The Economics of the !!!!!! Industry: Fair Trade !!!!!!

Generali

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/pornography-industry-economics-tarrant/476580/

With the publication of Playboy and Hustler in the mid-20th-century, !!!!!! started going corporate, and the industry has since bloomed into an enterprise so vast that people have a hard time estimating its size. Like any other industry, !!!!!! has its shady qualities—labor abuses, content piracy, and a blemished supply chain, to name a few. But unlike nearly any other industry, these unseemly features are allowed to thrive, mostly unchecked, behind the curtain of social taboo......

.....Making ethical decisions about pornography means knowing where your !!!!!! comes from and the labor conditions under which it was made. Those are the sorts of questions that economists are concerned with. If we're willing to be concerned about those issues when it comes to sneakers or food, then we need to transfer those concerns to the adult industry as well.

Fair trade !!!!!!, coming to a computer near you!

westernpromise

Interesting article. The point about people who wouldn't steal watching free !!!!!! - even though that is also stealing - derives I think from the fact that many people regard the production of and participation in !!!!!! as being on the prostitution spectrum. In which case, why deal fairly with criminals? This is also I suspect why "fair trade !!!!!!" won't catch on. Nobody's going to pay more for it because it's fair trade when they aren't paying anything for it at all right now.

Fair trade is anyway a nonsensical concept. You are offered fair trade coffee in Starbucks for an extra 10p, but there is at most an ounce of coffee in your cup and the wholesale price of Arabica coffee is 80p a pound. We can be sure that the South American farmer is not getting paid 15p an ounce rather than 5p an ounce for his crop. If he were, it would be a disaster - he'd massively overproduce, which would then destroy the livelihood of other coffee farmers, who wouldn't even be able get 5p an ounce any more because there's too much coffee being grown.

One economist has estimated that the farmers gets none of the 10p fair trade premium at all, and that the label is simply a way of getting people who want to pay more to identify themselves so that they can do so.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/pornography-industry-economics-tarrant/476580/



Fair trade !!!!!!, coming to a computer near you!

I so nearly started a thread on this the other day, so glad that you did.

I found part of the article interesting, though the lack of hard and fast economic numbers disappointing. However the number of people engaged in the industry in just a small part of California were staggering... just goes to show that pornography has its own silicone valley: 20,000 people in the San Fernando Valley alone (north of LA). That's 1% of the total population there.

antrobus

The economics of !!!!!! works this way; the available supply of pornography is practically infinite and the cost of distrubution is negligble. Therefore pornography no longer has much of a commercial value and is largely free. The only way you make money out of it is by supplying it for free, and relying on advertising revenue and affiliate income. That kind of business model can be quite successful, as Martin Lewis has shown.

I can't see 'fair trade !!!!!!' making much of an impact.

westernpromise

antrobus wrote: »

The economics of !!!!!! works this way; the available supply of pornography is practically infinite and the cost of distrubution is negligble.

This is an important point and the one that the radical feminist mindset refuses to concede: there is an inexhaustible supply of people happy to appear in pornography for little or indeed no money. It is an activity on the exhibitionism spectrum: these people get off on the idea of others getting off looking at them. So they'll do it for nothing, or next to nothing, or fdor small sums of very easy money.

Take, for example, the smutty professor: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3479555/The-smutty-professor-faces-suspension-Lecturer-appeared-string-!!!!!!-films-set-investigated-university.html

A fat, bald old geezer who says that "starring in pornography had not been very glamorous and he was paid a pittance" was clearly getting something out of appearing in !!!!!! if, as he tells us, it wasn't the money. Looking at his co-star there, it's really not hard to figure out what that was. The young lady would have had a veto over who she appeared with, and a more enticing pay cheque than his because she's the draw, whereas he's just a prop, but there seems no reason to think she's not a volunteer too.

The feminist narrative has always been that pornography and prostitution are both rape because the introduction of money means the woman has not given her consent freely. This has always been tosh, but it's now very evident tosh, because although many of the performers aren't getting paid anything at all, they're unaccountably still happy to perform. The sheer numbers doing so make the point. If this volume of !!!!!! were being generated from coerced women, there would be very visible other signs of this widespread coercion in our society at large, yet there aren't. Societies in which women demonstrably are repressed - such as Iran - tend in contrast not to produce any !!!!!! at all.

