Poor Netflix

Netflix released their first earnings report since their disastrous plan to raise prices and essentially  lower service to predictable results, down nearly a million customers and the value of their stock down billions since the start of summer. The silly thing is that this was all self-inflicted. Netflix management acted like yet another pompous company (or CEO) who underestimated the intelligence of their customers and are paying for it. What's more interesting is many seem to be taking the company's actions seemingly personally (and I guess that could include me since I'm writing about it).

While people would have been upset with any price increase, a reasonable explanation (i.e. we are separating DVD and streaming to save on licensing fees, we are increasing prices due to rising costs in obtaining streaming rights, etc) would have at least been seen as somewhat logical. Instead, not only did the company raise prices, they told customers they were doing them a favor by charging the same price for streaming and DVD instead of making one service a bit cheaper as an add on to the other (ex: DVD or streaming for $11 and for just $5 more get the other service, in lieu of $8 for and $8 for streaming), forgetting people like a bargain. Worse, in doing so, they made it very easy for customers to not only cancel one version of the service, they also made it easier for them to look at competitors. Thanks to their moves the person who used to let the DVD sit on their TV for weeks while they watched streaming, is not very aware they don't watch enough movies a month on DVD to make it more economical then getting the latest movie from the Redbox stand at the supermarket (and to see what Amazon, Hulu or Apple have to compete with Netflix). 

If I, a normal consumer can see these issues, then one has to wonder what else I and their senior management have missed. And I'm sure not going to invest in a company where I perceive senior management to be less adapt than I in running their company.

In the meantime, we're having a great time streaming older TV shows from Netflix such as the Star Treks, Dr. Who, Family Guy and many other older TV shows no longer in reruns or we missed when they were first on.  Netflix is just an interchangeable service provider. When they die, we'll all just move onto the next provider (which I imagine will be the cable companies/internet providers at the end).

Wealth redistribution

NY Governor Cuomo continues to say no to a millionaire's tax in New York. The only thing I agree with him on this is that this inequality of wealth we have developed needs to be addressed on the national level or you really will have state warfare, to an extent -- a company needing the unique talents found in offices in youth centric cities such as NYC or SF isn't going to pull up stakes to move to the middle of nowhere where the talent is much thinner.

We need a strong middle class to have a strong economy and concentrating wealth among a few is not going to do the trick. How much longer are we to accept that stagnant wages, anemic job growth with tax breaks for the wealthy is best for the nation while there are cuts to services, infrastructure maintenance and education that directly affect businesses ability to compete (excluding Wall Street apparently)?  Why tax the super rich for this? As Jesse James (or one of the old-West bank robbers) once said, you rob banks because that is where the money is.

I know money equals political power, and part of that power is using your puppets to denounce those who speak for the masses, but sooner or later people are going to realize that pitting the middle class against one another is a lose lose situation. When that happens the top 1% better hope that they don't find out what many top one percenters have discovered in past civilizations when the masses got tired of being beat down and decided that, since increased taxes weren't an option, more violent means of wealth distribution would have to suffice.

9,9,9 = Doom, doom, doom for the middle class

Hello. Godfather's Pizza? I'd like to order your 9-9-9 special. Just kidding. Living in the New York City area I'd never waste my calories on such junk when there are many real pizza places in the immediate area offering far superior pizza then a glorified version of what I could get in my supermarket freezer (guess this makes me a pizza elitist).

I take back what I said the other day, about how it doesn't really matter whether a Democrat or Republican wins the next presidential election, aside from what goes on between consenting adults. I wish Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan was a pizza special but, instead, it is a special deal for the wealthy as it would provide a flat tax that would transfer even more of the tax burden from those who have money to those without. Simple tax plans for simple people who can't be bothered to research whether this revision to the tax code is in their best interests. But hey, at least those too poor to currently pay a federal income tax will be forced to pay -- those hippie freeloaders.

The flat tax is an idea that it has been floated primarily by incredibly rich men over the decades who would benefit greatly by it, which made me instantly suspicious of it. And upon further review my suspicions are correct. A flat tax would be a reverse Robin Hood, taking from the poor and middle class and giving to the rich. Social Security? Medicare? Fuhgeddaboutit once the payroll taxes that pay for those programs are gone. Hope his plan also calls for subsidies so the supermarkets can run specials on cat food in the future.

These flat taxers are no friends of the average American, unless that American wants to continue to slide out of the middle class and doom their uneducated children to living in a 2nd world economy of grinding poverty, with falling apart infrastructures, unable to compete in the global market. And those who defend it by noting that a consumption tax would force Americans to save and invest money in lieu of spending it, don't bother to explain how that will "help" the average American business already hurting by consumers spending less. That a man whose campaign promise to essentially hurt every poor and middle-class American, plus discriminate against Muslims just because they are Muslim, is currently the front runner speaks volumes about both the GOP (and perhaps the failure of our educational system in the "red states") and how out of touch the Democratic party is perceived to be by much of America.

Fortunately Cain is only today's flavor of the day. He will be gone from the front pages soon, like Perry, Gingrich and the rest. If the GOP wants the White House in 2012, Mitt Romney is their only hope. Every other candidate would force unmotivated Obama supporters to go to the polls to save what is left of their middle class lifestyles. Romney is somebody they could stay home on Election Day (or vote for) and live with.

