#which financial market is the stock market a part of | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ezekiel-krishna · 8 months ago

Text

✧ 2nd House Ruler (WEALTH & Family) in All Houses

Part 3 (Final) ..

{ Vedic Astrology }

Your Guide to Check Your Placement (Vedic Astrology)

⇝ Refer To My Part 1

2nd Lord in 8th House

The placement of the 2nd Lord in the 8th House indicates a potential for wealth accumulation in your life. This is especially favorable for those involved in real estate, as dealing with properties can bring significant financial gains. However, it's important to consider the aspects and the sign in order to fully understand the potential outcomes. Generally speaking, this placement suggests a promising source of wealth.

On the flip side, this placement can also bring challenges in your marriage or joint finances. There may be disagreements and difficulties regarding shared financial responsibilities. It is crucial to find ways to calm these tensions and strive for more agreement with your spouse. Failure to do so can lead to further complications. Additionally, if you have elder siblings, they may also become a source of contention for you. It is essential to maintain harmonious family relationships in order to ensure a steady flow of money in your life.

The 8th House also governs inheritance and money gained from others. With the 2nd Lord placed in this house, if it is well aspected and has a beneficial aspect from the Lord, there is a potential for receiving inheritance and accumulating enormous wealth. However, it is important to exercise caution in your business dealings if the 2nd Lord is placed in the 8th House. This house is associated with secrecy, and there is a possibility that you may be secretive about your investments, business dealings, and taxes.

Engaging in any underhanded activities can have severe consequences and leave a significant dent in your finances. The 8th House is known for its transformative nature, and you may find yourself having to start from scratch and transform your savings and investments from time to time. Due to the placement of the 2nd Lord being seven houses away from its own house, you may experience a sense of financial instability.

There will be periods of financial security, but there will also be times when everything feels uncertain. It is important to adapt to these fluctuations and learn to make a profit from them. Overall, the placement of the 2nd Lord in the 8th House suggests both opportunities and challenges in terms of wealth accumulation and financial stability. By navigating these complexities with caution and adaptability, you can make the most of the potential benefits and overcome any obstacles that may arise.

2nd Lord in 9th House

This is an advantageous position for your wealth. You have a natural talent for accumulating wealth in your life. However, there is a slight issue that arises from this - you tend to hold onto your money tightly. It's difficult for you to let it go and allow it to flow freely, which can have a negative impact in the long run. The reason behind this difficulty lies in the fact that the lord of the second house has moved eight houses away from its original position. This eighth house represents fear, and as a result, you fear letting go of your wealth and spreading it around through expenses.

Your reluctance to let money go prevents it from flowing back to you. Despite your good fortune, it is important to maintain it by spending when necessary and utilizing the money you have. On the bright side, having the second lord in the ninth house makes you a highly skilled and diligent individual. You may even experience gains through speculation, such as in the stock market. However, the placement of the second lord eight houses away can bring about health issues in your childhood or early years.

Nevertheless, as you enter your middle years, you will experience prosperity and stability due to the influence of the second lord in the ninth house. The second lord represents moral and family values, and its placement in the ninth house makes you a person with strong religious and spiritual inclinations. You are drawn to pilgrimages, philosophical discussions, and seeking guidance from gurus. These pursuits bring you peace of mind, which in turn aids in your wealth accumulation. Furthermore, the placement of the second lord in the ninth house suggests the potential for expanding a family business into new areas, particularly foreign interests.

This can be highly profitable, especially if there are positive aspects to the second lord in the ninth house. Additionally, since the ninth house represents the father, it is common to see individuals in this position taking on their father's business. The ninth house also governs higher education, and pursuing further education can be a source of profit for you. You may excel as a teacher or lecturer in various fields, and higher education in any area will contribute to your increased income.

2nd Lord in 10th House

The 2nd Lord in the 10th House placement signifies that you are a person of great honor. Your reputation in your career is built on your integrity and the trustworthiness of your word. With the 2nd house ruling speech and entering the 10th house of career, it is important for you to find a profession where you can utilize your talent for communication. This could range from teaching and lecturing to media and journalism, or even politics. Your ability to effectively communicate will bring you wealth and success.

Your family of origin plays a significant role in supporting your career. They may provide you with education, financial assistance, or even a substantial inheritance. Pursuing education will greatly benefit your career and help you achieve financial gains. However, it is crucial to be cautious of the company you keep. Surrounding yourself with negative or toxic individuals can compromise your integrity and hinder your wealth-building opportunities. Choose your associations wisely and ensure that they are morally upright individuals.

Additionally, it is advisable to refrain from speculation or gambling, as it can lead to significant financial losses. Consistent hard work is the key to continuously increasing your profits. Any slack in your dedication, cutting corners, or displaying antagonistic behavior towards your superiors can result in immediate negative consequences, including the loss of your job.

Furthermore, it is important to maintain a healthy relationship with your children. Be mindful of giving them excessive amounts of money, as it can potentially strain your bond with them. Avoid spoiling them and instead focus on nurturing a balanced and loving relationship.

2nd Lord in 11th House

When the 2nd lord takes its place in the 11th house, it brings forth an abundance of wealth into your life. You have the potential to attain great riches through this placement. It particularly favors property deals and long-term investments. This position is highly advantageous for those pursuing self-employment and any form of business ventures.

Additionally, it signifies an increase in wealth after marriage and through partnerships. Your financial prospects are bright in these areas. However, it is important to note that there may be conflicts with your mother regarding financial matters. Awareness and effective communication can help navigate these potential disagreements.

With the 2nd house lord's presence in the 11th house, you possess a strong sense of honorable duty towards your profession. This makes you enterprising and dedicated to your job. If you are currently employed, this placement brings recognition and fame within your workplace. It opens doors for you to attain a high-ranking position. Moreover, your colleagues will prove to be supportive and instrumental in your growth and promotion.

2nd Lord in 12th House

When the lord of the 2nd house finds its way into the 12th house, it ignites a fiery courage within you. You become an adventurous soul, unafraid of starting anew in a different career or even a different country. Starting from scratch holds no fear for you, as you possess a true sense of adventure and freedom that is invaluable. I have witnessed individuals with the lord of the 2nd house in the 12th house completely transform their careers in the middle of their lives, achieving great success.

People are naturally drawn to you and will support and promote you because of your likable nature. However, this position also makes you prone to being a spendthrift. Money seems to slip through your fingers effortlessly. The more you earn, the more you spend. You possess a generous spirit, but struggle to maintain control over your finances. It may be wise to seek assistance from someone skilled in money management. The 12th house represents our fears, and in this placement, you tend to avoid looking at your bank balance. You prefer not to worry about it and simply turn a blind eye.

On the flip side, the 12th house is also associated with charity, and you find joy in giving to various causes. Your acts of kindness will bring positive karma into your life. Despite your own financial struggles, you have a knack for helping others manage their money. You could excel in financial management, particularly when it involves handling other people's finances or investment funds, even in foreign lands.

There may be challenges with a child, as they can be a bit quarrelsome and cause you distress at times. However, with time and effort, you will be able to work through these difficulties.

Feel free to share your experiences in the comments!

Remember This is a General Analysis , Whole Chart is to be consider for Accurate Personalized Predictions..

For Paid Personalized Analysis & Reviews ➤ Check Here

Masterlist ➤ Check Here

🤗 Feel free to chat with me if you have any questions about my service. Don't hesitate, I'm here to help!

#astro observations #astro notes #astroblr #astroloji #astroworld #astrology #astro community #vedic astrology

306 notes · View notes

hotvintagepoll · 9 months ago

Text

Propaganda

Colleen Moore (Flaming Youth, Ella Cinders)— One of the highest paid, most in-demand actresses of the silent film era, Colleen Moore defied genre and kept herself one step ahead of the competition (and although Moore was the OG flapper, her longtime rival Clara Bow would become more famous for the image) as well as invested her earnings to ensure her financial security after she retired. She even wrote a book all about investing in the stock market! Moore also nurtured a passion for dollhouses throughout her life and helped design and curate The Colleen Moore Dollhouse, which has been a featured exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago since the early 1950s.

Lilian Harvey (Die Drei von der Tankstelle, Der Kongreß Tanzt, Glückskinder)— Lilian Harvey was one of the most popular German film stars of her time, appearing alongside frequent co-star Willy Fritsch like a European version of Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. She had it all: she could act, she could dance, she could sing, she was hot, and she wasn't afraid to stick it to the Nazis. During the 1930s, she remained in contact with her Jewish friends and colleagues, which earned her the scrutiny of the Gestapo. When choreographer Jens Keith was arrested for having a sexual relationship with another man, Lilian posted his bail, allowing him to escape to France. She was eventually forced to flee Germany herself, and her film career never recovered. She is perhaps best known to American filmgoers from her brief mention in "Inglourious Basterds," when Joseph Goebbels insists that her name not be mentioned in his presence.

This is round 1 of the tournament. All other polls in this bracket can be found here. Please reblog with further support of your beloved hot sexy vintage woman.

[additional propaganda submitted under the cut]

Lilian Harvey:

Colleen Moore:

Colleen is charming and funny, she was one of the starlets to popularize the iconic 1920s bob!

She's like the deep cut version of Louise Brooks, with majority silent films, and a large percentage of them lost-- BUT 'Why Be Good?' is such a fun movie and she wears really cute dresses and has all the best parts of Pre-Code leading lady fun!

#lilian harvey #colleen moore #hotvintagepoll #ladies 1 #fuck that old woman

92 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 27 days ago

Text

Matt Wuerker, Politico

* * * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 30, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 31, 2024

On Friday, October 25, at a town hall held on his social media platform X, Elon Musk told the audience that if Trump wins, he expects to work in a Cabinet-level position to cut the federal government.

He told people to expect “temporary hardship” but that cuts would “ensure long-term prosperity.” At the Trump rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden on Sunday, Musk said he plans to cut $2 trillion from the government. Economists point out that current discretionary spending in the budget is $1.7 trillion, meaning his promise would eliminate virtually all discretionary spending, which includes transportation, education, housing, and environmental programs.

