http://disqus.com/by/suzannelainson/enMon, 18 Jun 2012 17:53:50 -0000http://billmoyers.com/episode/dark-money-in-politics/#comment-561341154<p>Here are two articles about the shadow economy.</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-makes-its-billions.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=print" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-makes-its-billions.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=print">http://www.nytimes.com/2012...</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/shadowintro/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/shadowintro/">http://www.salon.com/2011/0...</a></p>Suzanne LainsonMon, 18 Jun 2012 17:53:50 -0000http://billmoyers.com/episode/dark-money-in-politics/#comment-561007704<p>If people ignore the laws and if they continue to do the acts, then the laws are less effective. There develops an underground society not following those laws. What is legal and what is done are not necessarily the same thing.</p>Suzanne LainsonMon, 18 Jun 2012 09:50:44 -0000http://billmoyers.com/episode/dark-money-in-politics/#comment-560774304<p>How about we bar all money in politics? No corporate funding, no union funding, no lobbyists, no rich people making donations? Make it impossible for anyone to buy a politician, and also find ways to reduce the cost of campaigns to such an extent that there will be no need to raise funds to get elected.</p>Suzanne LainsonMon, 18 Jun 2012 00:22:59 -0000http://billmoyers.com/episode/dark-money-in-politics/#comment-560761204<p>I have been very interested in the shareable movement. Some people may be reducing consumption for lifestyle reasons, others for environmental reasons, and yet others for economic reasons. But as people disengage from the larger corporate system, the potential for change is there. What I worry about is the powers-that-be looking for ways to stop the shareable movement.</p><p>However, laws can only be enforced when citizens allow them to be. If you have enough people ignoring the laws, the laws lose power. We are inching our way toward Third World status, and with that comes an "outside the system" mindset.</p><p>And that, ironically, is the merging of Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. If enough people bypass government and create their own systems, they will find themselves operating in a similar place, no matter their political persuasions. However, most Tea Partiers don't really want to do without government. They just want the their lifestyles to stay unchanged, without having the pay the price for it. Benefits, but without taxation.</p>Suzanne LainsonSun, 17 Jun 2012 23:48:19 -0000http://billmoyers.com/episode/dark-money-in-politics/#comment-560625225<p>The net result may be the same. Kill off enough people, impoverish the rest, and maybe, just maybe, we slow down global warming a bit and don't deplete the Earth's resources quite so fast. We just need the return of a disease that kills off billions of people. The very wealthy won't care, of course, because their lives will continue pretty much as they are now.</p><p>It's not a pretty picture, but at least that's the potential upside of having wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. You can't drive gas guzzlers if you don't have the money to buy the gas. As soon as the Tea Party folks lose their pensions, no longer have equity to fund borrowing, and watch all investments tank, they might change their thinking. Perhaps the result will be the merge of the sustainability and the survivalist movements.</p>Suzanne LainsonSun, 17 Jun 2012 19:09:58 -0000http://billmoyers.com/episode/dark-money-in-politics/#comment-560603084<p>I would be thoroughly depressed by this show, but it occurs to me that transferring most of the world's wealth/resources to a small group of people reduces the world's consumption, which is better for the survival of the Earth. Send almost everyone back to the nineteenth century, make it impossible for them to buy anything but the basics, and the economic progress of the world slows down. The current state of world economics may be the environment's attempt to kill off enough people to salvage what is left. </p>Suzanne LainsonSun, 17 Jun 2012 18:14:24 -0000http://www.rollingstone.com/preview.php/politics/blogs/national-affairs/california-reaming-why-the-golden-state-booted-the-gop-and-other-states-will-too-20120604#comment-547523824<p> I'm concerned about the voter ID laws as well. If your party is likely to be voted out of office by a younger, more diverse population, you do what you can to keep them from voting.</p>Suzanne LainsonMon, 04 Jun 2012 23:10:04 -0000http://www.wired.com/business/2012/05/opinion-baio-criminal-creativity/#comment-519369211<p>Yes, I wish YouTube would do that as well: let musicians know beforehand if publishers/songwriters have given permission to use their songs. That way musicians wouldn't run the risk of getting a strike. They would simply avoid covering any songs not released for that purpose by the copyright holders. Or, if not that, at least indicate as the song is being uploaded that it is not allowed and therefore the process never gets so far as to trigger a strike.</p><p>One crude way of checking is to see what cover songs are already on YouTube. If other musicians have done those songs, chances are they haven't triggered any takedown notices.</p><p></p>Suzanne LainsonFri, 04 May 2012 16:21:32 -0000http://www.wired.com/business/2012/05/opinion-baio-criminal-creativity/#comment-519345525<p>Thanks for your investigating. I have been raising the same cover song/YouTube issues since YouTube first announced ContentID.  