Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Aging Out" Fans...

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • toddkuen
    started a topic "Aging Out" Fans...

    "Aging Out" Fans...

    Over on another thread there was a discussion about what happens as fans "age out" of certain types of music:









    Quote Originally Posted by guido61
    View Post

    ...



    The real question is: where are the replacement fans? Are they staying home? Or going out and doing other things? Are they not going out to see bands at all? Or just not the bands that are also aging out of certain scenes as well?




    I'll describe my theory - feel free to comment.



    I argue there are basically two main types of fans:



    Type "1" is focused on song lyrics and a certain beats. An example is my wife - she loves Hank Williams, Johnny Horton, Johnny Cash, various other similar artists and specific similarly styled/sounding songs up through modern times. She's been this way for maybe 50 years.



    I argue this type never "ages out" of the genre they like - they fall into this at some early point in their life and they stick too it.



    This is also true of a lot of jazz fans I think.



    I don't take her out to music unless it falls into this category - there's no point.



    Type "2" likes whatever is trendy, current or happening "now." This type of fan follow the latest videos/radio songs and tends not to "look back" at playlists in a strong way.



    These fans like the latest "club" music and are not loyal to a band or club - they follow the trend.



    This type of fan can become a type "1" fan, i.e., be converted, and then tends to stop running after trends and stick with what they have discovered they really like.



    To some degree the type of fan you are varies per artist.



    For example, I am a Lori McKenna fan - I will buy her releases unheard and probably have all of them to date. Of course, when she dies or quits writing I will convert to a type "1" fan with respect to her. I also like Theloneous Monk who is already dead so I am a type "1" Monk fan.



    To some degree artists and newer genre's of music tend to have lifetime's measured in years to decades.



    The artists progress in terms of style over this time.



    So do styles of music.



    Cover bands, on the other hand, are picking up on the change and tend to lock onto specific era's and tunes, e.g., classic rock, styles, etc.



    As people's tastes change you are either going to lose fans as the fans follow the artists or trends or fans that fall into a large category, e.g., classic rock, tend to focus in markets on bands that offer that specific style.

  • guido61
    replied






    Quote Originally Posted by toddkuen
    View Post

    Bush tried a tax cut and it would have worked had the real estate bubble not burst... (But that's another story.)




    Huh? Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 and we started running up deficits immediately. The real estate bubble didn't burst until 2007. When EXACTLY where those tax cuts supposed to start working, anyway? What increased revenues during the 00s was all the money coming in due to the real estate bubble, not the tax cuts.

    Leave a comment:


  • guido61
    replied






    Quote Originally Posted by toddkuen
    View Post

    And if you check the numbers you'd see that the 2008 recession nixed a huge portion of federal tax income: less business and employment = less tax receipts.



    But Obama, upon entering office, didn't bother to respond to the revenue issue and continued to spend and borrow as if revenue were increasing as it had been prior to 2008.




    lol. What response was he supposed to have? Raise taxes? Cut spending? On what? Defense and put a bunch more people out of work? Assistance to the states and let them lay off even more people than they did? Eliminate social programs so all those who were out of work could starve in the streets? Would THAT have helped the economy? Is that what you think Bush would have done? Or John McCain? Or Mitt Romney?



    Yeah, borrowing and deficits go up during bad times. Gee, the private sector even does the same thing. But I guess businesses that borrow some money to get from one down period to a more robust one are "economically clueless" as well?



    Tell me, economic maestro. What was the PROPER response to the recession that Obama should have undertaken?

    Leave a comment:


  • guido61
    replied






    Quote Originally Posted by toddkuen
    View Post

    Bush spent a lot in his last year, Obama simply kept up the spending.




    On what? What is all this "new spending" of Obama's? Who put it on his desk? You keep saying this has happened but you won't tell me what he's spending ON. Did he create some massive new entitlement program? Sending a bunch more money to Chile? What?