Economists agree that Trump’s plans to place a high tariff wall around the U.S., replacing income taxes on high earners with tariffs paid for by middle-class Americans, and to deport as many as 20 million immigrants would crash the booming economy. Now Trump’s financial backer Musk is factoring in the loss of entire sectors of the government to the economy under Trump.

Trump has promised to appoint Musk to be the government’s “chief efficiency officer.” “Everyone’s going to have to take a haircut.… We can’t be a wastrel.… We need to live honestly,” Musk said on Friday. Rob Wile and Lora Kolodny of CNBC point out that Musk’s SpaceX aerospace venture has received $19 billion from the U.S. government since 2008.

An X user wrote: “I]f Trump succeeds in forcing through mass deportations, combined with Elon hacking away at the government, firing people and reducing the deficit—there will be an initial severe overreaction in the economy…. Markets will tumble. But when the storm passes and everyone realizes we are on sounder footing, there will be a rapid recovery to a healthier, sustainable economy. History could be made in the coming two years.”

Musk commented: “Sounds about right[.]”

This exchange echoes the prescription of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, whose theories had done much to create the Great Crash of 1929, for restoring a healthy economy. “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate,” he told President Herbert Hoover. “It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living

will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.”

Mellon, at least, was reacting to an economic crisis thrust upon an administration. Musk is seeking to create one.

Today the Commerce Department reported that from July through September, the nation’s economy grew at a solid 2.8%. Consumer spending is up, as is investment in business. The country added 254,000 jobs in September, and inflation has fallen back almost to the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%.

It is extraordinarily rare for a country to be able to reduce inflation without creating a recession, but the Biden administration has managed to do so, producing what economists call a “soft landing,” rather like catching an egg on a plate. As Bryan Mena of CNN wrote today: “The US economy seems to have pulled off a remarkable and historic achievement.”

Both President Joe Biden and Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris have called for reducing the deficit not by slashing the government, as Musk proposes, but by restoring taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

As part of the Republicans’ plan to take the country back to the era before the 1930s ushered in a government that regulated business and provided a basic social safety net, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) expects to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.

At a closed-door campaign event on Monday in Pennsylvania for a Republican House candidate, Johnson told supporters that Republicans will propose “massive reform” to the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” if they take control of both the House and the Senate in November. “Health-care reform’s going to be a big part of the agenda,” Johnson said. Their plan is to take a “blowtorch to the regulatory state,” which he says is “crushing the free market.” “Trump’s going to go big,” he said.” When an attendee asked, “No Obamacare?” he laughed and agreed: “No Obamacare…. The ACA is so deeply ingrained, we need massive reform to make this work, and we got a lot of ideas on how to do that.”

Ending a campaign with a promise to crash a booming economy and end the Affordable Care Act, which ended insurance companies’ ability to reject people with preexisting conditions, is an unusual strategy.

A post from Trump last night and another this morning suggest his internal polls are worrying him. Last night he claimed there was cheating in Pennsylvania’s York and Lancaster counties. Today he posted: “Pennsylvania is cheating, and getting caught, at large scale levels rarely seen before. REPORT CHEATING TO AUTHORITIES. Law Enforcement must act, NOW!”

Trump appears to be setting up the argument he used in 2020, that he can lose only if he has been cheated. But it is increasingly apparent that the get-out-the-vote, or GOTV, efforts of the Trump campaign have been weak. When Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump and loyalist Michael Whatley became the co-chairs of the Republican National Committee in March 2024, they stopped the GOTV efforts underway and used the money instead for litigation. They outsourced GOTV efforts to super PACs, including Musk’s America PAC.

In Wired today, Jake Lahut reported that door-knockers for Musk’s PAC were driven around in the back of a U-Haul without seats and threatened with having to pay their own hotel bills if they didn’t meet high canvassing quotas. One of the canvassers told Lahut that they thought they were being hired to ask people who they would be voting for when they flew into Michigan, and was surprised to learn their actual role. The workers spoke to Lahut anonymously because they had signed a nondisclosure agreement (a practice the Biden administration has tried to stop).

Trump’s boast that he is responsible for the Supreme Court’s overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the constitutional right to abortion is one of the reasons his support is soft. In addition to popular dislike of the idea that the state, rather than a woman and her doctor, should make decisions about her healthcare, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision is now over two years old, and state examinations of maternal deaths are showing that women are dying from lack of reproductive healthcare.

Cassandra Jaramillo and Kavitha Surana of ProPublica reported today that at least two pregnant women have died in Texas when doctors delayed emergency care after a miscarriage until the fetal heartbeat stopped. The woman they highlighted today, Josseli Barnica, left behind a husband and a toddler.

At a rally this evening near Green Bay, Wisconsin, Trump said his team had advised him to stop talking about how he was going to protect women by ending crime and making sure they don’t have to be “thinking about abortion.” But Trump, who has boasted of sexual assault and been found liable for it, did not stop there. He went on to say that he had told his advisors, “I’m going to do it whether the women like it or not. I am going to protect them.”

The Trump campaign remains concerned about the damage caused by the extraordinarily racist, sexist, and violent Sunday night rally at Madison Square Garden. Today the campaign seized on a misstatement President Biden made when condemning the statement from the Madison Square Garden event that referred to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage.” They tried to turn the tables to suggest that Biden was calling Trump supporters garbage, although the president has always been very careful to focus his condemnation on Trump alone.

In Wisconsin today, when he disembarked from his plane, Trump put on an orange reflective vest and had someone drive him around the tarmac in a garbage truck with TRUMP painted on the side. He complained about Biden to reporters from the cab of the truck but still refused to apologize for Sunday’s slur of Puerto Rico, saying he knew nothing about the comedian who appeared at his rally.

This, too, was an unusual strategy. Like his visit to McDonalds, where he wore an apron, the image of Trump in a sanitation truck was likely intended to show him as a man of the people. But his power has always rested not in his promise to be one of the people, but rather to lead them. The pictures of him in a bright orange vest and unusually dark makeup are quite different from his usual portrayal of himself.

Indeed, media captured a video of Trump’s stunt, and it did not convey strength. MSNBC’s Katie Phang watched him try to get into the truck and noted: “Trump stumbles, drags his right leg, almost falls over, and tries at least three times to open the door…. Some transparency with Trump’s medical records would be nice.”

The Las Vegas Sun today ran an editorial that detailed Trump’s increasingly obvious mental lapses and concluded that Trump is “crippled cognitively and showing clear signs of mental illness.” It noted that Trump now depends “on enablers who show a disturbing willingness to indulge his delusions, amplify his paranoia or steer his feeble mind toward their own goals.” It noted that if Trump cannot fulfill the duties of the presidency, they would fall to his running mate, J.D. Vance, who has suggested “he would subordinate constitutional principles for personal profit and power.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#political cartoon #Matt Wuerker #Politico #Heather Cox Richardson #Letters From an American #Las Vegas Sun #MAGA extremism #garbage truck stunt #women's health #reproductive rights #Musk #Affordable Care Act #Obamacare #project 2025 #MAGA's plans for you

25 notes · View notes

literaryvein-reblogs · 28 days ago

Text

Writing Analysis: Cannery Row (Cultural References)

John Steinbeck’s Cannery Row (1945) opens with the following declaration:

“Cannery Row in Monterey California is a poem, a stink, a grating noise, a quality of light, a tone, a habit, a nostalgia, a dream” (1).

Set in a fictionalized version of Cannery Row in Monterey, California, Steinbeck uses his cast of homeless people, drunks and prostitutes to express profound truths about humanity.

Abacus (6): A counting device that was used before the creation of calculators.

Belles-lettres (64): A type of literary work, one that is usually expressed in essays, poetry and deals with intellectual subject matter.

Beret (123): A soft hat that has no bill and no brim. Often worn in the military.

Billings, Josh (61): The pen name for Henry Wheeler Shaw, a respected humorist of the 20th century.

Black Marigolds (171): A poem written by E. Powys Mathers.

Bloomer League (140): A baseball league that was comprised primarily of women that started during the early 1900’s.

Carborundum (90): Another name for silicon carbide, which is the sole chemical compound of carbon and silicon.

Chalmers (154): A type of car that was created and sold during the early 1900’s.

Chorea (144): An illness that causes involuntary movement in various parts of the body.

Collier’s (magazine) (139): Founded by Peter Collier, Collier’s Once a Week debuted in 1888 and went on to become one of America’s most popular magazines.

Count Basie (114): A prominent figure during the swing period of jazz, as well as a good example of big band style.

Dadaist (122): An artist or a writer who practiced Dada, a movement that rejected traditional art and contemporary culture.

Daisy Air Rifle (104): A brand of rifle created by the historic Daisy company.

Distemper (134): An infection in dogs that can be diagnosed through symptoms of a runny nose, poor appetite, and coughing.

“Fighting Bob” (111): A reference to Robert M. La Follette Sr. fight against Washington and other politicians who choose to enter WWI.

Ford Model T (61, 106): A truck built by Ford Motor Company.

The Great Depression (16): A result of the 1929 stock market crash, which left many Americans without money or jobs.

Great Fugue (163): A musical work by Beethoven.

Goiter (97): The enlargement of the thyroid gland.

Influenza (89): An infection more commonly known as the “flu.” It was responsible for claiming the lives of millions worldwide before effective vaccines were created to treat and prevent it.

Knights of Columbus (130): A Catholic organization that seeks to aid family members within the organization who are in financial need.

Knights Templar (130): A group of knights who originated in Jerusalem during the year of 1119. Though shrouded in mystery, the Knights Templar are believed to have protected the Holy Grail.

Laudanum (107): A mixture of opium and derivatives of alcohol.

Masonic Lodge (104): A meeting place for Freemasons or former Freemasons.

Mastoids (89): The skull bones that house the ear.

Mastoiditis (90): Mastoiditis occurs when an infection in the middle ear spreads to the mastoids and then causes an infection that produces fevers and headaches.

Monteverdi’s Hor ch’ el Ciel e la Terra (119): A song by the Italian musician Claudio Monteverdi, who lived in the 16th and 17th century.

Novena (88): A prayer that is said over a nine-day period that requests a special favor from God.

“Panama Pacific International Exposition of 1915” (111): The 1915 Worlds Fair that was held in San Francisco, California.

Petrarch (119): A famous writer of the 14th century who is credited with being the founding father of Humanism.

