that question-and-answer dialogue, I asked ABL Sensei about the motif of queer revelations in BLs, and how seemingly straight characters respond in kind to being approached with a proposition to a queer dalliance and/or relationship. Generally speaking, the Asian collectivist mindset is to at least attempt to respond in kind to those kinds of propositions, as one's behavioral habits are designed to be responsive to others instinctually, as opposed to only servicing oneself. To only service oneself is not only seen as selfish, but also as disturbing to the general flow of public existence among one's societies. To respond in kind means that you will not cause potentially disturbing angst to another individual or group. (Collectivism explains why Asian countries performed much better with mask mandates during the pandemic than we in the States did.)

So -- Boston filming Ray, Boston sleeping with Top, created waves in the friend group. He was so severely punished for it.

And the show iterates, and repeats, Nick's preference that Boston move forward alone in Boston's life, because of Boston's tendencies to make decisions that suit himself. As an Asian-American, I mutter to myself: god forbid.

Nick will not commit to Boston -- and yet, will also condemn Boston for making his own decisions outside of the specter of a monogamy that does not exist between Nick and Boston, and that Boston will still get judged for, as referenced in the Sand/Nick conversation depicted above.

In other words: if Boston makes a decision for himself? That's punishable. Because it might hurt someone else's feelings -- a someone else that actually hasn't committed to Boston, and/or allowed Boston to commit himself to.

This group caught Boston in a moralistic and collectivist catch-22, the likes of which I just would have never expected from Jojo and team, even if the creative team faced the economic pressures of the GMMTV bigwigs. I'm sorry to state that I am beyond disappointed in this condemnation of individualism, sending Boston alone, judged, and friendless, off to New York City to live in, what, the immoral boundaries of Chelsea? Homey, get a fucking SWEET-ASS PAD, and FUCK THESE LOSERS, leave 'em BEHIND in your cloud of airplane gas emissions. See you at the La Quinta rooftop bar on 32nd Street, friendo.

Only Friends could have ended so much better. And I understand that in the Only Friends novel, published AFTER the script was finished, that it did end somewhat better for Boston (cc @jinitak, reporting from Thailand, thank you for this heads-up about the novel!).

So. Any-fucking-way. Do y'all know how Gay OK Bangkok ended?

Of many lovely endings for the various GOKB characters, an older main character, Aof, was dating a much younger character, Big. (CC to @neuroticbookworm for our quick convo on this last night.)

Aof was sex-averse. Big wanted lots of sex. Big slept with a lot of people. He loved Aof. Aof couldn't handle Big having sex with other people, and they broke up. It was a lovingly handled break-up, written just gorgeously by Aof Noppharnach.

After their break-up, I thought Big would disappear from the show. Instead. Instead! Nong Big, the little brother to the core group of queer friends that centered GOKB, was welcomed back with open arms. Arm, Pom, Sathang (played by an effervescent Jennie Panhan), and others toasted to Big, telling him he would always be family, no matter if him and his ex, Aof, had broken up. In the queer circles of friends that I'm a part of, exes are not as commonly excommunicated as they are in straight circles.

Only Friends could have been this. Something, a little something, like this.

Instead, Only Friends punished a friend for acting outside of the rules of their group.

Boston was punished because.... because Only Friends had to end up being a BL. For the sake of the moolah, for the sake of collectivism, for the sake of the shippers who'll buy tickets around the world to see ForceBook and FirstKhao perform fan service on stage.

I just didn't think that the show would be so brutal, on so many levels, in the end, to people who want to have casual sex. I don't think any of us expected this. But, it's over, it's done, and the piece has been said -- GMMTV said, no casual sex today, and here's how we actually feel about it.

I'll see you over on Gagaoolala for Playboyy. Deuces, OF.