    The difference in the deficits in pretty simple: revenues are down and we're suffering from the recession. Most of the "new" spending is stuff like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and helping out the states. Yeah, times are tough so the government is spending more. That's how it works. Wouldn't be nearly as bad if we hadn't run up such huge deficits when times were GOOD! THAT'S the problem!



    And most of this stuff he couldn't stop most of it even if he wanted to. You keep wanting to ignore this simple fact, but the truth is the vast majority of the budget was put on the books long before Obama took office. He doesn't have to power to "stop the spending". The House holds the checkbook. All bills have to pass both houses of congress before they get to his desk.



    And the reality is most of that stuff is way too big and way too in-motion to simply "stop". Which is why the GOP doesn't do it either. They can't just stop the wars. Or not send out SS checks. There's a massive reality check that BOTH parties need to have regarding the budget. Neither party is facing up to it.



    And those who go on about "Obama's out of control spending"? Either don't understand how it works or are simply lying for the sake of playing politics. I don't know which is worse, but either way, they are much more part of the problem than part of the solution.



    You can decide for yourself what side you'd rather be on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Potts
    replied
    You win...you have charts and graphs. I'm glad I read your posts Todd because the people I've been listening to for the past 8 years just couldn't figure it out.

    Leave a comment:


  • toddkuen
    replied
    And if you check the numbers you'd see that the 2008 recession nixed a huge portion of federal tax income: less business and employment = less tax receipts.



    But Obama, upon entering office, didn't bother to respond to the revenue issue and continued to spend and borrow as if revenue were increasing as it had been prior to 2008.



    Clinton's huge supposed surplus was actual due to dot com tax receipts and when that bubble burst so did the surpluses (actually Clinton at best didn't increase federal borrowing). Bush tried a tax cut and it would have worked had the real estate bubble not burst... (But that's another story.)



    Obama is economically clueless.



    You can't spend your way out of debt even if you are a government.

    Leave a comment:


  • toddkuen
    replied
    Here's the debt-to-deficit ratio (red line is total debt):







    So no, you can say whatever you like but there has been huge increase in debt and spending under Obama.



    The wars went on for six years prior, no huge changes to Social Security, no giant budget changes, nothing. Bush hit up the spending for his final year which reflects in 2009 spending.



    And it never went down...

    Leave a comment:


  • toddkuen
    replied
    Here:







    The dip in 2009 is due to Bush's TARP and various activities that prevented the housing market collapse and subsequent financial failures, e.g., Lehman Brothers, etc.



    But all of those programs stopped after that point and Obama continued on.



    No giant Social Security nonsense, no new wars, nothing that hadn't been going on before. The wars had been going on for years previously.



    So no, you are simply wrong.



    Bush spent a lot in his last year, Obama simply kept up the spending.

    Leave a comment:


  • guido61
    replied






    Quote Originally Posted by toddkuen
    View Post

    Even when for two of the last four years Obama and the Democrats had a majority in both houses.




    For Pete's Sake...THIS tired cannard again??



    In case you've forgotten, we were in the depths of a huge recession from 2009 to 2010. What did you want Obama and the Dems to do during that period? Make massive cuts to spending? Massive increases to taxes? You think either of those would have helped the recession? Even Bush and the Pubs know you do the OPPOSITE of those things during a recession.



    I suspect you aren't a Keynesian and that's fine. But that HAS been the basis of our economic policy for the last several decades. Problem is that while Keynesian economics dictates deficit spending during bad times and paying it back during good times, our government---especially when the GOP has been in control--has taken on the policy of deficit spending during BOTH bad times and good times. The dumbest thing I EVER heard was when Bush first took office and listening to him defend his tax cut plan because we "need to return to surplus back to the people". We had trillions of debt even then. Which surplus was he talking about returning, anyway?

    Leave a comment:


  • Potts
    replied






    Quote Originally Posted by toddkuen
    View Post

    They don't have to invade to kill thousands - that's kind of the point. Why bother with our military when we can shut down travel in the US for days on end?




    I think you just made Guido's point.