Point Lobos (64): A state reserve on the central coast of California in Monterey County.

Prohibition (72): A move by the United States government to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed in the United States through limiting individuals and businesses who sold alcohol.

Purse Seiners (67): Fishing boats equipped to fish with a purse seine, a kind of fishing net.

“Remember the Maine” (111): The sinking of the U.S.S. Maine, which was the catalyst for the Spanish-American War.

Rimbaud (124): A 19th century French writer who is most remembered for his contribution to the symbolist movement.

Robert Louis Stevenson (61): A Scottish author who is most famous for works such as Treasure Island and The Black Arrow.

Saturnalia (112): The week of December 17th-23rd during which a feast was held by the Romans to celebrate their dedication Saturn’s temple.

Scarlatti (129): Last name of Giuseppe Domenico Scarlatti, an Italian harpsichordist born during the 17th century who later moved to Spain and continued to practice music there.

Sculpin (135): A kind of small fish.

St. Francis (of Assisi) (144): A saint in the Catholic church who is known for his great love for God, animals, and the sick.

Treasure Island (64): A book written by Robert Louis Stevenson.

Vaudeville (109): A form of American variety entertainment that marked the beginning of popular entertainment as a lucrative business.

“White Sale” (103): A sale either of household goods, or when a store drastically reduces their prices for a short period of time.

Source ⚜ More: Writing Notes & References

#cannery row #john steinbeck #literature #writing analysis #writeblr #langblr #studyblr #writers on tumblr #writing prompt #poetry #spilled ink #dark academia #writing reference #poets on tumblr #writing inspiration #writing ideas #creative writing #writing inspo #writing resources

25 notes · View notes

fibula-rasa · 2 months ago

Text

Cosplay the Classics: Nazimova in Salomé (1922)—Part 2

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

As the studio system emerged in the American film industry at the start of the 1920s, many of the biggest stars in Hollywood chose independence. Alla Nazimova, an import from the stage, was one of them. In 1922, she made a series of professional and creative decisions that would completely change the trajectory of her career.

In part one of CtC: Nazimova in Salomé, I described how Nazimova’s independent productions were shaped in response to trends and ideas surrounding young/independent womanhood in America after World War I and the influenza pandemic. Here in part two, I’ll fit these productions, A Doll’s House and Salomé, into the broader context of the big-money business of film becoming legitimate in America.

While the full essay and photo set are available below the jump, you may find it easier to read (formatting-wise) on the wordpress site. Either way, I hope you enjoy the read! Oh and Happy Bi Visibility Day to all those who celebrate!

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

Artists United? Allied Artists and the Release of Salomé

When Nazimova made her screen debut in War Brides (1916), the American film industry was undergoing a series of formative changes. Southern California became the center of professional filmmaking in the US—fleeing New Jersey (where War Brides was filmed) largely because of Thomas Edison’s attempts to monopolize the business. Preferences of audiences and exhibitors shifted away from one and two-reel films and towards feature-length films. The Star System emerged in full force. Nazimova soon relocated to Hollywood, signed a contract with Metro, and reaped the benefits of this boom period for American film artists.

The focus on feature-film production and the marketing of films based on the reputations of specific filmmakers or stars required a greater initial outlay of resources—time, money, and labor. But, it also paid dividends—the industry quickly grew into a big-money business. The underlying implication of that is that a larger share of the profits were shifted from the people doing the creating (artists and technicians) and towards other figures (capitalists). In practice, this also meant film companies would become eligible for listing on the stock exchange and could secure funding from banks and financial institutions, both of which were rare or impossible before the mid-1920s. The major players on the business end of production, distribution, and exhibition, therefore, wanted to consolidate their power and reduce the power and influence of the filmmakers.

To illustrate how momentous this handful of years was in the history of the US film industry, allow me to highlight a few key events. Will Hayes’ office was set up in 1922 to make official Hollywood’s commitment to self-censorship. Eastman Kodak introduced 16 mm film in 1923, a move which, while making filmmaking more accessible and affordable, also widened and formalized the division between the professional industry and amateur filmmaking. Dudley Murphy’s “visual symphony” Danse Macabre[1] was released in 1922—considered America’s first avant-garde film. Nazimova’s Salomé was considered America’s first art film from its initial release in 1923. That these labels were deemed relevant in this period illustrates the line being drawn between those films and film as a conventional, commercial product. The concept of art cinemas in the US was first proposed in 1922 spurring on the Little Cinema movement later in the decade.

from Danse Macabre

from Salomé

As any industry matures, both the roles within it and its output become more starkly delineated. That is to say that, as the US industry began differentiating between art/avant-garde/experimental film and commercial film, the jobs within professional filmmaking also became more firmly defined. Filmmaking has always been a collaborative art, but in the period prior to the 1920s, it was common for people in film to do a little of everything. As a result, what sparse credits made it onto the final film didn’t necessarily reflect all of the work that was done. To illustrate this using Nazimova,[2] at Metro, she had her own production unit under the Metro umbrella. While her films were “Nazimova Productions,” she didn’t have full creative control of her films. However, Nazimova did choose her own projects, develop said projects, and contribute to their writing, directing, and editing. When those films were released, aside from the “Nazimova Productions” banner, her only credit would usually be for her acting. Despite that impressive level of creative power, the studio still had the ultimate say on whether a film got made, and how it would be released. As studios grew and tightened control of their productions, this looser filmmaking style became much less common.

The structure of the industry at this time was roughly tripartite—production, distribution, and exhibition. Generally speaking, the way studio-made films traveled from studio to theatre—before full vertical integration—was that the production company would make available a slate of films of different scales. (Bigger productions with bigger names attached would have a special designation and come with higher rental fees.) Famous Players-Lasky was the biggest production house at the time, though other studios, like Metro, were quickly catching up. Distribution companies would then place this slate of films on regional exchanges, centered in the biggest cities in a given region. Exhibitors (this could be owners of chains like Loew’s in the Midwest and Northeast, the Saengers around the gulf coast, or individual theatre owners) could then rent films through their local exchanges. (This was an ever-shifting industry, so this process was not true for every single film. This is only meant as a quick overview of the system.) As the 1920s wore on, exhibitors began entering the production arena and producers further merged with distribution companies and exhibition chains. Merger-mania was the rule of the day.

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

As merger upon merger took place and a handful of businessmen tried to monopolize the industry, American filmmakers responded by championing the artistic legitimacy of filmmaking in the US. Leading this charge were the very filmmakers on whose backs the big business of film had been built. As noted in Tino T. Balio’s expansive history of United Artists, The Company Built by the Stars:

…Richard A. Rowland, president of Metro Pictures, proclaimed that ‘motion pictures must cease to be a game and become a business.’ What he wanted was to supplant the star system, which forced companies to compete for big names and pay out-of-this-world salaries for their services. Metro, he said, would thenceforth decline from ‘competitive bidding for billion-dollar stars’ and devote its energies to making big pictures based on ‘play value and excellence of production.’”

It’s notable for us that these ideas were espoused by Rowland, head of the studio where Nazimova was currently one of those “billion-dollar stars.” (“Billion-dollar” is obviously a massive overstatement.) It was a precarious time for any filmmaker who cared about the quality and artistry of their work. It was this environment that birthed United Artists, a new production company built around the prestige and reputation of its filmmakers, Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin, and D.W. Griffith. As the statement announcing the formation of UA detailed:

“We also think that this step is positively and absolutely necessary to protect the great motion picture public from threatening combinations and trusts that would force upon them mediocre productions and machine-made entertainment.”

It’s an accurate assessment of industry trends at the time. If the desired product is a high-quality feature-length film, production is necessarily more expensive. As the UA statement intimates, monopolizing the entire industry and sacrificing quality for quantity to fill the exchanges and theatrical bills was the studio heads’ solution to rising costs. Not a great signal for filmmaking as art in America.

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

So, Nazimova was in good company when she chose to go independent, believing in film as art and that American moviegoers deserved better than derivative, studio-conceived films. Some of the other artists who went independent included George Fitzmaurice (one of the most revered directors of the silent era, though most of his films are now sadly lost), Charles Ray, Max Linder, Norma Talmadge (in alliance with Sam Goldwyn), and Ferdinand Pinney Earle (whose massive mostly-lost artistic experiment Omar Khayyam, I profiled in LBnF). If these filmmakers shared the motivation of UA to create higher-calibre productions, where would the money come from? For Nazimova, the answer was her own bank account.

In 1922, Nazimova’s final film for Metro, Camille (1921), was still circulating widely due to the rising popularity of her co-star, Rudolph Valentino, after the release of Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921) and The Sheik (1921). While Nazimova had the funds to complete A Doll’s House and Salomé, there was no sure bet for the films’ releases. Nazimova’s initial concept for her independent productions was the “repertoire” film. This scheme would have seen A Doll’s House released as a shorter film with Salomé as a feature and the two could be rented as a package by exhibitors. It was a creative response to growing tensions between producers and exhibitors over a practice called block booking. Block booking was a strategy studios employed to leverage the Star System to its fullest. They would take the most in-demand films associated with the biggest drawing stars and only make them available in a package deal with productions that were perceived as less marketable. Nazimova was aware that her films at Metro had been rented this way (as the special feature). It’s not completely clear from my research if the decision to release Salomé and A Doll’s House as two features was creative, practical, or a combination of the two. The “repertoire” concept may not have gone according to plan, but it was an early indication that Nazimova was well-informed of the nuances of distribution and exhibition.

Nazimova’s need for proper distribution was met by United Artists’ distribution subsidiary, Allied Artists. United Artists’ first few years were a struggle. Fairbanks, Pickford, and Griffith[3] needed significant time and money to finish the high-quality productions that they promised and Allied was their solution. This distribution arm would release the work of other independent talent using the same exchanges as UA, but under a different banner. Though Allied used UA’s exchanges for distribution, the subsidiary had its own staff. Allied having different branding would also protect the prestige of the UA name. (An unkind, but not entirely inaccurate summary: the money your work brings in is good enough for us, but your work is not.) Allied would have a full release slate to generate the revenue that UA needed to remain in operation.