(It was an absolute pleasure writing meta with the Ephemerality Squad -- onto the next one! @lurkingshan @neuroticbookworm @ranchthoughts @twig-tea @slayerkitty @thatgirl4815 @distant-screaming @clara-maybe-ontheroad)

163 notes · View notes

olderthannetfic · 1 year ago

Note

As someone who's been wondering why there've been so many senseless, needless arguments online about a hypothetical derth of purity in fiction and how it affects people negatively (it doesn't), now learning from several friends who are teachers (with the oldest being a uni professor) that Gen Z (27-11 yo) and Gen Alpha can't read, have poor media literacy, and soley seek fiction to reaffirm their own worldviews without curiosity and with judgement (and a lot of it). I say this as someone who is Gen Z. I'm only 26 years old, but I'm also a TA right now while I'm in grad school. it's not just the middle school and high school students. College students who should be able to do simple literary analysis cannot. Sure these issues (puritanical thinking, absent/poor parenting, lackluster curriculum, etc) have always existed, but with this in mind, it absolutely makes sense why there's so much dumb discourse over things in media that anyone with sense could separate from reality. Even simple things that you learn in elementary school at 6 years old, like "just because the story is focalized through a specific character, doesn't mean they're correct/the protagonist≠morally righteous/you're not always supposed to agree with the POV character or main characters." Maybe it really is the case that, sure some people are being deliberately obtuse, but there are also others who probably don't know.

I've seen it explained to people in fandom and on tumblr with popular series people have read or seen. No, you're not supposed to think Light Yagami is a good guy or a hero. "L is the straightforward hero in Death Note the whole time" isn't clever. It's the main text. No, you're not supposed to agree with Eren Jaeger or military fascists. "SNK is pro military and pro genocide" is just inaccurate. All the characters exhibiting those traits are killed to signal the flaws in their rhetoric. It's actually really unambiguous in that regard, not at all subtle. No, x shoujo/YA fantasy/Ya romance isn't advocating for middle school or high school girls to date men in their mid-20s. Teen girls have always fantasized about adults they find attractive, and these stories (made for and marketed to teen girls) fulfills that desire while protecting them from the possibility of that reality (an adult returning their feelings). No, it's not weird that mythological gods (but I see people mostly complaining about Greek and Egyptian ones) are related. It's purposeful. They're all related concepts and personifications of nature, which is all connected. Get over yourselves. No, it's not weird that gothic stories have incest in them. It was a common practice among aristocracy and nobility all around them world (so, not just a "white people thing"), and it typically symbolizes the decay as social norms. If you feel discomfort, then the story was successful.

On the one hand, sure. It's purity culture, ignorance, misogyny, etc. On the other hand, do the people who harp on about these actually know how to interpret stories? I'm often told "They can't read" as an explanation by others. I'm starting to think it's true, and I don't know how to combat that as someone who may be an educator down the road myself while also being involved in fandom.

I'd say it's about 50/50 the usual The Kids These Days scaremongering and a genuine shift.

Reading comprehension can be taught. I was taught to analyze passages in school. Students have to be open to learning, but it's not like some critical language thing you need to absorb before the age of two: a college student who's actually interested in getting better can perfectly well do so, possibly with some help or possibly just with experience.

Plenty of it is anxiety about being wrong and immoral and hurting people too. It's fundie thinking where listening and engaging means capitulating. Lots of people do slowly get over this. Many will calm down about it if they ever get the anxiety meds they so desperately need. Some would probably benefit from ceasing to self harm via social media doomscrolling or exclusively consuming attention span-destroying, FOMO-inducing garbage.

...I say as I answer tumblr asks instead of getting out of bed to start my New Year's resolutions.

112 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 7 months ago

Text

F.6.3 But surely market forces will stop abuses by the rich?

Unlikely. The rise of corporations within America indicates exactly how a “general libertarian law code” would reflect the interests of the rich and powerful. The laws recognising corporations as “legal persons” were not primarily a product of “the state” but of private lawyers hired by the rich. As Howard Zinn notes:

“the American Bar Association, organised by lawyers accustomed to serving the wealthy, began a national campaign of education to reverse the [Supreme] Court decision [that companies could not be considered as a person]… . By 1886, they succeeded … the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were ‘persons’ and their money was property protected by the process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment … The justices of the Supreme Court were not simply interpreters of the Constitution. They were men of certain backgrounds, of certain [class] interests.” [A People’s History of the United States, p. 255]