    Leave a comment:


  • guido61
    replied






    Quote Originally Posted by toddkuen
    View Post

    They don't have to invade to kill thousands - that's kind of the point.




    Yes, that is the point. So responding to the threat with a traditional military response was hamfisted, overblown, and threatens to bankrupt the economy. Which was their plan.



    Why did they attack the World Trade Center anyway? Because it's the center and symbol of American and western ECONOMIC might. Their plan is to try and take us down ECONOMICALLY. Not to defeat us by killing us all off three-thousand at a swipe.








    The reality from the GAO is that Obama is spending trillions more.



    So the GOP House has nothing to do with it? How is it that it is OBAMA spending more when all spending bills originate in the House?








    How is it STILL Bushes fault?



    ~sigh~ It's not about it being "Bush's fault". It's about understanding how the federal budget works.



    I don't know how to make this any more simple for you. So I'll repeat it one last time: The majority of "Obama's out of control spending" is the result of policies, programs and fiscal accounting tactics that have been in place for decades. The only thing Obama could do to control any of that would be to propose budgets to Congress that decreased spending and increased revenues to close the shortfall. And he HAS proposed budgets that reduced the deficit. But the GOP didn't like his way of doing it so they proposed their own. Which didn't do it to any greater degree and which the Dems didn't like, so here we are with the deficits being carried forward year after year.



    Is some of that trillion-a-year shortfall "Bush's fault"? Well, a lot of was inacted when he was president and signed off on it so yeah, to the degree a lot of it is. Some of it is Obama's as well. Some of it you can trace back much further.



    But the bottom line is this---the right is blaming Obama for things that A) they hold just as much, if not more, responsibility for and B) have no plan to fix either.



    Here's another way to look at it: the budget was obstensibly balanced in 2000. Since then, revenues have increased 12%. Meanwhile the defense budget has increased about 300%. So what's the plan for those who like the defense budget at that level to pay for all that? Obama didn't increase that spending. He's asked for defense cuts the GOP turned down. He's asked for revenue increases they turned down as well. So the deficit continues. "Continuing resolutions" and all that. Or do you expect him to veto those and have there be no funding for the defense whatsoever?



    So what's THEIR plan to pay for it? Seems to me they have nothing except to keep borrowing and blame Obama for the "out of control spending".

    Leave a comment:


  • toddkuen
    replied






    Quote Originally Posted by guido61
    View Post

    ...



    The attack on 9/11 was conducted by some loosely-aligned terrorists with box cutters determined to attack people with whom they are ideologically opposed and feel threaten them by whatever means they can cobble together. They aren't a nation we can invade or a military we can repel. They are criminals we need to protect ourselves against and hunt down when and where we can. The biggest threat they present against us their ability to get their hands on dangerous weapons and employ them. They aren't going to invade the US; they aren't going to topple our nation militarily. They've probably been able to get their hands on some pretty dangerous stuff since the destabilization of Iraq and other places though.




    Box cutters? No. passenger aircraft selected for full fuel loads.



    They don't have to invade to kill thousands - that's kind of the point. Why bother with our military when we can shut down travel in the US for days on end?



    This is also an interesting rational to explain why Obama has not spent trillions more of our dollars.



    The reality from the GAO is that Obama is spending trillions more.



    As far as I can tell most of your arguments come from examiner.com. Which basically offers clever partisan excuses about why a table full of GAO numbers that confirms massive overspending can be spun as "wrong" or "someone else's fault".



    Even when for two of the last four years Obama and the Democrats had a majority in both houses.



    How is it STILL Bushes fault?



    When does Obama man-up and take responsibility?



    I always thought leadership and responsibility were about not making excuses for what is blatantly obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • guido61
    replied






    Quote Originally Posted by toddkuen
    View Post

    Many people thought the US entering WWII was "aggression" as well.




    Few did. That was an outlier position. There's always those at the extremes.








    Fewer (2,400) Americans died at Pearl Harbor than the 3,000 who died on 9/11.