Nazimova was one of the filmmakers who signed a distribution deal with Allied and had reason to regret it—though she and Charles Bryant didn’t openly rag on UA/Allied.[4] Notably, Mack Sennett had arranged the release of Suzanna (1923) through Allied and was vocal about the company bungling its release. Differences over distribution and exhibition would also lead to Griffith’s exit from the company and a major rift between Chaplin and Pickford-Fairbanks. After 1923, Allied reduced its operation, at least in part because of the bad reputation they were garnering with other filmmakers. Despite numerous independents losing money on productions released through Allied, by 1923, Allied had netted UA 51 million dollars in revenue!

Trade ad for Salomé from Motion Picture News, 10 March 1923

The questionable deals that these independent filmmakers received with Allied are often mentioned in discourse about the period, but very, very rarely does anyone offer details of what Allied’s inadequate distribution looked like. Using the information available to me via Lantern, I collected and analyzed data regarding the release and exhibition of Nazimova’s final two Metro films and both of her Allied films.[5] Looking at the trade publications Exhibitor’s Trade Review, Moving Picture World, Motion Picture News, and Exhibitors Herald, I categorized every item I found about the release or exhibition of Billions (1920),[6] Camille, A Doll’s House, and Salomé. The “release” items are primarily advertisements, reviews, and news items about release dates or pre-release screenings. The number of these items for all four films were comparable.

The items in the “exhibition” category, however, reveal a marked difference between the Metro and Allied releases. This category includes items like first-run theatre listings, exhibitor feedback, and advertising advice for theatre owners. Only counting exhibition items from the first two years (24 months) from the initial release of each film, Billions and Camille had twice as many items as A Doll’s House and Salomé!

While this isn’t necessarily hard data on how many theatres ran each film, it is a rough indicator of how well the films circulated. This data suggests that neither A Doll’s House or Salomé had distribution comparable to the Metro films. In order to compensate for the Rudy factor—Valentino’s major rise to stardom in 1921—which could have affected Camille’s numbers in a big way, I included Billions as well. Billions was sold as a special (a bigger production with premium rental fees) on Nazimova’s name alone. It was not especially well received. Exhibitors/theatre owners had mixed feelings on the film because Nazimova’s previous film, Madame Peacock (1920), had underperformed. Many exhibitors viewed Billions as an improvement, though it still did not meet their perception of Nazimova’s standard of quality. Despite that, Billions had 76 exhibition-related items across its first 24 months of availability to Camille’s 80.

To get a little deeper into this data, I wanted to see how the feedback from exhibitors and theatre owners compared. I broke down the exhibitor feedback for each film as positive, middling, or negative based on how the exhibitors assessed audience response and/or box office receipts. (I discounted feedback that only reflected theatre owners’ own personal assessment of the films without mention of their patrons or receipts.) Positive feedback could be good reception and/or good receipts, middling suggests only average business and no noteworthy reception, and negative indicates poor response and/or poor ticket sales. Since there are so many more items about Camille and Billions than A Doll’s House and Salomé, I compared ratios as an indicator of exhibitor satisfaction. The results were truly surprising.

Theatre owners who rented Salomé may have been in significantly smaller numbers than those who ran Camille, but their satisfaction with ticket sales and audience feedback was roughly equivalent. (Though slightly more positive for Salomé!) The numbers for Billions line up with the qualitative assessment I summarized above, displaying a roughly equal 3-way split. A Doll’s House was the most divisive with the highest proportion of negative feedback of the four films, yet with a higher proportion of positive feedback than Billions.

Taking all of this into account, it’s clear that Salomé did not flop because it was too artsy or esoteric for the American moviegoing public. Such assumptions are obviously not very thoughtful or informed by reliable data.[7] A more historically sound reading is that, as professional filmmaking matured into a “legitimate” industry in the US, the various arms of the business were rigidly formed to fit conventional output. The conservatism that this engendered made the American industry ill-equipped at marketing anything too unconventional or experimental. While Hollywood insiders were lamenting European filmmakers artistically outdoing Americans—especially following the US release of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)—very few people with the power to shape the industry did anything to support experimentation. Given this environment, Salomé could only have been produced independently, but the quickly ossifying distribution and promotional systems didn’t have the range to give it a proper release. Two films contemporary to Salomé, Beggar on Horseback (1925) and The Old Swimmin’ Hole (1921) offer further evidence of the industry’s limitations.

The Old Swimmin’ Hole is a feature-length production by Charles Ray, experimental in that it uses no intertitles. The story is simple and familiar with Ray playing the Huck-Finn-type character he was well known for. Ray’s experiment was not an expensive one and the film was successful. However, decision makers at First National, the film’s distributors, felt that The Old Swimmin’ Hole was simply too complex for small-town Americans to comprehend and it wasn’t released outside of cities. To put it plainly, the distributor’s unfounded concept of ignorant yokels meant that a film about country living was largely inaccessible to anyone actually living in the country. Though the film was well received and turned a profit, this distribution decision likely limited its audience as well as possible revenue from small-town exhibition.

Stills from The Old Swimmin’ Hole from Motion Picture Magazine, April 1921

Beggar on Horseback was produced by one of the biggest studios in Hollywood, Famous Players-Lasky, and distributed by Paramount. Starring comedian Edward Everett Horton, Beggar was an expressionist comedy based on a popular play. The film had a popular star, popular source material, and was made and released by a major company, but Beggar was apparently too unconventional for that major company to adequately market it. (Unfortunately, only a few minutes of the film survive, so we can’t fully reassess it unless more is found/identified!)

Stills from Beggar on Horseback from Picture-Play Magazine, August 1925

With all these complicating factors at play, how might have Salomé found its audience in 1922-3? Nazimova and Charles Bryant had innovative ideas for the film’s release that might have done the trick, if they had been able to act on them. Nazimova and Sam Zimbalist had finished cutting Salomé in late-spring 1922. Having spent practically all of her money to finish the film, and following A Doll’s House’s disappointing results, Nazimova was eager for Salomé to hit theatres. Though the film was in the can and private preview screenings had been held by Bryant by summer ‘22, Salomé wouldn’t be released until February of 1923. In studio filmmaking, holding a film in extended abeyance wasn’t ideal but it was not disastrous. Studios had significantly more resources and revenue streams than independent producers. If, for example, the release of Billions had been delayed for seven months, Nazimova still had two films on the Metro exchanges (and therefore in theatres) and Camille would have entered production in the meantime. But for Nazimova as an independent producer, this situation was wholly untenable. (In fact, Pickford, Fairbanks, and Griffith were in a similar untenable situation when they founded Allied.)

Initially, Bryant proposed roadshowing Salomé. Roadshowing is a release strategy for notable film productions where a film is toured around major cities, often with in-person engagements by stars, writers, and/or directors. Nazimova expanded the idea of touring with Salomé not simply as a roadshow, but paired with a short play in which she would star. Double the Alla, double the fun. As far as I can tell, there isn’t publicly available information about why Salomé wasn’t roadshowed. However, we do know that Griffith, as the only non-performer in UA, wanted to utilize different approaches for the release of his films—like roadshowing—and it became one of the major points of disagreement with his fellow UA decision makers. That could be taken as an indication that something similar might have occurred with Nazimova and Allied.

As time dragged on without a release date for Salomé and Nazimova returned to theatrical work—openly admitting to audiences that she was broke—Bryant took matters into his own hands. At the end of December 1922, Bryant negotiated with the owner of the Criterion Theatre in New York City for Salomé to run on New Year’s as a special presentation. In two days, Salomé grossed $2,630, setting records for the theatre. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $48,988.96. It was successful enough that the owner of the Criterion opted to hold the film over. This bold move must have lit a fire under Allied’s tuckuses, as Salomé finally had its first-run release a little over a month later.

In the 1920s, the first-run booking of a film was a crucial part of its further success. Concurrent nationwide release of films wasn’t the norm yet, and if a film was a big production, getting booked at high-capacity motion picture houses in major cities was a necessity. These big city releases would, in theory, generate interest in the film with exhibitors across the country and internationally. Basically, if you spent a lot on a movie but couldn’t land a first-run release, you weren’t likely to turn a profit or even break even. Salomé had a handful of first-run bookings and local reviewers from those cities believed the film would succeed. A reviewer from the Boston Transcript in February 1923 wrote:

“…this newest Salome is something far better than a photographed play. Considered both as picture acting, and as an interesting experiment in design, “Salome” is a notable production. It will have a far and wide reaching influence on future films in this country.”

But, as I mentioned, only a handful of first-run theatres played Salomé, and, taken collectively, the notices I analyzed from contemporary trades imply that it didn’t gain traction once it was made available beyond its initial run.

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

During this regrettably short theatrical run, exhibitors and reviewers from trade publications advised that Salomé was a unique film that called for unique promotion. The overall assumption was that theatre owners knew their patrons and recognised whether out-of-the-ordinary movies were popular with them. Rather than purely judging a film’s quality, exhibitors and trade reviewers had concerns specific to exhibition when providing feedback. These concerns cannot be overlooked if you want to understand their assessments. For example, exhibitor feedback was very often informed by how high the rental fees were for a film, even if exhibitors don’t directly mention said fees. That is to say, a mediocre film might be rated highly if the rental fees were modest (and if block booking wasn’t an issue). Reviewers in the early 1920s, both for popular magazines and trade publications, were already accustomed to the formulaic nature of most studio output. Their reviews commonly expressed fatigue with studio films’ lack of originality. And, perhaps surprisingly, this sentiment was shared among theatre owners as well—particularly when a run-of-the-mill film was sold to them as anything other than a “programmer” (a precursor to B-movies).

What I have learned, not just by analyzing feedback for Salomé, but also for all of the films in my LBnF series, is that when a 1920s reviewer calls out bizarreness in a film, it’s not always a negative quality, even when the review isn’t positive. In the case of reviews written for exhibitors/theatre owners, focussing on what makes a movie different is purely pragmatic. It guides how exhibitors might market films to patrons and helps exhibitors judge if a film would be suitable for their audiences. And, from that same research, I’ve found significant indications there were numerous markets throughout the US that were hungry for novelty—contrary to what studio apparatchiks wanted to admit. So, pointing out Salomé’s bizarreness was a recommendation for those markets to consider renting it as much as it was a warning against renting for theatre owners who only had success with more conventional films.