So if this is the case, then there's no exploitation going on, and no moral argument to try to ban !!!!!!. In reality, the desire by some feminists to ban !!!!!! never IMHO had a thing to do with crocodile tears for the women in it. The problem with commercial sex is that if men can freely rent sex from women, then they can opt out of other engagement with them. !!!!!! and prostitution are thus the blackleg / scab labour who will always thwart the unionisation of women against men by crossing the picket line for money. The opposition to !!!!!! has always been more about eliminating its useful availability to men than any genuine concern for the women in it.

At some point I would think blame of pornography performers will be substituted for the previous crocodile tears for them. If you can't shame men out of consuming it, maybe women can be shamed out of appearing in it; but GLWT, as the young people say.

michaels

I bow to the expertise of the previous posters on a subject I have to admit I know nothing about.

However it does beg a couple of questions:
1) Will Generali's bank be investing once it has its ethical label?
2) Is there anything that could not be invested in given the right labelling - obviously Pot in the states is already a 'natural, green alternative' but how about sustainably farmed heroin and cocaine, free range mink or whitemail and extortion?

Generali

michaels wrote: »

I bow to the expertise of the previous posters on a subject I have to admit I no nothing about.

However it does beg a couple of questions:
1) Will Generali's bank be investing once it has its ethical label?
2) Is there anything that could not be invested in given the right labelling - obviously Pot i the states is already a 'natural, green alternative' but how about sustainably farmed heroin and cocaine, free range mink or whitemail and extortion?

I have heard it said that 'organic cocaine' is available for purchase in London. Certainly you can buy organic tobacco:

http://www.curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=1244009

Smoking small amounts of Non-chemical organic tobacco is healthy, contrary to what you are told. Consider if you are a smoker and are trying to quit, the reason why you're having trouble is the chemicals added by Major tobacco companies......

Natural tobacco is a herb. Nature proviides the medicines we need. Small amounts of the smoke from this herb does have benefits. I haven't had a cold for 3 years now. If I do feel one coming on, I've noticed countless times after smoking, the phlegma just starts coming up in big chunks. I remember when I stopped for awhile, I'd get the usual tickling in the throat, and kept trying to fight it, but always got that damned cold. (I was Fear mongered by the mass media and those ridiculous "truth" commercials into qutting, then ran across some interesting online articles about chemicals in tobacco, and experiemented with organic tobacco.)

And you can buy organic wine:

https://www.danmurphys.com.au/liquor-library/wine/more-about-wine/organic-wine.jsp;jsessionid=CA944191C1466C9617A20DB923548F26.ncdlmorasp1306?bmUID=leBoxx4

And indeed biodynamic wine:

https://www.danmurphys.com.au/liquor-library/wine/more-about-wine/biodynamic-wines

To keep the vineyard 'alive', proponents of biodynamics focus on the health of the soil and place an emphasis on composting. That's where the cow horns come in. As Cullen explains, "We make Preparation 500, which is part of our biodynamic certification, by filling cow horns with cow manure and burying the horns in a pit in our vegetable garden on the winter solstice to gain the most earthing and water energy."

Over a period of months, soil microorganisms migrate to the manure and proliferate. "What is then removed from the cow horns is biologically active material with billions of microflora, which we dynamise in water and spray in the vineyards when the moon is opposite Saturn," she says. "It brings life to the soil and the vineyard."

This is all what we investment professionals call 'balls' or 'rubbish' (when we're being censored). It's greenwash designed to separate the gullible from their money.

If you really want you can buy organic cannabis seeds:

http://www.seedsupreme.com/seed-banks/california-breeders-association.html

because obviously your bong gives a flying fox the chemicals that were applied to the plant that preceded the bud of the plant you are burning.

Mistermeaner

We should nationalise !!!!!! in the uk. Instead of jsa people could earn some cash

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/pornography-industry-economics-tarrant/476580/



Fair trade !!!!!!, coming to a computer near you!

Don't do it Gen, your children would be very embarrassed, stick to working in finance.

antrobus

westernpromise wrote: »

.... The problem with commercial sex is that if men can freely rent sex from women, then they can opt out of other engagement with them.... .

Reminds me of the expression; If it flies, floats, or f**cks, rent it.

antrobus

Mistermeaner wrote: »

We should nationalise !!!!!! in the uk. Instead of jsa people could earn some cash

Jobcentres have been known to advertise work in escort agencies. At least that would be something like a job. Pornography doesn't really provide employment, ya know. After all even in proper acting, 90% of actors are umeployed at any given time. I imagine it's more like 99% once you get down to the erotic stuff. You don't even need to be able to act, all you need is a willingness to turn up and get your kit off.