    It isn't about dollars spent vs. lives taken. It's about properly assessing the threats and responding accordingly. Prior to Pearl Harbor the Empire of Japan had invaded Manchuria and was advancing into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies in pursuit of natural resources needed to fulfill their expansionist goals. They had allied themselves with Hitler who was doing similar things in Europe. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a shot-across-the-bow warning us to get out of their way in Southeast Asia and that our own soveriegnty might possibly be threatened in the future. And it involved using over 300 planes and six aircraft carriers.



    The attack on 9/11 was conducted by some loosely-aligned terrorists with box cutters determined to attack people with whom they are ideologically opposed and feel threaten them by whatever means they can cobble together. They aren't a nation we can invade or a military we can repel. They are criminals we need to protect ourselves against and hunt down when and where we can. The biggest threat they present against us their ability to get their hands on dangerous weapons and employ them. They aren't going to invade the US; they aren't going to topple our nation militarily. They've probably been able to get their hands on some pretty dangerous stuff since the destabilization of Iraq and other places though.

    Leave a comment:


  • toddkuen
    replied






    Quote Originally Posted by Kramerguy
    View Post

    ..>As evidenced by between 7-14 Million poor people arriving on Ellis island between 1910 and 1914 alone.




    Except when you arrived here and lived off family instead of the government, no welfare, no food stamps, no medical, no section 8 housing, nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • guido61
    replied






    Quote Originally Posted by toddkuen
    View Post

    Of course there are far, far less expensive responses. Look at Israel for example, no shortage of inexpensive and deadly replies in kind.



    Except we don't have the balls here in the US to get it done for dirt any more - bin Laden knew this as well as the fact that no one here wants torture, no one wants "assassinations" and wet work, we have to get the hostages back, everyone wants to feel good that they did "the right thing..."




    I don't think that's necessarily true at all. A very good argument can be made that we've accomplished far more in the 'war on terror' with CIA activity, Special Ops and drone attacks than we've done with traditional warfare and most people support all that. Even IF it sometimes involves doing things they'd rather not publically acknowledge or want to know about.








    So here we have A) Obama following bin Laden's STATED AGENDA by engaging in ruinous borrowing and B) you supporting him as long as its "in the name of the poor."



    Except you have to look at the numbers and follow the money. The budget was obstensibly balanced in 2000. Now we're running up deficits of $1 trillion a year. What's changed since then? What's been the new spending? Why is there less revenue? It hasnt been spending on 'the poor' that has blown up the budget.



    And further, it isn't the proponents of these sorts of programs who advocate them without paying for them. The left is fine looking for sources of funding for the programs they advocate. It's the RIGHT who wants to spend more on the things THEY like without paying for them. Again---fine. You want a massive defense department? You think it's necessary? That's a fair position to take. But what ISN'T fair is to say you want all that stuff but aren't willing to pay for it.



    The math doesn't work. The right talks vaguely about cutting spending but never has any concrete plans on how to do it. I remain convinced that Mitt Romney would have walked away with the election if he would have come forth with a REAL deficit reduction plan. If he would have campaigned using Perot-style charts and graphs showing where the spending cuts would be made and how that would bring the budget into balance, many people would have been all for that.



    But he couldn't do it. Because it isn't possible. All the right has is empty rhetoric about "out of control spending" but they don't have the numbers and plans to back it up. And after several years of listening to their nonsense, the American people are seeing through it.



    Nothing can be for free. If you want all that ridiculous defense spending, then come up to the plate and pay for it. We've been running these wars on the credit card for over a decade now. It's time for the supporters of those wars to pay their bills now, doncha think?



    Oh, but now. NOW that the bill is due---THIS is when they decide it's time to not pay the credit card. "Oh, we don't have to money to pay for it, and even though we can borrow the money from other sources to pay it, we're not gonna do that. Sorry!"



    Yeah, the party of "fiscal responsibility" there, all right...

    Leave a comment:













Working...
X