Dancin' Shoes - Markie Z Band Live Featuring Carl Storie

Guest Blogger - Robert Reich - Big Tech Today

Berkeley, Calif. — CONSERVATIVES and liberals interminably debate the merits of “the free market” versus “the government.” Which one you trust more delineates the main ideological divide in America.

In reality, they aren’t two separate things. There can’t be a market without government. Legislators, agency heads and judges decide the rules of the game. And, over time, they change the rules. The important question, too rarely discussed, is who has the most influence over these decisions and in that way wins the game.

Two centuries ago slaves were among the nation’s most valuable assets, and after the Civil War, perhaps land was. Then factories, machines, railroads and oil transformed America. By the 1920s most working Americans were employees, and the most contested property issue was their freedom to organize into unions.

Now information and ideas are the most valuable forms of property. Most of the cost of producing it goes into discovering it or making the first copy. After that, the additional production cost is often zero. Such “intellectual property” is the key building block of the new economy. Without government decisions over what it is, and who can own it and on what terms, the new economy could not exist.

But as has happened before with other forms of property, the most politically influential owners of the new property are doing their utmost to increase their profits by creating monopolies that must eventually be broken up.

The most valuable intellectual properties are platforms so widely used that everyone else has to use them, too. Think of standard operating systems like Microsoft’s Windows or Google’s Android; Google’s search engine; Amazon’s shopping system; and Facebook’s communication network. Google runs two-thirds of all searches in the United States. Amazon sells more than 40 percent of new books. Facebook has nearly 1.5 billion active monthly users worldwide. This is where the money is.

Despite an explosion in the number of websites over the last decade, page views are becoming more concentrated. While in 2001, the top 10 websites accounted for 31 percent of all page views in America, by 2010 the top 10 accounted for 75 percent. Google and Facebook are now the first stops for many Americans seeking news — while Internet traffic to much of the nation’s newspapers, network television and other news gathering agencies has fallen well below 50 percent of all traffic. Meanwhile, Amazon is now the first stop for almost a third of all American consumers seeking to buy anything. Talk about power.

Whenever markets become concentrated, consumers end up paying more than they otherwise would, and innovations are squelched. Sure, big platforms let creators showcase and introduce new apps, songs, books, videos and other content. But almost all of the profits go to the platforms’ owners, who have all of the bargaining power.

Contrary to the conventional view of an American economy bubbling with innovative small companies, the reality is quite different. The rate at which new businesses have formed in the United States has slowed markedly since the late 1970s. Big Tech’s sweeping patents, standard platforms, fleets of lawyers to litigate against potential rivals and armies of lobbyists have created formidable barriers to new entrants.

The patent system is crucial to innovation. The law gives 20 years of patent protection to inventions that are “new and useful,” as decided by the Patent and Trademark Office. But the winners are big enough to game the system. They make small improvements warranting new patents, effectively making their intellectual property semi permanent. They also lay claim to whole terrains of potential innovation including ideas barely on drawing boards and flood the system with so many applications that lone inventors have to wait years. The White House intellectual property adviser Colleen V. Chien noted in 2012 that Google and Apple were spending more money acquiring patents (not to mention litigating them) than on doing research and development.

Antitrust laws used to fight this sort of market power. In the 1990s, the federal government accused Microsoft of illegally bundling its popular Windows operating system with its Internet Explorer browser to create an industry standard that stifled competition. Microsoft settled the case by agreeing to share its programming interfaces with other companies. But since then Big Tech has been almost immune to serious antitrust scrutiny, even though the largest tech companies have more market power than ever. Maybe that’s because they’ve accumulated so much political power.

In 2012, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition submitted to the commissioners a 160-page analysis of Google’s dominance in the search and related advertising markets, and recommended suing Google for conduct that “has resulted — and will result — in real harm to consumers and to innovation.” But the commissioners chose not to pursue a case. Investigators also found evidence that Google was pushing its products ahead of competitors’ on search results; though no legal action was recommended on this point.