Of course it will be argued that the Supreme Court is chosen by the government and is a state enforced monopoly and so our analysis is flawed. Yet this is not the case. As Rothbard made clear, the “general libertarian law code” would be created by lawyers and jurists and everyone would be expected to obey it. Why expect these lawyers and jurists to be any less class conscious then those in the 19th century? If the Supreme Court “was doing its bit for the ruling elite” then why would those creating the law system be any different? “How could it be neutral between rich and poor,” argues Zinn, “when its members were often former wealthy lawyers, and almost always came from the upper class?” [Op. Cit., p. 254] Moreover, the corporate laws came about because there was a demand for them. That demand would still have existed in “anarcho”-capitalism. Now, while there may nor be a Supreme Court, Rothbard does maintain that “the basic Law Code … would have to be agreed upon by all the judicial agencies” but he maintains that this “would imply no unified legal system”! Even though ”[a]ny agencies that transgressed the basic libertarian law code would be open outlaws” and soon crushed this is not, apparently, a monopoly. [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 234] So, you either agree to the law code or you go out of business. And that is not a monopoly! Therefore, we think, our comments on the Supreme Court are valid (see also section F.7.2).

If all the available defence firms enforce the same laws, then it can hardly be called “competitive”! And if this is the case (and it is) “when private wealth is uncontrolled, then a police-judicial complex enjoying a clientele of wealthy corporations whose motto is self-interest is hardly an innocuous social force controllable by the possibility of forming or affiliating with competing ‘companies.’” [Wieck, Op. Cit., p. 225] This is particularly true if these companies are themselves Big Business and so have a large impact on the laws they are enforcing. If the law code recognises and protects capitalist power, property and wealth as fundamental any attempt to change this is “initiation of force” and so the power of the rich is written into the system from the start!

(And, we must add, if there is a general libertarian law code to which all must subscribe, where does that put customer demand? If people demand a non-libertarian law code, will defence firms refuse to supply it? If so, will not new firms, looking for profit, spring up that will supply what is being demanded? And will that not put them in direct conflict with the existing, pro-general law code ones? And will a market in law codes not just reflect economic power and wealth? David Friedman, who is for a market in law codes, argues that ”[i]f almost everyone believes strongly that heroin addiction is so horrible that it should not be permitted anywhere under any circumstances anarcho-capitalist institutions will produce laws against heroin. Laws are being produced on the market, and that is what the market wants.” And he adds that “market demands are in dollars, not votes. The legality of heroin will be determined, not by how many are for or against but how high a cost each side is willing to bear in order to get its way.” [The Machinery of Freedom, p. 127] And, as the market is less than equal in terms of income and wealth, such a position will mean that the capitalist class will have a higher effective demand than the working class and more resources to pay for any conflicts that arise. Thus any law codes that develop will tend to reflect the interests of the wealthy.)

Which brings us nicely on to the next problem regarding market forces.

As well as the obvious influence of economic interests and differences in wealth, another problem faces the “free market” justice of “anarcho”-capitalism. This is the “general libertarian law code” itself. Even if we assume that the system actually works like it should in theory, the simple fact remains that these “defence companies” are enforcing laws which explicitly defend capitalist property (and so social relations). Capitalists own the means of production upon which they hire wage-labourers to work and this is an inequality established prior to any specific transaction in the labour market. This inequality reflects itself in terms of differences in power within (and outside) the company and in the “law code” of “anarcho”-capitalism which protects that power against the dispossessed.

In other words, the law code within which the defence companies work assumes that capitalist property is legitimate and that force can legitimately be used to defend it. This means that, in effect, “anarcho”-capitalism is based on a monopoly of law, a monopoly which explicitly exists to defend the power and capital of the wealthy. The major difference is that the agencies used to protect that wealth will be in a weaker position to act independently of their pay-masters. Unlike the state, the “defence” firm is not remotely accountable to the general population and cannot be used to equalise even slightly the power relationships between worker and capitalist (as the state has, on occasion done, due to public pressure and to preserve the system as a whole). And, needless to say, it is very likely that the private police forces will give preferential treatment to their wealthier customers (which business does not?) and that the law code will reflect the interests of the wealthier sectors of society (particularly if prosperous judges administer that code) in reality, even if not in theory. Since, in capitalist practice, “the customer is always right,” the best-paying customers will get their way in “anarcho”-capitalist society.

