We have to be careful about mixing up gross revenues of physical sales (with the associated supply chain costs) with income to the artist. As fond as I am of my friends in the various distribution and related industries, IMO it's a good thing if gross revenues decline (cheaper music) but artist income remains/grows/redistributes-more-reasonably. That's clearly not happening however.
This from David Byrne in the NYT today is interesting: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/sunday/open-the-music-industrys-black-box.html?referrer=&_r=2
Thing is, a (presuming here) 3/4 bedroom standalone home on 630sqm ~5km from the CBD and within some-hundred-meters of quite a nice beach should be AT LEAST a $1m property in any reasonably attractive international city. It's the lack of medium density alternatives (and the insane demand-induced pricing that forces onto the outer suburbs) that is the problem here in Auckland.
With all these events I simply don't get paying $30 for the right to be marketed to. Bunch of awesome stall holders etc I'm sure, but why would I pay for the right for them to then sell me stuff?
I am guessing you've already found his SC account
Since his set here a couple of years back. So good...
Russell, you may enjoy what's going down in the Boiler Room live at the moment: http://boilerroom.tv/session/london-hercules-love-affair-john-morales-robert-owens-reflex/
Fair enough. I actually like it better than the Flume one.
It's pretty basic maths though - Horse Samples: Flume 1 - Diplo 0
A terrific remix of 'Tennis Court' that has "feelgood anthem" written all over it.
First listen to this yesterday left me a little cold - high expectations perhaps. Or perhaps because Flume's remix was so outstanding? Growing slightly on me though...
And yep, Glitterbox's Soundcloud account has been a great source over the last month, the Greg Wilson mixes in particular.
Well they could start explaining with a much better website/comms - the linked site is fine if you want to wade through fairly detailed economic targets, but neither that or the media release say plainly what it is they are doing?
was part of a publicity blitz tied to Geoff's new album
Because both the OCR and the VSR have "neutral" positions - i.e. a (say) 7% contribution rate is standard, not a tax but a compulsory private savings account. They may drop that to 6.75% during stimulators periods. That isn't a benefit. Increasing the rate you transfer your own money to 7.25% to constrain money supply therefore equally isn't best viewed as a tax.
At best the "tax" is only for the periods of constraining money supply, at which point you'd have to call the lower rates a benefit, or subsidy or something. I get the loose point, but believe labelling it a tax misses it's intention and operation.
Also, the OCR "only" affects people with either interest-bearing savings or an interest-bearing loan. That's A LOT of people. I'm not convinced it's dramatically less than those people who will be enrolled in compulsory Kiwisaver (less sure).
The OCR is designed to increase or decrease the money supply - the fact it affects mortgages is just a by-product of the way it's implemented, not a feature or specific goal in itself. A VSR will do the same, just via adding another channel to that mechanism. One that during constraining periods just delays your own access to your "money supply" rather than removing it from you entirely and shipping it to others offshore. And during stimulatory periods will give you access to superannuation funds early. Broadening and lowering the mechanism for altering the money supply strikes me as a good thing.
Since it is essentially imposing a tax
Hearing this a lot - plenty of smart people claiming "regressive taxation!" - but that's only true if you believe the OCR also is "imposing a tax". At which point it's a tax whose revenue collection lands disproportionately in the overseas accounts of large global financial firms. I don't buy it.