Why Larry Flynt's right
Larry Flynt and Ben Dover want the UK and US governments to bail out the porn industry.
Now, I’m no expert on this - of course not. But they have a point.
Porn is a key strategic business. It has been a driving force behind the spread of several technologies: the triumph of VHS over Betamax tapes, cable TV, and broadband. It also creates skilled workers for other industries; countless actors and cameramen have moved from porn to mainstream TV and film work. The porn industry, then, generates knowledge spillovers for other industries. Such positive externalities mean that there's a market failure; porn is under-supplied by the free market. A subsidy would correct this.
The need for a subsidy is especially pressing because the industry is under threat not just from the availability of free porn on the web, but also competition from another source - women giving it away for free. Both of these can be seen as a form of predatory pricing, or dumping. Many policy-makers believe it’s acceptable to protect industries from this. As it’s impractical to put a tariff on slappers - though I write without knowing Harriet Harman's views - this leaves the only alternative being support for the industry.
In the UK, there’s another case for government support. The strong euro is raising costs. Not only does UK porn have to pay more to its European performers, but also the cost of shooting in foreign locations has soared; filming in the UK is impractical in this weather, isn’t it gentlemen?
We must also remember the cultural importance of the porn business. When we think of the great iconic images of America, what comes to mind? Surely, tits and arse more than cars. After all, no car has ever been elected to high office, but plenty of arses have.
So, surely, isn’t the case for bailing out the porn business at least as strong as that for bailing out the motor industry?
Now, I’m no expert on this - of course not. But they have a point.
Porn is a key strategic business. It has been a driving force behind the spread of several technologies: the triumph of VHS over Betamax tapes, cable TV, and broadband. It also creates skilled workers for other industries; countless actors and cameramen have moved from porn to mainstream TV and film work. The porn industry, then, generates knowledge spillovers for other industries. Such positive externalities mean that there's a market failure; porn is under-supplied by the free market. A subsidy would correct this.
The need for a subsidy is especially pressing because the industry is under threat not just from the availability of free porn on the web, but also competition from another source - women giving it away for free. Both of these can be seen as a form of predatory pricing, or dumping. Many policy-makers believe it’s acceptable to protect industries from this. As it’s impractical to put a tariff on slappers - though I write without knowing Harriet Harman's views - this leaves the only alternative being support for the industry.
In the UK, there’s another case for government support. The strong euro is raising costs. Not only does UK porn have to pay more to its European performers, but also the cost of shooting in foreign locations has soared; filming in the UK is impractical in this weather, isn’t it gentlemen?
We must also remember the cultural importance of the porn business. When we think of the great iconic images of America, what comes to mind? Surely, tits and arse more than cars. After all, no car has ever been elected to high office, but plenty of arses have.
So, surely, isn’t the case for bailing out the porn business at least as strong as that for bailing out the motor industry?
I'm particularly against women giving away sex for free - after all, we poor married men effectively give away all our money just so that every now and again we can have sex - and no variety either.....
Posted by: kinglear | January 08, 2009 at 05:30 PM
Sir,
I am indignant with your totally misleding special pleading. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
The fact that your comparison with the automotive industry appears valid is no excuse. True, the porn industry is quite likely to repay government loans, and is supplying a product which is in demand, while the automotive industry is not. But the case for subsidising Starbucks to enable them to reduce their excruciatingly high prices and maintain employment by keeping cafes open is far stronger.
Posted by: D iversity | January 08, 2009 at 05:49 PM
Why do they have to be outdoors? cant they "shoot" inside? or is it outdoor is our fave flavour? maybe the porn and car industry could get together and give it away as an extra if you buy a car? we could call this a "money shoot promotion", I'm for it as long as I am getting it as well.
Posted by: passer by | January 08, 2009 at 05:57 PM
Stotter, Mr D.
Posted by: dearieme | January 08, 2009 at 06:13 PM
Not really. All the innovations for which we have to thank the porn industry arise because of the unfavourable business conditions imposed on them, censorship etc. If you subsidise them then the industry will lose its cutting edge. And the weak pound is good for domestic porn film makers as they will now prefer to film here. And so on.
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | January 08, 2009 at 06:22 PM
Predatory pricing is only effective if the supplier is in a dominant position...
Posted by: Adam | January 09, 2009 at 11:40 AM
One of the dark side of porn is how it limits our sexual freedom and choice. We have no rights to engage in sex with others in a business sense unless we have sex with them on camera. If you need to relive sexual tension, the government wants to tell you that you need to watch porn or find a partner. For those who prefer, engaging in sex with a prostitute would be a good option. Or, visiting a sex club at work or down the street. But sadly, the porn industry controls our sexual freedom -- they bank on the fact that we will use porn a a substitute for the real thing. I personally hope they crash and burn. Lets hope the general public realizes that watching porn is stupid, and decide to seek a real substitute. Unfortunately, we as a society will never tolerate prostiution or sex clubs -- we are scared of real sex. Other countries like Japan do, and they are much more open sexually. I think down the road more people will make porn for free since its enjoyable to get naked in front of others and have sex. Let's hope more women decide to drop their drawers for free and get off on camera. It proves that people want to just get off for real, not with a bunch of paid creeps screw.
Posted by: Raul | January 11, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Surely under EU rules, any support for the hand-shandy industry would have to be coordinated across the continent? This could be a great opportunity to improve the overall quality of what's on offer - we could have higher-class skin-flicks from France and Italy as an alternative to the usual 'ja ja ich komme!' output from the Dutch and Germans...
Posted by: MinisterOfFood | January 12, 2009 at 01:10 PM
Internet porn is a drug its been reported to to end in an addiction, misogyny, pedophilia, boob jobs and erectile dysfunction, according to clinicians as much as it pays the Government at some point we need to treat it with serious health warnings and work towards eradicating it.
Posted by: Victor | January 12, 2009 at 03:15 PM
lol... it actually seems like a ploy to jump onto the bandwagon and get some government funds whilst they are handing out money they don't have... and what a story in would make over a few quiet beers at the pub... "yeah we managed to score $5 billion from the government... all for porn!!!"
Posted by: Online Porn Business | February 04, 2009 at 05:52 AM