For example, in chapter 29 of The Machinery of Freedom, David Friedman presents an example of how a clash of different law codes could be resolved by a bargaining process (the law in question is the death penalty). This process would involve one defence firm giving a sum of money to the other for them accepting the appropriate (anti/pro capital punishment) court. Friedman claims that ”[a]s in any good trade, everyone gains” but this is obviously not true. Assuming the anti-capital punishment defence firm pays the pro one to accept an anti-capital punishment court, then, yes, both defence firms have made money and so are happy, so are the anti-capital punishment consumers but the pro-death penalty customers have only (perhaps) received a cut in their bills. Their desire to see criminals hanged (for whatever reason) has been ignored (if they were not in favour of the death penalty, they would not have subscribed to that company). Friedman claims that the deal, by allowing the anti-death penalty firm to cut its costs, will ensure that it “keep its customers and even get more” but this is just an assumption. It is just as likely to loose customers to a defence firm that refuses to compromise (and has the resources to back it up). Friedman’s assumption that lower costs will automatically win over people’s passions is unfounded as is the assumption that both firms have equal resources and bargaining power. If the pro-capital punishment firm demands more than the anti can provide and has larger weaponry and troops, then the anti defence firm may have to agree to let the pro one have its way. So, all in all, it is not clear that “everyone gains” — there may be a sizeable percentage of those involved who do not “gain” as their desire for capital punishment is traded away by those who claimed they would enforce it. This may, in turn, produce a demand for defence firms which do not compromise with obvious implications for public peace.

In other words, a system of competing law codes and privatised rights does not ensure that all individual interests are meet. Given unequal resources within society, it is clear that the “effective demand” of the parties involved to see their law codes enforced is drastically different. The wealthy head of a transnational corporation will have far more resources available to him to pay for his laws to be enforced than one of his employees on the assembly line. Moreover, as we noted in section F.3.1, the labour market is usually skewed in favour of capitalists. This means that workers have to compromise to get work and such compromises may involve agreeing to join a specific “defence” firm or not join one at all (just as workers are often forced to sign non-union contracts today in order to get work). In other words, a privatised law system is very likely to skew the enforcement of laws in line with the skewing of income and wealth in society. At the very least, unlike every other market, the customer is not guaranteed to get exactly what they demand simply because the product they “consume” is dependent on others within the same market to ensure its supply. The unique workings of the law/defence market are such as to deny customer choice (we will discuss other aspects of this unique market shortly). Wieck summed by pointing out the obvious:

“any judicial system is going to exist in the context of economic institutions. If there are gross inequalities of power in the economic and social domains, one has to imagine society as strangely compartmentalised in order to believe that those inequalities will fail to reflect themselves in the judicial and legal domain, and that the economically powerful will be unable to manipulate the legal and judicial system to their advantage. To abstract from such influences of context, and then consider the merits of an abstract judicial system.. . is to follow a method that is not likely to take us far. This, by the way, is a criticism that applies…to any theory that relies on a rule of law to override the tendencies inherent in a given social and economic system” [Op. Cit., p. 225]

There is another reason why “market forces” will not stop abuse by the rich, or indeed stop the system from turning from private to public statism. This is due to the nature of the “defence” market (for a similar analysis of the “defence” market see right-“libertarian” economist Tyler Cowen’s “Law as a Public Good: The Economics of Anarchy” [Economics and Philosophy, no. 8 (1992), pp. 249–267] and “Rejoinder to David Friedman on the Economics of Anarchy” [Economics and Philosophy, no. 10 (1994), pp. 329–332]). In “anarcho”-capitalist theory it is assumed that the competing “defence companies” have a vested interest in peacefully settling differences between themselves by means of arbitration. In order to be competitive on the market, companies will have to co-operate via contractual relations otherwise the higher price associated with conflict will make the company uncompetitive and it will go under. Those companies that ignore decisions made in arbitration would be outlawed by others, ostracised and their rulings ignored. By this process, it is argued, a system of competing “defence” companies will be stable and not turn into a civil war between agencies with each enforcing the interests of their clients against others by force.

However, there is a catch. Unlike every other market, the businesses in competition in the “defence” industry must co-operate with its fellows in order to provide its services for its customers. They need to be able to agree to courts and judges, agree to abide by decisions and law codes and so forth. In economics there are other, more accurate, terms to describe co-operative activity between companies: collusion and cartels. These are when companies in a specific market agree to work together (co-operate) to restrict competition and reap the benefits of monopoly power by working to achieve the same ends in partnership with each other. By stressing the co-operative nature of the “defence” market, “anarcho”-capitalists are implicitly acknowledging that collusion is built into the system. The necessary contractual relations between agencies in the “protection” market require that firms co-operate and, by so doing, to behave (effectively) as one large firm (and so resemble a normal state even more than they already do). Quoting Adam Smith seems appropriate here: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” [The Wealth of Nations, p. 117] Having a market based on people of the same trade co-operating seems, therefore, an unwise move.