It’s unusual for commissioners not to accept staff recommendations, and they didn’t give a full explanation. The F.T.C. noted a competing internal report that recommended against legal action, but another plausible reason has to do with Google’s political clout. Google is now among the largest corporate lobbyists in the United States. Around the time of the investigation the company poured money into influencing both the commissioners and the commission’s congressional overseers.

GOOGLE is heading into a major fight with antitrust officials in the European Union for some of the same reasons the F.T.C. staff went after it. Not incidentally, Europe is also investigating Amazon for allegedly stifling competition in e-books, and Apple for doing the same in music. While many on this side of the Atlantic believe Europe is taking on these tech giants because they’re American, another possible explanation is that Google, Amazon and Apple lack as much political clout in Europe as they have here.

Economic and political power can’t be separated because dominant corporations gain political influence over how markets are maintained and enforced, which enlarges their economic power further. One of the original goals of antitrust law was to prevent this.

“The enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economical conquests only, but for political power,” warned Edward G. Ryan, the chief justice of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, in 1873. Antitrust law was viewed as a means of breaking this link. “If we will not endure a king as a political power,” Senator John Sherman of Ohio thundered, “we should not endure a king over the production, transportation and sale” of what the nation produced.

Sherman’s Antitrust Act easily passed Congress and was signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison on July 2, 1890. Twelve years later, President Teddy Roosevelt used it against the Northern Securities Company, which dominated rail transportation in the Northwest. In 1911, President William Howard Taft broke up the Standard Oil empire.

The underlying issue has little to do with whether one prefers the “free market” or government. The real question is how government organizes the market, and who has the most influence over its decisions. We are now in a new gilded age similar to the first Gilded Age, when the nation’s antitrust laws were enacted. As then, those with great power and resources are making the “free market” function on their behalf. Big Tech — along with the drug, insurance, agriculture and financial giants — dominates both our economy and our politics.

Yet as long as we remain obsessed by the debate over the relative merits of the “free market” and “government,” we have little hope of seeing what’s occurring and taking the action that’s needed to make our economy work for the many, not the few.

Robert B. Reich is a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of the forthcoming book “Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few,” from which this essay is adapted.

#robertreich #markandrewgroup #markandrewz #markiez #economy #technology 

Guest Blog - Dr. Martin Denbar "For Everyone Concerned About Improving Their Lives"

Finally, high altitude training using simulated techniques while at sea level without the need for expensive equipment is now being coupled with proper breathing techniques.  This allows for year round optimized conditioning that will improve endurance, stamina, mental acuity and performance.  No longer does an athlete have to be at altitude just before an event to maximize their training before competition.  This program provides for the complete athletic program that is drug free, comprehensively addresses an enhanced airway management program for the athlete or individual and provides for generalized improved health and wellness of the participant.  

            Trained doctors look for abnormal breathing and swallowing patterns that can negatively impact performance and the ability to maximize one’s training efforts.  This program is performed drug free with possible lifelong structural and functional improvements for the junior to senior athlete or private individual.

            All protocols, therapies and techniques are back by published research.  The difference is that for the first time these protocols, therapies and techniques have been structured into a comprehensive program that provides for enhanced results.

Dr. Martin Denbar - Guest Blogger 

Mark Andrew Zwartynski (Markie Z Blog)

214-552-0652

www.oxygenadvantage.com

www.highperformancebreathingtechnology.com

The Mental Game

Markie Z (Mark Andrew Zwartynski)

Take a deep breath.  Wait.  Breathe through your nose, hold until you feel the beginning of your body wanting to release.  Exhale through your mouth.

"It is how you breathe during your daily life that determines how you breathe during physical exercise. If our breathing is off during rest, it would be unreasonable for it to automatically correct itself during physical exercise.  The seemingly innocuous tendencies of breathing through the mouth during the day, having noticeable breathing from the upper chest or holding the breath during sleep not only dictates your breathlessness during training but often limits your capacity to go faster and further."  Patrick McKeown - Buteyko Clinic Dublin, Ireland.