Cover of the Campaign Book for Salomé reproduced in Exhibitors Herald, 9 February 1924

In the case of Salomé, reviews and feedback upon its release focused on two major points:

The film isn’t “adult” in nature. Well-known productions of Strauss’ opera and the 1918 Theda Bara film of the same name led to a presumption of salaciousness. (I talked a bit about that in Part One!)

The film deserves/requires a build up as an artistic event film.

Nazimova’s company helped exhibitors with the latter point in a few ways. The company provided Aubrey Beardsley inspired art posters conceived by Natacha Rambova and executed by Eugene Gise. They printed a book to guide promotion of an artistic spectacle. (So far, I haven’t been able to find a physical or digital copy, so I can’t assess how good the advice was!) Salomé was also distributed with an official musical score, apparently written for a full orchestra.

Art Posters designed by Rambova and painted by Gise as reproduced in Exhibitor’s Trade Review, 10 February 1923

The exhibitors who ran Salomé—and put at least some of this advice into practice—were satisfied with the business it did. By these accounts, the American moviegoing public was attracted by the novelty of Salomé, but what chance were they given to see it?

While this evidence of Allied’s poor distribution work may be circumstantial, it certainly complicates the narratives that Salomé was an unqualified flop or that average Americans weren’t (or aren’t) receptive to artistic experimentation. Given that Nazimova was not the only independent filmmaker who suffered from Allied’s inept distribution, it does seem like the underwhelming business Salomé did was due more to a poor choice of business partners than to any quality of the film or of American moviegoers. That said, with the increasing monopolization of the industry, Nazimova did not have a wealth of options.

Though Salomé was made and released at an tumultuous period for the US film industry, it did eventually find its audience through circulation in art cinemas. As the gap between experimental/avant-garde film widened in the US and the professional industry became less and less tolerant of departures from convention, Americans concerned with film as an art form rallied around amateur filmmaking clubs and art cinemas began popping up in cities by the middle of the decade. Salomé played in these theatres even after the advent of sound—occasionally even today. This is likely the key reason that Salomé survives and we’ve been able to continue to enjoy and reevaluate it one hundred years later.

Salomé is a significant film made at a significant moment in American film history. Nazimova took a major risk in going independent and personally funding two artistic projects. These films were founded on the beliefs that American moviegoers wanted art made by human beings with unique imaginations, feelings, sensibilities and that there was an audience for more than derivative, “machine-made” film. In my opinion, through close analysis of the circumstances of Salomé‘s release, we can see that Nazimova was likely correct, but didn’t get a genuine chance to prove it in her lifetime. Additionally, it’s important to note that Nazimova’s risks did not “ruin” her as is occasionally said. The state of her finances were more greatly affected in the 1920s by her fake husband’s habit of spending her money and by getting swindled by a pair of con artists over her estate, The Garden of Alla. Soldiering on, Nazimova continued to work in both theatre and film for the rest of her life and found more stability with the partner she would meet at the end of the 1920s, Glesca Marshall.

——— ——— ———

Once I finished this “Cosplay the Classics” entry, I realized that it would way too much for me to include a section on another relevant topic to Salomé: Orientalism in Hollywood. But, I feel that the topic is too important to just edit that writing out. Look out for a shorter “postscript” entry soon!

——— ——— ———

☕Appreciate my work? Buy me a coffee! ☕

——— ——— ———

Footnotes:

[1] Danse Macabre is also thought to be a major influence on Walt Disney animating to music, as seen in “Silly Symphonies” and later Fantasia (1940) and Disney’s other musical anthology features. It was also in this period that Disney fled from his debtors in the Midwest to California with his first “Alice” movie. However, the wide-ranging effects of Disney’s business practices were not felt until much later, so that’s another story for another time!

[2] Nazimova was one of a handful of women in Hollywood at the time who held significant creative power. June Mathis and Natacha Rambova, both of whom Nazimova regularly worked with, Mary Pickford and her regular tag-team partner Frances Marion are among some of the others.

[3] Chaplin wouldn’t produce a film for UA until 1923’s A Woman of Paris, as he was fulfilling a pre-existing contract with another studio.

[4] According to Gavin Lambert’s biography of Nazimova (which I discussed as a largely unreliable source in Part One), Robert Florey supposedly advised Nazimova against signing with them, citing Max Linder and Charles Ray as artists who had been “ruined” by their deals. However, the timeline does not quite match up. Though Florey did visit the set of Salomé, Nazimova had already signed the Allied deal by then and Ray had not finished The Courtship of Miles Standish (1923) when Salomé was in production. In fact, there was almost a year and a half between the completion of Salomé and the release of Standish. Whether this was a lapse of memory by Florey or misreporting by Lambert, I can’t be sure.

[5] Originally, I wanted to include Madonna of the Streets (1924) in my comparisons but, at the moment, Lantern has gaps in their Moving Picture World archive for 1924-5. I didn’t want to draw conclusions from incomplete data.

[6] Billions was also a Rambova-Nazimova collaboration. Rambova designed a fantasy sequence for the film.

[7] A mindset that’s still common among commercial media outlets today unfortunately. I could rant and rant about “content” and “content creation” all day but that’s another story for another time.

——— ——— ———

Bibliography/Further Reading

(This isn’t an exhaustive list, but covers what’s most relevant to the essay above!)

Lost, but Not Forgotten: A Doll’s House (1922)

“Nazimova in Repertoire” in Motion Picture News, 29 October 1921

“Alla Nazimova Plans for Her New Pictures” in Moving Picture World, 29 October 1921

“Nazimova Abandons Dual Program for Latest Film” in Exhibitors Herald, 24 December 1921

“Plays and Players”in Photoplay, February 1922

“PICTORIAL SECTION” in Exhibitors Herald, 4 February 1922

“New Nazimova Film May Be Roadshowed“ in Exhibitors Herald, 15 April 1922

“Newspaper Opinions” in The Film Daily, 3 January 1923

“Splendid Production Values But No Kick in Nazimova’s ‘Salome’” in The Film Daily, 7 January 1923

“Claims “Salome” Hit New Mark at N. Y. Criterion” in Exhibitors Herald, 27 January 1923

“Salome” in Exhibitors Trade Review, 20 January 1923

“Nazimova in SALOME” in Exhibitors Herald, 27 January 1923

“Nazimova Appeals To Exhibitors In Behalf of ‘Salome’” in Exhibitor’s Trade Review, 27 January 1923

“Novelty Features Paper and Ads for ‘Salome’” in Exhibitor’s Trade Review, 10 February 1923

“SALOME’ —Class AA” from Screen Opinions, 15 February 1923

Nazimova: A Biography by Gavin Lambert (Note: I do not recommend this without caveat even though it’s the only monograph biography of Nazimova. Lambert did a commendable amount of research but his presentation of that research is ruined by misrepresentations, factual errors, and a general tendency to make unfounded assumptions about Nazimova’s motivations and personal feelings.)

Lovers of Cinema: The First American Avant-Garde 1919-1945 ed. Jan-Christopher Horak (most notably, “The First American Avant-Garde 1919-1945” by Horak, “The Limits of Experimentation in Hollywood” by Kristin Thompson, and “Startling Angles: Amateur Film and the Early Avant-Garde” by Patricia R. Zimmermann)

United Artists: The Company Built by the Stars, Vol. 1 1919-1950 by Tino Balio

36 notes · View notes

traintrainingmontage · 4 months ago

Text

I should stop coming up with new headcanons and actually write things for the ones I already have. That said, please consider:

Skarloey having trauma from WWII (which wrecked havoc on their railway), as well as the depression that followed, least of which because he could barely move and his body was in absolutely terrible shape. However, his physical condition aside, much like people who have lived through depressions in the past, it made him much more cognisant of the value of money.

Skarloey was struggling deeply with not being able to help on the railway, seeing as being useful and doing work is an engine's raison d'être, but found a purpose to cling to during those terrible years: listening to the radio for stock market news.

Thanks to the Thin Controller and Mr. Ivo Hugh satisfying his curiosity and teaching him about money (seeing as the railway so desperately needed it), and then stocks and finance, Skarloey kept a dedicated ear open to the finance news, hoping to learn about ANYTHING that might help the railway. If he couldn't serve with his body, then he would serve with his mind, and that would help prevent him from drowning in his own guilt and self-loathing. Skarloey was never actually that interested in money and finance, finding it all to be rather boring since so much of it was intangible, but gave his all to doing what he considered to be "his part".

Surprisingly, he actually learned about market trends and came up with some helpful insights/nuggets of wisdom, seeing as there wasn't really anyone else in a position to monitor stock news for hours on end and pay attention to what could be important. Thanks to this information, and Sir Handel Brown II's financial saavy, they could earn a little money alongside Rheneas's tireless work and so the railway was able to stay afloat little by little each year.

When the lean years concluded with the arrival of Sir Handel and Peter Sam, Skarloey still kept up with the finance news, but to a much lesser extent. He now had engines to mentor and Rheneas had been sent away as soon as they had the funds to do so, requiring him to be the voice of guidance and reason. Being away for his own overhaul let him hear different news, news from the rest of the country, and he returned with a broader perspective.

To this day, even though their once-beloved portable radio is used less, Skarloey still asks his driver about finances and the stock reports and the like. It's not something he avidly pursues anymore, especially because he was never super interested in the first place, but he's old enough to know (and has enough trauma to worry) that things come in cycles, and even if the railway is doing well now, it's never a bad idea to keep an ear open and listen for the patterns that he's learned to recognize.

#ttte #te talks trains #ttte skarloey

30 notes · View notes

racefortheironthrone · 10 months ago

Note

Why do economists need to shut up about mercantilism, as you alluded to in your post about Louis XIV's chief ministers?

In part due to their supposed intellectual descent from Adam Smith and the other classical economists, contemporary economists are pretty uniformly hostile to mercantilism, seeing it as a wrong-headed political economy that held back human progress until it was replaced by that best of all ideas: capitalism.

As a student of economic history and the history of political economy, I find that economists generally have a pretty poor understanding of what mercantilists actually believed and what economic policies they actually supported. In reality, a lot of the things that economists see as key advances in the creation of capitalism - the invention of the joint-stock company, the creation of financial markets, etc. - were all accomplishments of mercantiism.