For example, when buying food it does not matter whether the supermarkets visited have good relations with each other. The goods bought are independent of the relationships that exist between competing companies. However, in the case of private states this is not the case. If a specific “defence” company has bad relationships with other companies in the market then it is against a customer’s self-interest to subscribe to it. Why subscribe to a private state if its judgements are ignored by the others and it has to resort to violence to be heard? This, as well as being potentially dangerous, will also push up the prices that have to be paid. Arbitration is one of the most important services a defence firm can offer its customers and its market share is based upon being able to settle interagency disputes without risk of war or uncertainty that the final outcome will not be accepted by all parties. Lose that and a company will lose market share.

Therefore, the market set-up within the “anarcho”-capitalist “defence” market is such that private states have to co-operate with the others (or go out of business fast) and this means collusion can take place. In other words, a system of private states will have to agree to work together in order to provide the service of “law enforcement” to their customers and the result of such co-operation is to create a cartel. However, unlike cartels in other industries, the “defence” cartel will be a stable body simply because its members have to work with their competitors in order to survive.

Let us look at what would happen after such a cartel is formed in a specific area and a new “defence company” desired to enter the market. This new company will have to work with the members of the cartel in order to provide its services to its customers (note that “anarcho”-capitalists already assume that they “will have to” subscribe to the same law code). If the new defence firm tries to under-cut the cartel’s monopoly prices, the other companies would refuse to work with it. Having to face constant conflict or the possibility of conflict, seeing its decisions being ignored by other agencies and being uncertain what the results of a dispute would be, few would patronise the new “defence company.” The new company’s prices would go up and it would soon face either folding or joining the cartel. Unlike every other market, if a “defence company” does not have friendly, co-operative relations with other firms in the same industry then it will go out of business.

This means that the firms that are co-operating have simply to agree not to deal with new firms which are attempting to undermine the cartel in order for them to fail. A “cartel busting” firm goes out of business in the same way an outlaw one does — the higher costs associated with having to solve all its conflicts by force, not arbitration, increases its production costs much higher than the competitors and the firm faces insurmountable difficulties selling its products at a profit (ignoring any drop of demand due to fears of conflict by actual and potential customers). Even if we assume that many people will happily join the new firm in spite of the dangers to protect themselves against the cartel and its taxation (i.e. monopoly profits), enough will remain members of the cartel so that co-operation will still be needed and conflict unprofitable and dangerous (and as the cartel will have more resources than the new firm, it could usually hold out longer than the new firm could). In effect, breaking the cartel may take the form of an armed revolution — as it would with any state.

The forces that break up cartels and monopolies in other industries (such as free entry — although, of course the “defence” market will be subject to oligopolistic tendencies as any other and this will create barriers to entry) do not work here and so new firms have to co-operate or loose market share and/or profits. This means that “defence companies” will reap monopoly profits and, more importantly, have a monopoly of force over a given area.

It is also likely that a multitude of cartels would develop, with a given cartel operating in a given locality. This is because law enforcement would be localised in given areas as most crime occurs where the criminal lives (few criminals would live in Glasgow and commit crimes in Paris). However, as defence companies have to co-operate to provide their services, so would the cartels. Few people live all their lives in one area and so firms from different cartels would come into contact, so forming a cartel of cartels. This cartel of cartels may (perhaps) be less powerful than a local cartel, but it would still be required and for exactly the same reasons a local one is. Therefore “anarcho”-capitalism would, like “actually existing capitalism,” be marked by a series of public states covering given areas, co-ordinated by larger states at higher levels. Such a set up would parallel the United States in many ways except it would be run directly by wealthy shareholders without the sham of “democratic” elections. Moreover, as in the USA and other states there will still be a monopoly of rules and laws (the “general libertarian law code”).