"Nose breathing imposes approximately 50 percent more resistance to the air stream in normal individuals than does mouth breathing, resulting in 10-20 percent more O2 uptake. (Cottle, 1972: Rohrer, 1915) 

Faster and father.  This means you are feeling good, rested and the shape you are in at the moment. Wait a minute, you say.  Weren't we discussing the mental game?  You bet we were!  You get 80% better oxygen needs into your lungs than by breathing through your mouth.  When breathing correctly one supplies the fuel for the brain and the opportunity to be mentally sharper, think quicker, be resilient to immediate and long term strategic planning.

Check out www.oxygenadvantage.com by Patrick McKeown.

Take a deep breath.  How many times have you heard someone say that phrase?  Magic Nutrition and MagicMind - www.magicnutrition.com - are produced to improve one's lifestyle.  Placing your body and mind into shape will help you overcome the daily obstacles in life and improve your overall "Lifestyle." 

The Human Performance Resource Center published 10 great tips for mental game peak performance:

http://hprc-online.org/total-force-fitness/performance-boosters/performance-boosters-ten-rules-of-engagement-roe-1

Markie Z (Mark Andrew Zwartynski)

Many Pro Songwriters Are Starving - How and Why - by Brent Baxter Guest Blogger on Markie Z Blog

ro Songwriters Are Starving- And That’s Good News For You!

Posted by manvsrow in Biz

Brent Baxter is a hit songwriter with cuts by Alan Jackson, Randy Travis, Lady Antebellum, Joe Nichols, Gord Bamford, Ruthie Collins, Ray Stevens, and more. He’s written a top 5 hit in the US and a #1 in Canada… so far.

I have good news and bad news.

Bad news: These days, it’s so hard to make a living writing songs that a lot of great, talented professional songwriters need to look for additional income outside of just publishing deals and royalties. Yeah. That’s the bad.

Here’s the good. A lot of those pro songwriters are turning to teaching and coaching as a way to make ends meet, so there has never been a better time for you to learn the art and craft of songwriting!

Yeah, that’s pretty messed up when you think about it, I guess. But it is what it is.

You probably can’t do much to affect the state of the music industry, but you CAN take advantage of the situation by seizing as many learning opportunities as you can.

Whether it’s through folks like me who are writing ebooks and doing the occasional workshop or coaching session, or the fine folks at NSAI (Nashville Songwriters Association International) or GSC (Global Songwriters Connection) who hold workshops and give you the chance to connect with publishers, there are plenty of options.

There is really no excuse for you NOT to be learning a ton about the music business.

Even if you can’t afford to join a songwriting association or pay for coaching right now, there are still free blogs (like Man vs. Row) and YouTube videos that are free- and full of great information and inspiration.

Beware of sharks.

Out of desperation or greed, some “coaches” may lie to you. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If he or she says you’ll have a good chance at a big cut if you pay a few hundred dollars for a cowrite… run. After all, if this pro can get cuts that easily, why are they writing with anyone who’ll pay them?

However, if a pro offers up a paid cowrite as a chance to “learn by doing” while you work on a song together and the pro teaches as you write… well, that’s a lot more realistic and could be a worthwhile investment.

The royalty scraps we’re being thrown is leading to a heaping buffet of learning opportunities. So pile up your plate, pig out, and come back for more!

When it comes to learning, gluttony is a virtue.

Speaking of learning, I’ve written an workbook about how to write market-smart songs (songs that have a competitive advantage in the commercial market).  If you want to discover more about how to write market-smart songs, check out my ebook, “Cut/able: Lessons In Market Smart Songwriting.”  Click on the image below or click here to write market-smart songs.

God Bless,
Brent

tThe most popular rock album of all time. Recorded on 4-Track. Cheers to John, Paul, George and Ringo, Geoff Emerick, his assistant Richard, all the musicians and George Martin! #markandrewz #markiezband #music #recording The making of sgt. pepper's lonely hearts club band

How We As The People Affect Politics

Some people have reservations about posting their thoughts about politics in social media, in social settings or just about any other form of communication.  Other folks are very passionate and have no problem discussing what they feel is right, wrong and how things should be fixed.