Rather than the crude stereotype of mercantilists as a bunch of monetary weirdos who thought the secret to prosperity was the hoarding of precious metals, mercantilists were actually lazer-focused on economic development. The whole business about trying to achieve a positive balance of trade and financial liquidity and restraining wages was all a means to an end of economic development. Trade surpluses could be invested in manufacturing and shipping, gold reserves played an important role in deepening capital pools and thus increasing levels of investment at lower interest rates that could support larger-scale and more capital intensive enterprises, and so forth.

Indeed, the arch-sin of mercantilism in the eyes of classical and contemporary economists, their interference in free trade through tariffs, monopolies, and other interventions, was all directed at the overriding economic goal of climbing the value-added ladder.

Thus, England (and later Britain) put a tariff on foreign textiles and an export tax on raw wool and forbade the emigration of skilled workers (while supporting the immigration of skilled workers to England) and other mercantilist policies to move up from being exporters of raw wool (which meant that most of the profits from the higher value-added part of the industry went to Burgundy) to being exporters of cheap wool cloth to being exporters of more advanced textiles. Hell, even Adam Smith saw the logic of the Navigation Acts!

And this is what brings me to the most devastating critique of the standard economist narrative about mercantilism: the majority of the countries that successfully industrialized did so using mercantilist principles rather than laissez-faire principles:

When England became the first industrial economy, it did so under strict protectionist policies and only converted to free trade once it had gained enough of a technological and economic advantage over its competitors that it didn't need protectionism any more.

When the United States industrialized in the 19th century and transformed itself into the largest economy in the world, it did so from behind high tariff walls.

When Germany made itself the leading industrial power on the Continent, it did so by rejecting English free trade economics and having the state invest heavily in coal, steel, and railroads. Free trade was only for within the Zollverein, not with the outside world.

And as Dani Rodrik, Ha-Joon Chang, and others have pointed out, you see the same thing with Japan, South Korea, China...everywhere you look, you see protectionism as the means of achieving economic development, and then free trade only working for already-developed economies.

#political economy #mercantilism #economic development #early modern state-building #early modern period #laissez-faire #classical liberalism #classical economics #economics #economic history

66 notes · View notes

emeryleewho · 2 months ago

Text

My post about the mess that is trad pub editorial is going around again, and a lot of people are asking "so should I go indie or go trad?" and the answer is *it depends on what you're looking for*.

[I'm referring to "indie" here meaning self-pub and "trad" meaning a publisher, though most small publishers will lean closer to self-pub in terms of distribution and whatnot]

This has always been the answer, but the reasons behind it have changed a lot. People used to say "go indie if you want full control, go trad if you want someone else to handle everything else for you". This is only partially true. Even if you go trad, unless you are part of a handful of heavily supported titles, you will be doing *a lot* yourself. From editorial (I know people who were advised to hire freelance editors or sensitivity readers on their own because the publisher wouldn't do enough) to cover art (I know people who had to walk their publisher through getting them a decent cover) to cover copy (*I* had to rewrite the jacket copy for both of my books because the first attempt was inaccurate) to marketing, odds are, even in trad, you will be doing A LOT of the work yourself, but with more barriers because you don't *own* the print rights and can't stop the publisher from doing things you highly disagree with.

So what's the benefit of trad? DISTRIBUTION. If you are trying to put out the best possible book, I stand by the fact that indie authors have the ability to make *a way better product* than trad can because they can set their own timelines, make sure things are accurate to the book because things aren't being subdivided into so many overworked departments that haven't even read it, and cater to what works best rather than what seems the most profitable. The only limit for an indie author is the time and money they're able to invest into it, but once those things are present [and you can decide how much of each are needed for your book], they have significantly more potential than the average Big 5.

But indies lack *distribution*. There is still a lot of stigma against indie books that prevent readers from picking them up or lead to readers deprioritizing them when reading or writing harsher reviews. Many libraries, bookstores, etc. can't or won't stock indie books, and a lot of professional events bar indie authors from attending. This means that even if an indie book is flawless, they will inherently be gatekept out of places like Barnes & Noble, won't be present on cataloguing websites the industry relies on like edelweiss, etc. etc. This doesn't mean that indie books have *no* distribution, but there are massive financial barriers to entry when doing it alone, and even when you are doing the same marketing/promotion/networking/etc., that work goes significantly further when booksellers/librarians/etc. will go out and stock your book vs. when most will have to turn you down for one reason or another.

So to make this simpler, I think going indie is better for *the book*. It gives you the ability to put more time and effort into it, to ensure it meets your vision, to sink your love into it without having to boil out its uniqueness in favor of mass market profits. It also gives you the room to make sure the quality is up to your standards from editorial to formatting to cover design to quality of the print run. You don't have to cross your fingers and hope your publisher doesn't fuck it all up with AI or by working your team to death. You also get more knowledge about what is happening with your book (big pubs often withhold important information or straight up lie), which means you can coordinate more effective marketing campaigns than you would if say, your publisher decided they no longer cared to market your book (which happens for most books). Finally, publishing likes to do a two-month book lifespan, meaning most books stop getting any sort of in-house support two-months after release or earlier. If you want your book to stand a chance of finding an audience slow and steady (as in, the organic way books spread), you won't get that with trad pub.

However, trad pub is better for *the audience*. If you're writing for kids or teens especially, it will be VERY difficult to reach them going indie because indie thrives mostly on ebook sales and eretailers, which minors have less access to. Getting an indie book into schools and libraries is hard if not borderline impossible, and that is how most books reach kids and teens. On top of that, you likely won't reach most indie bookstores, most libraries, and won't be allowed at many conventions and events (even if you pitch yourself), which will limit who you can reach to people who readily shop online and use social media. There are many access points in getting your book discovered that, even if you *had* a large sum of money, would be denied to you by virtue of being indie. This makes discovery harder (even beyond marketing) and means that even people who *actively want your book* may not be able to get it if it's not distributed to their country, a store they can access, their library, etc. If you're writing to reach a wide audience, something that you think is educational, or that really serves an under-served demographic, trad makes it much more likely you will actually reach those people.

Now, obviously this is just my two cents. You can choose to go trad or indie for literally any reason, even just because you like the idea of getting published by a Penguin. I don't care. People's experiences also vary, and you could be that super lucky 1% who gets doted on and everything is handled for you. This is just a big picture summation of what I tend to see for the average, midlist or quiet title. But trad is notoriously opaque and a lot of people don't realize the advances indie has made in the past 5 years and also don't realize how any of this stuff works behind the scenes, so here's some info from your local hybrid (I do both) author. And if you found this helpful, consider checking out my next book, which is now funding on Kickstarter until Oct 12th.

#writing #publishing #books #indie author #indie publishing #trad publishing #traditional publishing

17 notes · View notes

spacetimewithstuartgary · 2 months ago

Text

Reinventing the clock: NASA's new tech for space timekeeping

Here on Earth, it might not matter if your wristwatch runs a few seconds slow. But crucial spacecraft functions need accuracy down to one billionth of a second or less. Navigating with GPS, for example, relies on precise timing signals from satellites to pinpoint locations. Three teams at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, are at work to push timekeeping for space exploration to new levels of precision.

One team develops highly precise quantum clock synchronization techniques to aid essential spacecraft communication and navigation.

Another Goddard team is working to employ the technique of clock synchronization in space-based platforms to enable telescopes to function as one enormous observatory.

The third team is developing an atomic clock for spacecraft based on strontium, a metallic chemical element, to enable scientific observations not possible with current technology.

The need for increasingly accurate timekeeping is why the teams at NASA Goddard, supported by the center's Internal Research and Development program, hone clock precision and synchronization with innovative technologies like quantum and optical communications.

Syncing up across the solar system

"Society requires clock synchronization for many crucial functions like power grid management, stock market openings, financial transactions, and much more," said Alejandro Rodriguez Perez, a NASA Goddard researcher. "NASA uses clock synchronization to determine the position of spacecraft and set navigation parameters."

If you line up two clocks and sync them together, you might expect that they will tick at the same rate forever. In reality, the more time passes, the more out of sync the clocks become, especially if those clocks are on spacecraft traveling at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Rodriguez Perez seeks to develop a new way of precisely synchronizing such clocks and keeping them synced using quantum technology.

In quantum physics, two particles are entangled when they behave like a single object and occupy two states at once. For clocks, applying quantum protocols to entangled photons could allow for a precise and secure way to sync clocks across long distances.

The heart of the synchronization protocol is called spontaneous parametric down conversion, which is when one photon breaks apart and two new photons form. Two detectors will each analyze when the new photons appear, and the devices will apply mathematical functions to determine the offset in time between the two photons, thus synchronizing the clocks.

While clock synchronization is currently done using GPS, this protocol could make it possible to precisely synchronize clocks in places where GPS access is limited, like the moon or deep space.

Syncing clocks, linking telescopes to see more than ever before

When it comes to astronomy, the usual rule of thumb is the bigger the telescope, the better its imagery.

"If we could hypothetically have a telescope as big as Earth, we would have incredibly high-resolution images of space, but that's obviously not practical," said Guan Yang, an optical physicist at NASA Goddard.

"What we can do, however, is have multiple telescopes in various locations and have each telescope record the signal with high time precision. Then we can stitch their observations together and produce an ultra-high-res image."

The idea of linking together the observations of a network of smaller telescopes to affect the power of a larger one is called very long baseline interferometry, or VLBI.

For VLBI to produce a whole greater than the sum of its parts, the telescopes need high-precision clocks. The telescopes record data alongside timestamps of when the data was recorded. High-powered computers assemble all the data together into one complete observation with greater detail than any one of the telescopes could achieve on its own. This technique is what allowed the Event Horizon Telescope's network of observatories to produce the first image of a black hole at the center of our galaxy.

Yang's team is developing a clock technology that could be useful for missions looking to take the technique from Earth into space which could unlock many more discoveries.

An optical atomic clock built for space travel

Spacecraft navigation systems currently rely on onboard atomic clocks to obtain the most accurate time possible. Holly Leopardi, a physicist at NASA Goddard, is researching optical atomic clocks, a more precise type of atomic clock.