Hence a monopoly of private states will develop in addition to the existing monopoly of law and this is a de facto monopoly of force over a given area (i.e. some kind of public state run by share holders). New companies attempting to enter the “defence” industry will have to work with the existing cartel in order to provide the services it offers to its customers. The cartel is in a dominant position and new entries into the market either become part of it or fail. This is exactly the position with the state, with “private agencies” free to operate as long as they work to the state’s guidelines. As with the monopolist “general libertarian law code”, if you do not toe the line, you go out of business fast.

“Anarcho”-capitalists claim that this will not occur, but that the co-operation needed to provide the service of law enforcement will somehow not turn into collusion between companies. However, they are quick to argue that renegade “agencies” (for example, the so-called “Mafia problem” or those who reject judgements) will go out of business because of the higher costs associated with conflict and not arbitration. Yet these higher costs are ensured because the firms in question do not co-operate with others. If other agencies boycott a firm but co-operate with all the others, then the boycotted firm will be at the same disadvantage — regardless of whether it is a cartel buster or a renegade. So the “anarcho”-capitalist is trying to have it both ways. If the punishment of non-conforming firms cannot occur, then “anarcho”-capitalism will turn into a war of all against all or, at the very least, the service of social peace and law enforcement cannot be provided. If firms cannot deter others from disrupting the social peace (one service the firm provides) then “anarcho”-capitalism is not stable and will not remain orderly as agencies develop which favour the interests of their own customers and enforce their own law codes at the expense of others. If collusion cannot occur (or is too costly) then neither can the punishment of non-conforming firms and “anarcho”-capitalism will prove to be unstable.

So, to sum up, the “defence” market of private states has powerful forces within it to turn it into a monopoly of force over a given area. From a privately chosen monopoly of force over a specific (privately owned) area, the market of private states will turn into a monopoly of force over a general area. This is due to the need for peaceful relations between companies, relations which are required for a firm to secure market share. The unique market forces that exist within this market ensure collusion and the system of private states will become a cartel and so a public state — unaccountable to all but its shareholders, a state of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

33 notes · View notes

scullymaxxing · 6 months ago

Text

the real x files

is were they fuckin.

and from my hours of research, scouring countless delusional pro-g*llovny internet users, i can say that you all would make shit detectives. specifically the g*llovny blogs that compare pictures of DA and DD's kids and try to argue that they've have some secret elaborate 30 year long relationship?? theyre not actually the characters they portray, u guys kno that right? right??

ok good.

so basically...

i think DD and GA hooked up in the beginning of filming, before they knew they have to see each other for the next decade (link to website). and then obviously by the time GA was pregnant (beginning of 1993) she was with Klotz. theres a reason most of the msr gifs are from the first few seasons...

Her and Klotz divorced the same year DD and Tea Leoni got married, 1997. The 1997 golden globes (u know the one), was in january.

DD and GA's "dark period" was a year later, 1998, and i feel like they could have regressed in between the time of her divorce and his marriage (this slightly dubious interview from 2002 with GA claims just that) (context: interview transcript with GA, allegedly translated from an italian paper in 2002. even discounting this source, it is not implausible, but definitely left to speculation). they were also filming the movie around 1997-1998, and im certain that they were around each other more than their partners at the time.

Marketing

given that a lot of the DDGA confirmed sources are from magazines, im gonna agree with the claim that DDGA was kind of not that secret at the time, as well as a marketing ploy. anything they said or did in 2008, 2013, 2016-2017 was fully marketing idc. the revival era interviews (including 2008 in this era) do show different stages of DD and GA reflecting on their relationship which is insightful and there are countless interviews where GA kind of hints to stuff, but they were all promos for x files (interviews linked below the cut). they certainty fan the flame, though. and while i am certain it was not by design, their chemistry in the first season, whatever the catalyst may have been, was a saving grace of the show.

the Industry

also, i dont think g*llovny shippers on the Celibacy Website have a realistic grasp on the television/film industry or the business of marketing and publicity. luckily, i go to a college full of people who do just that, and let me tell u, actors fuck each other all the time, and i dont think sex was necessarily sacred or all that deep for either of them... (as with most actors,,, have you ever met a film kid??)

some potential drama given this analysis that i think about:

did GA get with Klotz to make DD jealous, or to move on? or both? GA and DD had a "professional" relationship until her divorce? and then post-divorce was when shit got real...