The 2016 Presidential election campaigns are in full swing.  Yet, some politicians have placed themselves in the "exploratory - potential" category, i.e., Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, George Pataki, Donald Trump and others.  Of course, they are testing the waters, discussing issues and seeking financial support.

The word has long been on the street about the $1 billion Hillary Clinton is amassing for her 2016 Presidential run.

The washingtontimes.com is also reporting. “A network of conservative advocacy groups backed by Charles and David Koch aims to spend a staggering $889 million in advance of the next White House election, part of an expansive strategy to build on its 2014 victories that may involve jumping into the Republican primaries.

That is a lot of money, to say the least.  It is much more than twice the amount both parties have spent on the 2008 Presidential election.

What is the point?  It is that those running for office or "exploring" their options will be spending money that will be channelled through all forms of communication and the media to deliver the message as to why they are the most qualified to lead the country.  Most, but not all, people will be making their decisions based on what they hear and see through the media.  The media will deploy "experts" to explain the issues the candidate is discussing as well as the opposing view.

In the Dallas, Texas mayoral elections, 6% of eligible voters turned out and casted a vote.  Of course, we know that local elections have low turnouts, state elections climb higher (33.7% in Texas), congressional elections climb even higher (but are at an alarming low turnout - 2012 at 53.6%, 2014 at 36.3% the lowest since World War II) and the highest turnout is the Presidential election - 2008 at 57.1% and 2012 at 54.9%. 

Obviously, political campaign strategists focus highly on the demographic makeup of the constituency of people contained within those percentages.  Groups have been organized, along with strategies to encourage people to go out and vote.  Ah yes, the old adage, "not casting a vote is casting a vote for the candidate you not want to win."  But do people care?  It appears that maybe 54.9% of the people do.  The others must have no feeling either way.  One can suppose that they do not feel they can affect the direction or decisions of their country.

I am afraid obsolescence has set in to the people that affect politics.  People affect the outcome of the race when they do vote and when they don't vote.  I am afraid that we have allowed a very simple minority to affect an election.  Along with obsolescence comes the strategy of how campaign managers and those that want to influence decisions such as the Koch brothers communicate what they want to to the voters (the ones they know will actually come out).  If a person agrees with the Koch brothers and what they stand for then that is their prerogative.  If a person agrees with Hillary Clinton and what she stands for that is their prerogative as well.  However, the issues are Foreign Relations Policy - ISIS/ISIL, Nuclear Armament, Military Intervention, Coalition Forces Overseas,Trade Agreements, Oil, Currency Exchange, Security, Immigration, Marriage Rights, Food Supply, Imports, Exports, Isolationism, States Rights and the Federal Government, Taxes, Terrorism, Rioting, Profiling, Bomb Attacks, Prison Reform, Abortion, Right To Bear Arms, Minority Rights, Government Spending, Gross National Product, Minimum Wages, Health Care, Medicare, Social Security, Public Safety, Crime, Government Regulation and much, much more.  Much more.

The issues continue, but so does obsolescence.  There is a point to be made that a person must work to support their family and does not have the time to research all the issues and the ensuing facts. Even with that knowledge, one then needs to take the thoughful time to make their own assessment.

The media arrives and due to visual and audible entertaining elements attempts to capture the audience and relay the news, the facts, the reality or present it in comedic fashion.  So, there must be a percentage of people that engulf themselves with this presentation of issues and events and make an analysis based on their own clear conscience. I do not know what that percentage might be.  I do not believe anyone does.  But, I do believe that the political campaign managers make an "educated" guess as to what that percentage may be and align their strategies accordingly.

I also know that 5% of high net worth individuals earn more than half of the entire population of the United States.  That is a Federal Reserve reference.  

I also know that Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern have a very strong commonality.  They are each and unto themselves merely an act.  Entertainment.  They surely have opposing views.  But they are still just an act.  Believe them if you will.  That is what is great about the United States.  It is called freedom.  Freedom to choose who you will listen and/or not listen to.  But only 54.9% create the action and take it upon themselves to vote.  Listening to whomever you want is freedom.  Not voting is a vote against freedom.

Peace.

Markie Z
twitter@markandrewz