While optical atomic clocks exist in laboratory settings, Leopardi and her team seek to develop a spacecraft-ready version that will provide more precision.

The team works on OASIC, which stands for Optical Atomic Strontium Ion Clock. While current spacecraft utilize microwave frequencies, OASIC uses optical frequencies.

The idea of linking together the observations of a network of smaller telescopes to affect the power of a larger one is called very long baseline interferometry, or VLBI.

Yang's team is developing a clock technology that could be useful for missions looking to take the technique from Earth into space which could unlock many more discoveries.

An optical atomic clock built for space travel

While optical atomic clocks exist in laboratory settings, Leopardi and her team seek to develop a spacecraft-ready version that will provide more precision.

The team works on OASIC, which stands for Optical Atomic Strontium Ion Clock. While current spacecraft utilize microwave frequencies, OASIC uses optical frequencies.

"Optical frequencies oscillate much faster than microwave frequencies, so we can have a much finer resolution of counts and more precise timekeeping," Leopardi said.

The OASIC technology is about 100 times more precise than the previous state-of-the-art in spacecraft atomic clocks. The enhanced accuracy could enable new types of science that were not previously possible.

"When you use these ultra-high precision clocks, you can start looking at the fundamental physics changes that occur in space," Leopardi said, "and that can help us better understand the mechanisms of our universe."

The timekeeping technologies unlocked by these teams, could enable new discoveries in our solar system and beyond.

TOP IMAGE: Work on the quantum clock synchronization protocol takes place in this NASA Goddard lab. Credit: NASA/Matthew Kaufman

LOWER IMAGE: The Optical Atomic Strontium Ion Clock (OASIC) is a higher-precsion atomic clock that is small enough to fit on a spacecraft. Credit: NASA/Matthew Kaufman

#science #space #astronomy #physics #news #nasa #astrophysics

13 notes · View notes

phoenixyfriend · 1 year ago

Text

Ko-Fi prompt from @kayasurin:

Just rant about the stock market, whatever you want to say about it!

'just rant' is such a prompt for uhhhh my distaste.

LEGALLY NECESSARY DISCLAIMER: I am not a licensed financial advisor, and it is illegal for me to advise anyone on investment in securities like stocks. My commentary here is merely opinion, not financial advice, and I urge you to not make any decisions with regards to securities investments based on my opinions, or without consulting a licensed advisor.

So here are a few things:

1. Stocks are unreliable.

For the layperson, there is nothing that can be done about the direction a stock takes. Unless you are a majority shareholder, or one of several who can work in concert, you cannot affect the direction a company takes, which means you cannot affect the decisions that might cause a stock to increase or decrease in value. This is a rich man's game. The average investor is just along for the ride, god help them.

Between Random Walk Theory, the dart-throwing monkeys study, and the fact that mutual funds do not beat the market, there is just... it's a crapshoot. Anyone who tells you to invest to make a lot of money is drinking the Kool-Aid. You can invest to make a small return, to keep your money in a lot of places in case your bank gets digitally robbed or whatever your worries might be, diversification is good for safety nets, but for pity's sake, don't expect to become a millionaire, and be aware you can lose a lot, even listening to experts.

2. Stocks can be manipulated, and it's ridiculous and stupid and fucks over perfectly normal companies

Do you remember the GameStop reddit thing? I do. If you don't, please take a quick look at this record of the GameStop stock price.

See that spike in 2021? That was Reddit.

This post did a great job explaining it, but you told me to rant, and so I shall.

A large investment company had decided to make a lot of money for their clients by destroying GameStop. They did this by selling more shares than they actually owned (more than actually existed), force the market to absolutely tank the price, with plans to "buy back" the stock once it was dirt cheap, thereby making a profit for their company. This is a common form of stock manipulation called shortstelling, and investors had been doing it to GameStop for years, without the general public noticing.

Except Reddit did notice. And they decided to Fuck It Up, buying up stock at higher and higher prices, forcing the stock price to skyrocket, and the mutual/hedge funds still had to buy them back, but now it was at a massive loss, and it made headlines across the country because of how incredibly ridiculous it was.

The things to note here is that the market can be manipulated without any regard to the actual profits or health of the company, and that attempts to do so can backfire spectacularly.

3. Returns are minimal

There are two ways to earn money on stocks. The first is returns on capital investment; you buy the share at $10, sell it for $20, and you've thus received $10 profit. This is part of the incredibly unreliable bit I mentioned, because you cannot control the direction the stock takes, and generally can't predict it.

The other way is dividends, which like... profits made over the previous quarter (after paying employees, bank loans, rents, etc.) can be either reinvested to grow the company, or paid out to shareholders. But if you invest $150 in a single share of Walmart stock, your quarterly dividend is $2.25, which is $11/yr.

So unless you're investing hundreds of thousands of dollars, or get really lucky with what you choose to invest in, dividends aren't going to get you much of anything.

And when your stocks do give you healthy dividends, it's because there's money left for shareholders! Which, if you remember a few lines back, is left over after paying employees.

If an investor wants a return on their investment, and they can vote to change policy, and policy that pays employees dictates that they get a smaller dividend, do you think that the investors are going to vote to pay their employees fairly?

Yeah, didn't think so.

4. Rapid, Consumptive Growth

There was a really good post recently that described how and why the Chicago School of Economics, colloquially Reaganomics, has completely fucked over the entire US economy by encouraging the absolute worst state for the market to be in, which is seeking eternal parasitic growth. I urge you to read that one if you can, because the bloggers did a good job. Basically, screw Reagan and screw the Chicago school. The economy still would have been a capitalist hellscape without them, but they sure did hasten it!

(Prompt me on ko-fi!)

#economics #stock market #stocks #phoenix posts #ko fi prompts #ko fi #economics prompts

104 notes · View notes

fromtenthousandfeet · 3 months ago

Text

HYBE Financials and Media Play Part 2

Dang it! Why did so much have to happen with HYBE before I had a chance to write this installment? At least I have plenty of material to continue this series.

Let's start where I left off, with some examples of actual media play with stories and tweets hyping up HYBE's 2nd quarter revenue while completely ignoring the always falling net income.

Start here if you're interested in this ongoing thread:

Here's a post from Kpop Charts celebrating HYBE's incredible second quarter. Notice there's no mention of the $12 million net profit or of their ever-dropping profit margin to 2.28%. This post had over 600,000 views.

There were loads of posts and articles just like the one above on the day HYBE released their 2Q24 financials. It's worth noting these media outlets get a press release from HYBE and just regurgitate the information rather than vetting it. This is how the company continues to fool the general public.

I found one article that actually mentioned the declining net income, but it's still reads like a press release from the company. Check it out to see the excuses they make for low net income despite the record-breaking revenue.

When it comes to media play and outright lies, nothing comes close to how HYBE has pinned all their problems on Min Hee Jin. The last 48 hours have been media play on steroids, but let's focus on the message HYBE has been broadcasting for months now. Article after article has blamed HYBE's falling stock price on their difficulties with MHJ. It's really quite smart strategy to pin their falling stock price on her rather than facing the fact that K-pop isn't the long-term cash cow the company claims it to be. The reality is, financial analysts have been sounding the alarm for months that the K-pop industry is a financial house of cards. They rely too heavily on record sales (we've all seen the stacks of CDs abandoned on the street). I guess the Chinese government has cracked down on mass buying, which hurts the K-pop industry, but so does the inflation that's hitting so many across the globe hard. When fans are given the choice between buying tons of the same album or paying rent, I'm pretty sure most would choose food and shelter over 100 copies of the latest Seventeen album.

Blaming MHJ for the falling stock sends the message to investors that all of HYBE's problems will be fixed once they get rid of that pesky woman, when in reality, she and her label are good for HYBE's bottom line. They can (and I guess did) fire her, but that won't change the waning interest in K-pop on a global scale.

All the K-pop music labels are seeing huge drops in their stock prices. Do they also have a Min Hee Jin problem???

Year to date, these stock prices are down approximately -

JYP -50%

YG -28%

SM -32%

It's almost like there's a problem in the industry, right?!

I'm going to go into the HYBE?MHJ situation more deeply in my next post, but I want to end this post with another example of how HYBE manipulates public perception. This article is from CNBC, a major US media outlet, and it's straight lies.

Originally, the article claimed MHJ resigned as CEO, but we now know that was a falsehood coming directly from HYBE. The article was updated a day later to clear up that whopper. But the huge lie staring everyone in the face is the gains in the market cap/increase in stock price. The article completely fails to mention that on the same day HYBE canned MHJ, they also quietly announced a stock buy back worth 26.6 billion won with the express purpose of boosting the stock price.

The company is buying up common stock and converting it to restricted stock. Once the common stock is converted to restricted stock, the fewer shares of common stock will mean the EPS increases (earnings per share). Earnings per share is calculated by dividing net income (see previous post) by the number of outstanding common stock shares. I can talk about this more if anyone is interested. But suffice it to say, this is a way to make the company's share price increase while making the company appear more financially sound.

A restricted stock unit (RSU) is stock-based compensation issued by an employer. A vesting period exists before the RSU converts to actual common stock. Until then, it has no monetary worth. Once the RSU converts to stock, the stockholder may pay taxes on its value.

The stock price increase had absolutely nothing to do with MHJ "resigning" and had everything to do with the buy back. If anything, giving the boot to the executive whose business line contributes 14% to the bottom line should scare the shit out of investors. Those sneaky bastards!

Whatever you think about Min Hee Jin or NewJeans, please keep in mind that the members of BTS seem to be stuck in that crappy, poorly run corporation. It seems Bang Si Hyuk and his goons have no problem destroying reputations and careers of individuals who commit the sin of being successful. Does that sound familiar?

15 notes · View notes

intoloopin-archive · 5 months ago

Note

JJ knows his strengths and how to highlight them so even if he isn't that musically gifted he can still keep up! His upbringing didn't allow him to be anything but a little diva and I love that for him but I wonder how his personality fits into the group.

But your little character breakdown/plot posts are always good!

GIO.

I've been treating this ask like a very fancy bottle of wine, really waiting for the perfect moment to answer it in the most interesting way possible, and now that LOOPiN is FINALLY (!!!) free from New Wave Music and they officially have a new home, I believe a post dissecting how they used to work under Seo CEO's awful control is a must. And here I have the perfect little moment to ramble about it! Which I love!