ContentID is a great step in the right direction in that it does present a way for use of copyrighted content to be approved after the fact. Rather than obtaining permission first, a video creator can upload a video and see if the copyright holders will let it stand. And Google has managed to entice copyright holders to give approval by showing them how they can make ad money if they do.</p><p>But the problem with the system is still the risk that a video creator will upload a video where permission has not be given and the video creator gets a strike.</p><p>And what muddies everything further is that there are so many articles ENCOURAGING musicians to perform songs they didn't write. It's considered a great career move. And there are performers that YouTube itself has promoted who have likely never obtain the necessary synch licenses. So the message is this, "We really want you to cover other people's songs, and in most cases everyone will be happy, but we can't actually tell you you have permission to do this."</p>Suzanne LainsonFri, 04 May 2012 15:46:04 -0000http://www.heyreverb.com/blog/2012/03/22/tennis-band-jay-leno/47189/#comment-474141752<p>Nice to see Tennis using an all-Denver crew. Making this a Tennis/Paper Bird/Meese TV event is quite cool of them.</p>Suzanne LainsonThu, 22 Mar 2012 22:06:32 -0000http://newschallenge.tumblr.com/post/19278297743#comment-466617827<p>I'm very interested in the shareable movement. For some it will be a choice. For others it will be a necessity. If your income is not keeping up with your needs, you have to find ways to get by on less. Sharing housing, sharing gardens, sharing transportation, sharing childcare. All of these are ways to get by in this changing world. Plus the shareable movement changes our ideas about consumption and ownership. Often we spend money not because we really need to, but we have never learned alternatives. But if we have options, we are freed from unnecessary debt to buy what we don't really need to buy.</p>Suzanne LainsonFri, 16 Mar 2012 00:03:01 -0000http://www.thoughtyoushouldseethis.com/post/19213882361#comment-464589829<p>In the past month or so I have been disturbed by some of the thinking processes coming out of the tech community. It's an arrogance that suggests to me as tech companies get stronger, they won't necessarily be more sensitive than big companies of the past. I've seen it in comments about how we're doing the Chinese  favor by letting them make Apple products instead of being prostitutes or poor farmers. I've seen it in copyright discussions about how artists want something for nothing, unlike techies who work for a living. I've seen it in the privacy discussions where the companies tell us they know better than their users. And now we see it in the hotspot case where letting SXSW attendees help the homeless while meeting their own needs is a good thing. I'm not saying the tech community is worse that the power brokers of the past. I'm just saying they are starting to sound more and more like them.</p>Suzanne LainsonTue, 13 Mar 2012 18:00:58 -0000http://billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/the-mp3-vs-the-e-book-online-music-then-1006425552.story#comment-461975175<p>Rather than pinning the blame on the labels, I think the iPod itself was the reason music consumers started looking for music for free. How many people were going to go and buy $6000 of music ($1 a song from iTunes) to upload on their iPods? And yet, who wanted to buy an iPod for only few songs? So if they didn't have CDs to convert to MP3s, they were going to borrow CDs from friends to convert and/or look for free downloads in order to fill up those iPods. Maybe they would have bought songs for 10 cents a piece (which would have only cost them $600 to fill an iPod), but with mechanical licensing costing 8 cents a song in 2002, labels couldn't have priced songs for 10 cents a piece without losing money.</p>Suzanne LainsonSun, 11 Mar 2012 01:34:53 -0000http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/03/inequality-american-cities/861/#comment-458151274<p>It's relevant to the extent that it may explain why Boulder ranks so high on income inequality. Boulder is perceived as a rich, expensive town. On the other hand, it's actually quite easy to live here with relatively little money. To do it, you have roommates. You shop at thrift stores. You get around by bike or walking. You use the town's free wifi (it's not everywhere, but you can get it at the library and downtown). We have rich people here. We also have lots of students, artists and athletes who don't earn a lot of money, and entrepreneurs who work out of coffee houses. The quality of life here is great, even if on paper we have high income inequality.</p>Suzanne LainsonTue, 06 Mar 2012 16:23:54 -0000http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/03/inequality-american-cities/861/#comment-458066318<p>According to this, college students are counted as living in Boulder if that's where they live. And most of them do live in Boulder (in dorms, apartments, and houses) rather than commute.</p><p><a href="http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1525/census-college-students-where-to-count-them" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1525/census-college-students-where-to-count-them">The Census: College Students Count -- but Where? - Pew Research Center</a></p>Suzanne LainsonTue, 06 Mar 2012 14:43:01 -0000http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/03/inequality-american-cities/861/#comment-457260009<p>The reason for the income inequality in Boulder is the fact that the high end has a number of entrepreneurs and well-paid tech/science workers, while the low end has tens of thousands of college students who earn relatively little while they are in school. The town of Boulder has approximately 100,000 residents; CU-Boulder has approximately 30,000 students.