Money, money, money

The Washington elite have sold out the Tea Partiers and Occupy Wall Streeters yet again. Nothing will change until we get money out of politics. However the Supreme Court has ruled that the financing of the First Amendment, sponsored and corrupted by ABC Corporation, by their finance masters does not allow this. Democrat. Republican. It doesn't matter, except one side is less interested in what goes on in your bedroom then the other. They're all beholden to their corporate masters and are barely hiding this anymore even though it is destroying the country by withholding investments in infrastructure and people (look at how much it costs to go to public university compared to just a generation again).

Any person who really wants to end this corporate financing of campaigns doesn't stand a chance under the current system. The corporate driven Supreme Court has basically twisted the Constitution into allowing those with fortunes to steal the country under the guise of free speech, ignoring that free speech that costs large sums of money to be heard is not really free. And then, when the little people, dare to call out the bankers and others who have essentially destroyed the country (and I'm not blasting the banking system or bankers in general, just those whose personal greed profited off of the misery of others), they are derided as slacking, dirty, un-American hippies. Meanwhile, mainstream media, usually owned by corporations, choose to not connect the dots between the corporate masters seeking to pit American against American as they deflect the blame from themselves while sending their minions out to discredit a movement that, frankly, speaks more for those who shop on Main Street over Wall Street.

A free nation can not remain free if money is all that matters. Inequality will harm us all. The sooner that We the People remember this and do something about it, the better. Unfortunately, that will not happen until change is difficult, as many of us older and educated victims are too busy just holding onto what we have, squirreling away every last dime for our children's education, no longer paid for by society, our retirement, also no longer paid for by society, or the inevitable layoff, which the elite say is so good for us that we don't need un-employment insurance, and by then it will probably too late.

People aren't mad at Democrats. They aren't mad at Republicans. They are mad at a system that concentrates the wealth to a few while assigning the risk to the many. They are upset with a system that rewards social greed by increasing inequality, rewarding the top 1% with 40% (or whatever number is being thrown around today) of the nation's wealth at the expense of individual freedoms and liberty, social justice and accountability by elected officials to the other 99%. They are mad at governments around the country who have cut muscle and bone out of higher education, raising tuition fees at public universities to levels that make it harder and harder for our youth to get the education that they will need to compete in the world economy and candidates for president who are apparently OK with this.

And they are furious at a system run by corporate agents, with favorable government policies legalized by those agents, that ignores the concerns of anybody without a fat checkbook that threatens to undermine the legacy created over 200 years ago that allowed all people (well, mostly white men, but that's another story) to live and prosper in what was once the freest and wealthiest nation on Earth.

Christie 2016?

After making the country wonder if he would announce his candidacy for the 2012 Presidential election or bow out the last few weeks, NJ Governor Chris Christie (R) has apparently decided he really meant what he said when he said he wouldn't run for President in 2012. Guess he decided it wasn't worth it to be the flavor of the week as the GOP continues to look for their true savior as the Governor, perhaps, begins to focus on 2016 (though as a NJ resident I'd be happy if he started focusing on getting rid of the party bosses and consolidating governmental services).

I think Gov. Christie would be a better candidate against President Obama in 2012 then any of the other GOP crop but he is probably too liberal for the Tea Party, despite his picking on teachers and essentially raising taxes on the middle class (me paying $100 for my son to play in the band is a tax increase by another name) while saving the rich from such horrors, to get the nomination this time around. Better to be the unknown potential for 2016 if the GOP loses the general election in 2012 over one of many losers who weren't conservative enough to get the nomination in 2012 I suppose.

While there is always a worry that you may miss your one chance (just ask all the Democrats who sat out 1992 when President Bush I's re-election looked certain), sometimes a politician's best move may be to sit an election out and let the extreme part of the party blow themselves up so you can come in and clean up the mess. The way the GOP is headed (and has been for many years) this may not be the worse of moves. If the Tea Party does blow up, Governor Christie will have four more years to get his political agenda aligned with the new political breeze and lose a few pounds to end the fat jokes (though I care more about a politicians abilities over his/her looks, many people are too shallow to acknowledge that the pretty, sweet talking politician is not the best leader -- and that is a bipartisan slap) as he saves the party from the Tea Party's science hating radical religious agenda.

Only a small part of the country is very liberal or very conservative. Most of us are in the middle, leaning one way or the other, potentially turned off/turned on by the extremes of one party. Governor Christie's best move may be to sit this one out, continue being a rising star in the GOP when the Tea Party implodes and hands Obama another 4 years, and get ready to welcome conservative spending leaning, but socially liberal science believing moderates, back to the big tent (no pun intended) in 2016.

Of course, the danger is that another moderate may be more appealing or some liberal Tea Party person may appear who both appeals to moderates in a general election but is still conservative enough to get the nomination or, if he gets the nomination, finds himself running against a more popular conservative Democrat governor in what I hope is improved economy (if the economy is still bad after 8 years of President Obama then forget about it for any Democratic candidate). A lot can happen in a few years. At the moment, Governor Christie is the interesting new kid on the block. In four years he may be Mitt Romney,who it seems has spent much of the last decade running for President.

One other concern: Does brash divisiveness work outside of NYC/NJ/Philadelphia? What plays well in Hoboken may not play well in Iowa, as Rudy Giuliani found out.