So, the short answer to your questions is: J.J fits in very badly on a personal level, and most of the other guys consider him unmanageable to say the least, but! LOOPiN as a whole has been so desensitized to Jiahang's (annoying!) personality because, as long as they were under New Wave, they all knew that he was an untouchable constant; both because of his father's grip on the company stock, and because in mid 2021 J.J made the very strategic decision to take active part on backing LOOPiN financially, and he did so by paying for their dorm room accomodations and making that his sole responsability - which is why in some pieces set on their 'flop era' you can notice that their home is just waaaaay too fucking nice.

But yeah, with anyone who's not Minwoo (from late 2020 up until literally a week before he publicly retired from making music), Haegon (often enough) or Hanjae, Jiahang has had very big professional and personal feuds that still linger. It gets ugly sometimes guys, it really does.

Now! To the longer answer!

NEW WAVE MUSIC's LOOPiN & ITS HIDDEN HIERARCHY:

[❗] TWs: corporate abuse, medical neglect.

If in universe iNSYNCs or just people aware of them were to be consulted, they would say that the chain of command and order of company favoritism while LOOPiN were under New Wave Music (2017 - 2023) ended up as:

01. Minwoo; 02. Seungsoo; 03. Haruki; 04. O.z; 05. J.J; 06. Hanjae; 07. Gyujin; 08. Dylan; 09. Taesong; 10. Haegon.

*Former member Lee Beomseok is not included, but just so you know, he wouldn't crack the Top5.

Which, by looking at the graphic you can see it's pretty off! Let's dissect it!

(NOTE: The two white boxes around the Top4 symbolize leadership roles, and they obviously entail the Produce Line, but less obviously, in a ground right above it, stands Minwoo and J.J in a duo that we can informally call as 'LOOPiN's Crisis Management'.)

At the very top of the food chain, we have J.J: As mentioned above, and also said in posts in the past here and there, Jiahang's spot in LOOPiN was 100% bought by his father, but his privilege goes way beyond just sharing surnames with a major sponsor: J.J has an entire personal team of lawyers, a private stylist and his own manager/financial consultant, Han Qiong (39), which puts him miles ahead of everyone else who depended on New Wave's shady and unprepared staff team. Jiahang's influence is also very present in everything on LOOPiN's two last years under New Wave (which came as consequence of him being Minwoo's "apprentice"), but it's all very subtle, as he always hid behind Minwoo to not spoil his incompetent brat persona to CEO Seo Chanhyuk - many marketing stunts, a good parts of their visual identity and even some promoted songs were handpicked by him but signed off as Minwoo's decisions, and even the members don't know that. As of now, speaking of 2023-0T9-Rare-Rhythm-LOOPiN, only Taesong and Haruki are aware of their past almost co-leadership deal and know how frail J.J actually is with this start over on the career department. He has pretty much no idea how and what he should do next now that he doesn't have a clear advantage! A giant really fell!

Minwoo: Even before he took over the official leader position from Taesong in 2021, everyone working with LOOPiN behind the scenes knew Minwoo was the guy in charge: not only was he the frontman of the Produce Line, but not a single decision even outside the group's sound was made without consulting him, mostly because people felt like they should - his... passionate involvement, let's say, about every aspect of the group was very clear. He also kept riding the wave of his Boy Of The Week days as "the golden trainee", and the respect he build in the industry after butting heads with Chanhyuk and his brigade of shareholders to make LOOPiN creative independent, even though it did give everyone consequences - Seo CEO came to HATE his guts right after they debuted, and was a bitch about them just because Minwoo was always just as much of a bitch back. Him making Taesong the leader during their group debut despite Minwoo's obvious crave for that title was just as much of a move made to try to control them as it was petty, childish shit.

O.z: Wu Zhiming is not someone you can restrain, and New Wave Music came to learn that a beat too late; they also didn't know how to fully support him as a music producer, which O.z took no time to notice and start quietly networking his way into opportunities. Now, his music career outside of LOOPiN is the most stable - he's been the major producer and collaborator with Nico, an independent (and faceless!) singer that in universe has internet fame reaching the likes of Pinkpantheress, and he's definely the first member to reach stable international fame, even if it's a tad controversial. And that's something he did despite New Wave Music, and Zhiming has talked about it publicly with no fear, so everyone knows he's truly independent! You go, O.z!

Seungsoo: Seungsoo always has a hard time seeing the bigger picture, and with his career it was no different: he always assumed the Produce Line was an equal triad and even that he was Minwoo's second hand man (which, LMAO. NO!), and he constantly failed to see everyone always respected him the less. But he was and is a group producer, he did have a voice and some control of LOOPiN as a brand, and that automatically puts him above a lot of the members. Seungsoo is also very popular with the public, known as a sweet talker and charming guy, and his music is very sought after for girl groups and female soloists. He was not doing the worst.

Gyujin: Gyujin, the newest loop dude of them all, stands right in the middle. He joined LOOPiN at a crazy time, but he is flexible by nature and he worked himself into the public's good graces very quickly, all on his own; it barely took him 7 months to be iNSYNC's new darling dearest, which did give some brownie points with Seo CEO at the time. Gyujin is also very familiar with the entertainment industry, which barely changed in the years he spend retired from child acting, so he knew from the get go what to watch out for. His contract signing took 3 weeks because he kept going for legal tweaks, something that immediately set off warning sirens inside Seo CEO's head, but at that point, Gyujin was all he had to try to set off the fire of Beomseok's departure - and many other accusations! If he had more time inside the company, Gyujin could definely pull a J.J and find something to use to his advantage against Chanhyuk, because if there's one thing he'll always do, is find an angle.

Hanjae: As soon as Sangwon got out of the picture as LOOPiN's manager in early 2022, Hanjae found himself in a very interesting position, that being his elevation from someone that was literally hidden for two years inside their own group to a hotshot debutee actor - fully backed by Chanhyuk, who was so fucking tired of LOOPiN having collective fame at this point. As we know, Hanjae's crush on Haruki was old and a well known fact inside New Wave, and it ended up causing his professional downfall; Sangwon mismanaged him on porpouse in LOOPiN's early years to not only punish him for his feelings, but also just to torment Haruki. Recently, Seo CEO has committed the big mistake of trying to convince Hanjae to sell his exclusive contract to an acting agency on New Wave's last days, and despite Hanjae double crossing him and immediately telling everyone about the company's hidden fate back in January so they could prepare for it, Chanhyuk still planted a lot of doubt on Hanjae's mind about his Idol future, and that will be at play very soon, thanks to 'Kick It' winning the comeback poll! So stay tunned!;

Taesong: As said on the Minwoo section, Taesong's role as LOOPiN's leader was given to him because Seo CEO needed someone in charge to be under his thumb, and Taesong filled that role okay enough for as long as he could - Minwoo's very harsh criticism of his every move plus everyone's lack of respect of the sentimental way he used to run things eventually got to him mentally. He had many hiatuses in his career, and with each new one came more of a lack of interest from New Wave Music in him as a way of income. If it wasn't for his own volution and need to get better, Taesong wouldn't be the vocal powerhouse he is now - he payed for his own vocal coaches, all non affiliate with the company! By the time he returned from his most serious and longest hiatus in early 2021, making the (not so willing) decision to give out the leader position to Minwoo, all without notifying Seo CEO first, made him public enemy number #2, and it definitely showed on his sudden erasure of schedules.

Haegon: From pretty much day one, Haegon was not taken seriously by anyone inside New Wave Music as an Idol or person, specially in Seo Chanhyuk's eyes: his very unsettling attachment to former member Beomseok paired with his short temper painted him as a kid unwilling to grow up, and when Beomseok left and Haegon put up a whole dissapearing stunt for a week (he had to be fake announced to be put on hiatus!), any slight interest or patience Seo Chanhyuk had for him died. Dare I say, Seo CEO saw Haegon as his biggest signing mistakes, when you take into consideration that "he wasn't even good enough to make the main vocalist stay" - his own words! So Haegon was not encouraged to train beyond his habilities or given any sort of solo schedules. Haegon himself felt the company's disbelief in him in his bones, too, and found it hard to try.

Haruki: Despite being made the public face of LOOPiN from 2021 and onwards, and eventually starting as a model with a lot of company apparent support (big highlight on apparent), Haruki was not the target of favoritism in the slightest; it was the very opposite. None of the investment made by New Wave towards Haruki was genuine, made to be long term or took what he wanted to do as an artist into consideration. It was just Seo CEO buying his silence about his horrible involvement with Sangwon without explicitly saying to Haruki that he was buying his silence. Haruki also never had freedom of movement from the moment he became a Week Boy, and even small decisions he had the impression of being made without Sangwon's involvement over the years always ended up with his involvement despite his demands for the contrary, because Seo CEO did not care or respect him, ever. (Which is in my humble opinion one of his worst crimes: knowing and doing nothing for a share price. Fuck that man, honestly, fuck him.)

And in the lowest of lows, Dylan: In the old blog I had a piece that was fully narrated by Chihoon, and in it we caught a glimpse of the situation with his private contract under New Wave Music and by extension, Blockberry Creative; how his trainee dept was thrice everyone's size because he lost a private defamation lawsuit against both companies back when he was on Boy Of The Week, plus one claiming neglect from Seo CEO directly. Dylan's contract as a whole was barely legal and made by a lawyer that was at the time Seo CEO's wife-to-be (🥴), and the disparity definely showed as LOOPiN went on. Mind you: his first ever solo project (given how he did not promote his debut track 'Monster' or 'Teenager' with LOOPiN Look(a)Like due to an hospitalization), was his rebellion album released in 2022, and that obviously had no company support. Dylan also was on the down low obligated to see a 'company psychiatrist', something that is exclusive to him and was as shady as it fucking sounds - a lot of his growing paranoia as his career goes on it's not only caused by the things he becomes a witness to, but also the bad intentioned changes made in his medication.

#&& ⠀ [ . . . ] hound on a hunt ⠀⸻ development .#this is a mega merge of 3 things I wanted to do. I'm crazy but I am free.#fictional idol community #kpop oc #kpop fanfic #kpop au #fake kpop group

12 notes · View notes