</p>Suzanne LainsonMon, 05 Mar 2012 18:02:42 -0000http://evolver.fm/2012/02/22/how-celebrities-game-twitter-with-data-analytics/#comment-446594726<p>Based on the title, I expected something different from the article. But it hit upon a very relevant issue. I've run into so many musicians who think the only purpose for social media is to promote their next show or recording. They either lack social skills or those go out the window when they get online. Of course, part of the problem may be that they actually don't give a damn about their fans and only see them as a source of money, and that attitude comes through when they post.</p>Suzanne LainsonWed, 22 Feb 2012 22:52:16 -0000http://edit.hollywoodreporter.com/node/286648#comment-430552031<p>I think you missed my point. My Tea Party friends are constantly railing against Muslims. I get a steady stream of Facebook posts about Obama being a Muslim. Protecting free speech for those they disagree with hasn't been high on their priority list. My point in all of this is that I don't think free speech is going to unite people who disagree on other issues. It's handy to say something is about free speech, but often it boils down to "my free speech."</p>Suzanne LainsonSun, 05 Feb 2012 22:56:08 -0000http://edit.hollywoodreporter.com/node/286648#comment-428932222<p>Here's another way for me to phrase this. Other than the ACLU, there isn't really a "free speech" coalition. There are a lot of people who talk about "free speech" when it serves their needs, but trying to bond a group together that support policies across the board based on free speech alone hasn't shown a lot of political traction. </p>Suzanne LainsonFri, 03 Feb 2012 17:07:29 -0000http://edit.hollywoodreporter.com/node/286648#comment-428914844<p>Saying this was a free speech issue was a convenient spin, but for the companies wanting to defeat SOPA it was a business decision. They didn't want to deal with the hassle of monitoring the content uploaded on their sites. I don't blame them. But I am not naive enough to believe Google was behind this because of free speech or that Tea Party types are going to support the end of IP laws. I have Tea Party friends and they want this to be a Christian nation with their view of traditional values. They aren't necessarily into free speech. Google, Apple, and Facebook are all moving into their versions of control of the Internet and they will act in their self-interests like Hollywood tried to do.</p><p>I have a challenge for you. Immigration policies supported by the Tea Party folks and the Republican Party in general are bad for Silicon Valley. Let's see some support for opening up our borders.</p>Suzanne LainsonFri, 03 Feb 2012 16:41:26 -0000http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/12/01/can-pinterest-and-svpply-help-you-reduce-your-consumption/251674/#comment-428861685<p>Yes, I think production/consumption will change. I admire beautifully designed objects but I have not place to put them, so I don't buy them. I think the creative urge will continue to push people to design objects, if for no reason other than their own enjoyment, but there may be less mass production of them. You may have more one-of-a-kind items or production tied to demand so only when someone requests an object does it get produced. Our whole idea of having stores to sell us stuff we don't need to replace that which is perfectly good may change as people realize they don't want to be on the consumption treadmill anymore.</p>Suzanne LainsonFri, 03 Feb 2012 15:28:21 -0000http://edit.hollywoodreporter.com/node/286648#comment-428852447<p>I don't think the Republicans can win over traditionally Democrat and/or liberals over this issue. If the Republican Party was truly libertarian, maybe, but it would have to make itself into a vastly different party (e.g., drop the anti-gay rhetoric, end laws favoring donor industries). And I fully expect that the populist voters who were anti-SOPA will also turn against Apple/Google/Facebook as those companies become the new power brokers in the DC. </p>Suzanne LainsonFri, 03 Feb 2012 15:16:46 -0000http://musicology.fm/2012/invent-your-job/#comment-424105830<p>I've put my own writing on hold for a bit to get caught up on some other projects, but I look forward to reading what you have to say, and to exchanging ideas with you on the future of the music business, on the future of the arts and creativity in general, and on the future of the world economy (which will determine who has what to spend in support of the arts).</p>Suzanne LainsonMon, 30 Jan 2012 00:09:31 -0000http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/12/01/can-pinterest-and-svpply-help-you-reduce-your-consumption/251674/#comment-423215490<p>When I saw Pinterest, I realized it would be a better place to collect photos I like than what I am doing on Facebook. But it needn't be Pinterest. I'm just looking for something public that has a nice layout system. The block visuals of Pinterest look clean and lend themselves to rapid scanning. It's a pretty site. </p>Suzanne LainsonSat, 28 Jan 2012 16:07:18 -0000http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/12/01/can-pinterest-and-svpply-help-you-reduce-your-consumption/251674/#comment-422582903<p>You got it. Buy as little as possible. Own as little as possible. Leave a small footprint.</p>Suzanne LainsonFri, 27 Jan 2012 16:49:49 -0000