In the blog of Sept. 14 we clammed on the NYT that it was one stuffed-to-the-hilt cultural upload-----for the reader to suck in. But what if it is for the "culture" of the owners and staff in N.Y? If not, then it is for the consumer-----the humble persons of the U. S. A?-----or maybe those suckers just eat the humble pie they source from "USA Today." There's one that is even more "humble"-----in not pretending to be anything but a consumer product. This clarifies that it is a question of who (or what) the NYT serves.
Is the enterprise done for money? Or does it actually serve the public need for the "news"?
Another question: are "consumers" and "producers" the same person sometimes? Obviously, they are. But, I seem to feel strongly that it is useful to make some kind of conceptual distinction here. This is NOT to deny that there can be a unitary consumer-producer, when the N.Y.T. pressroom operator buys a bagel....etc.
That's the guy who operates the printing press. Where was I? Oh yeah. This is major: Staying with the same line of reasoning as the day before yesterday, we begin to see the consumer as mere supplicant. So that is going to be the theme here today. OK? Does the "little guy" actually have, as we say in Chicago, "clout"?
Does the consumer-supplicant have any clout at all? Does he have any power whatsoever? If nothing else, they are The People----as we say. In a democracy they should have some power. Hell, in any society. If nothing else, they are the people whom we allow to live. This is capitalism, not fascism. We don't kill them. We don't put them into the concentration camps, either.
No, we let them clog up the streets. This is "capitalism," Virginia.
But if "the people" do not really mandate the content of the NYT, or the USA Today, or anything else, then where exactly does that clout come in? Do they engage in a consumer "negotiation"? Do they engage in a consumer negotiation about price? In other words, do they order producers around, with "consumer demand," to get the prices or the products they require? Well, in my thinking, I doubt it.
In my version of economic theory, this has been brought into doubt. It is such an important matter, though! This because the neo-Classical theory says people are parties to some larger "Negotiation" (I capitalized it by accident --- but, I'm not tenured, so it doesn't matter) whereby they Negotiate their desires, through decisions closely related to either buying or not buying some specific product items that are on the market.
That is supposed to be where their power is, but if this is wrong, what is right? If they do not negotiate prices, then how do they act as viable individual entities? How, in other words, do they act or behave?
This is the question we need to ask. So this series of conceptualizations will have to continue....because, I think I have some idea of what the answer will be.