i also think a big reason to deny the relationship (besides, like the right to privacy as a human being), is because of their timing,,, like she was married and had a kid by the end of 1994, what good would admitting to an affair during that time bring? i dont think DD is the father or anything, but i think even admitting it given the timing would have cast messy implications on DD, GA, Klotz, and/or her daughter.

did DD marry Tea after hooking up with GA in 1997 as an apology and commitment to her, or to move on? the timing is odd if that one dubious excerpt is to be believed, but even without it, it would provide plausible context concerning the catalyst of the Dark Times.

there is the detail that DD and GA announced their divorces on each other's birthdays, which is... a crazy coincidence.

i NEED to know about the "dark times"... i literally can not imagine Hating someone and then being able to look deeply into their eyes. i need to see bloopers or something.

overly specific timeline with sources below the cut (i never said i wasnt as thorough or meticulous as g*llovny shippers, i just said theyre dillusional)

1992: CC writes the pilot, it is picked up by Fox, DD and GA meet at auditions.

sept 10, 1993: s1e1 pilot airs. we can assume they have been filming since or shortly after auditions. They would have known each other and been shooting for at least a few months by the time the pilot aired.

1994: This clip from Entertainment Tonight that i suspect was filmed around the time they were filming S1, in 1993. DD: "ive spent more time with gillian than anybody in my whole life... so, you know, it’s.. you know, you gotta be careful.. somebody could get hurt." GA mouths "me." the whole time GA is trying to suppress some mixed but kind of revealing facial expressions. idk u gotta watch it, but it looks very early on in the series, and is the type of banter that people trying to convince themselves not to fuck engage in.

sept 1994: Gillians daughter is born. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they probably werent fucking for about nine months before this.nine months before sept would have been around december 1993 by the most liberal of estimates

so they essentially had from whenever they met in 1992 until around the end of 1993, though GA probably would have been with Klotz for a few months before she got pregnant around the beginning of 1994

1994-1995 Interview: (sometime during season 2 filming, post pregnancy): In an interview, around the 8 min mark, GA: "at the beginning we [her and DD] started out very close, and, um, as you work together... things change a little bit. we have a very professional relationship, very business orientated."

post-2003: there are countless interviews with GA where she sloppily evades the questions. 2008 jimmy kimmel interview , 2009 interview , 2014 interview GA: “maybe... there might even be more than an attraction.. but it’s not gonna happen”

personal psychoanalysis of strangers, by a stranger

GA:

2003: in a BBC produced podcast recorded around 2003, GA talks about having lethal depression as a teen and engaging in rebellious/self sabotaging behaviors while in the US. (honestly, it makes sense why scully resonated with queer emos, GA was one!)

1999: excerpt where GA describes her attraction to “dangerous” (ie toxic, avoidant, noncommittal) men and DD definitely fits the bill.

GA’s dating and marriage history is kinda crazy and impulsive in retrospect. of course i know she wasn’t thinking about that as she was living her life but, she makes wild moves.

GA was also so so young and new to the industry. Hollywood is infamous for its coercive business tactics and Gillian sure knows how to play the game. (the crown) or "bc the director liked her".

DD:

2008: DD sex addiction. and he probably thought with his dick and had very lose ideas about relationships for years before he came out with the addition. (like maybe 10 or 20 years of giving into the same self sabotaging behavior patters) tbh he 100% fits the fuckboy profile, he was just a Man in the 90's and none of the gen-z g*llovny sh*ppers are used to seeing a Classic Fuckboy.

u guys guys see too much mulder in DD. DD is an intelligent, rich, NYC jew who went to TWO ivy league schools.... youre a young, handsome, educated actor who just got signed onto his first pilot... thats gotta make a man bold and impulsive.

at present, he is a rich boomer podcaster engaged to someone less less than half his age who looks like a guy who would call me a slur in the street. DD isnt the clever, witty, crimefighting mulder or hank moody or any of his charming characters, hes literally just some guy. same goes for GA, shes just a rich white lady...

#the real x files #ok im done being a stalker #not even i can resist the allure of their convoluted relationship #and reading wrong or genuinely delusional takes makes me feel crazy #had to compile evidence myself #/for/ myself #and if you disagree feel free to keep it to yourself #idc #the x files #txf #gillovny #ddga #david duchovny #gillian anderson #mulder x scully #msr

25 notes · View notes