Prince’s Mad Money

[topum]

As many of you know, after I joined LJ slightly over two months ago I was surprised how strong the Russian segment of it was. I could barely find active journals in English but there seemed to be an ocean of super active journals in Russian. I got interested. Many of you also know how much I am into Google Translation. I read Russian journals via Google Translate sometimes, you might remember these.

Today I was looking at a couple of their top journals and saw a post about Prince. I got curious what the Russia's top blogger's take on it would be. Below is that post Google Translated from Russian with some minimal tweaks only to the bits which did not make sense at all after GT. I had to make those using a vocabulary.

I thought you might be interested too.

Google Translated from this post by miss_tramell, Russia's top blogger.

Prince’s Mad Money

Prince left an estate of $800 million.

-Photo of Prince-

He did not leave a will. The money will go to his nearest relative - his sister - a former drug addict and prostitute.

Here she is:

-Photo of Prince's sister-

And this is one of Prnice’s villas:

-Photo of Prince's lavish villa-

I absolutely do not care that the amount that can not even be comprehended (so huge it is), will go to a former drug addict and prostitute. It is absolutely none of my business.

What absolutely infuriates me is: why the singer Prince is worth nearly a billion dollars?

What he has done for mankind? He wrote a dozen hits in the '80s? Not just hits, but super-hits? OK. More than a dozen? Accepted. But is it really worth that huge amount of money?

Humanity is insane. I realized it a long time ago. It is unjustifiable for songs - no matter how good they may be - to pay millions. Showbiz Workers do not produce anything that moves humanity forward. They do not save lives. Their relatively light work should not be paid so obscenely high.

Every day 22 thousand children die in conditions of extreme poverty.

-Photo of a kid covered in flies-

In 2011, 6.9 million children under 5 died of hunger and thirst. Every hour took the lives of 800 children. They did not have enough food. They did not have enough water. They did not have enough basic medicines.

At the same time the singer Prince amassed a fortune of $800 million.

Showbiz in our world is severely overvalued, and human life is sorely underestimated.

Madness. Cruelty. It is, but it should not be. This is not even the way to the Apocalypse. This is the Apocalypse.

Comments

[diejacobsleiter.livejournal.com]

I know nothing about this top-blogger, but you're right, Russian segment is the biggest. English speaking people moved to other platforms after LJ was bought by some Russian propriator, I forgot who.

Political discussions are the most intensive last years, but you should be careful: there are hundreds of fake journals, which are nothing but pro-Putin LJ-propagandists. These people get paid, this is their job. Blogging is a huge part of state propaganda in Russia, so if you read political discussions you most probably get a wrong picture of proportions of political opinions. Propagandists create a horrible demagogic noise, and make political discussions unbearable. So "normal" people try to avoid politics at all.

The most interesting thing in Russian segment is a sort of club of intellectual elite, covering local Russians and emigrants. For example, one of the popular places of such discussions is ivanov_petrov. It's getting less intensive last years, but several years ago it was a very interesting place.

[beautesauvage13.livejournal.com]

Kinda like the Queen of England.  How much is she worth now?  What precisely does she do for all those millions?  Sit on a golden throne and wear a diamond encrusted crown while waving at all the poor commoners? 

Yeah don't even get me going on how sick I am of the lazy ass rich who do nothing and get millions for doing nothing. 

Not to mention all the over paid professional sports players.  Guys get millions in this country to shoot a puck and skate in circles. 

Then there's Trudeau wasting millions on his Pot habit. 

You're right it is the apocalypse.

Athena

[topum.livejournal.com]

Bloggers with huge followings do things for money everywhere I think. And that might include political stuff too.
I have to say that I saw a surprising number of really really anti Putin stuff on Russian LJ, and it is there freely, not taken down. I was surprised. This is definitely not North Korea or even China in this respect. Propaganda...they can say what they want I guess, it is just their point of view, no? And it has a lot of real supporters in Russia? As long as they are not shutting down other voices and I expected them to do so much more than I actually see it happening, it seems pretty free when it comes to criticising Putin on LJ. And I saw pro-Putin journals dismissing the anti-Putin ones as "propaganda paid for by the West" too.
All of that is based on the very limited time I spent on Russian LJ of course.

Thank you, I'll check ivan_petrov out.

[topum.livejournal.com]

The Royals do not do much indeed! Especially the minor ones, but they inherited the money, it is hard to strip people of their inheritance. The question she is asking I think is not even about all those celebs but more about us, why do we pay all this money to them, because it does come from us no one else.

This is not my post though, I Google Translated it from Russian. It is by the Russia's top blogger. After going through thousands of "my world just fell apart forever" and "the world will never be the same again" updates on Facebook referring to Prince's death, this post felt very different so I shared it as I sometimes do with the Russian stuff I Google Translate.

[diejacobsleiter.livejournal.com]

"Propaganda...they can say what they want I guess, it is just their point of view, no?"

Of course, there are many sincere people, but you can easily see the difference in style between them and propagandists. Standard formulas from the instructions they receive, standard manipulative tricks (change of subject etc.), compulsive behaviour etc. In most cases, the difference is obvious. I don't mind people say what they want. But propagandists have another purpose: to make any discussion place disgusting and unbearable. This is the tactics. I'm lazy to search examples, but believe me, I saw many times how an interesting discussion begins, and in one hour hundreds agressive comments make people stop talking and run from there. And all this is not a secret: ru-net knows where the offices of the blog-propagande are, what are rates and salaries of these bloggers, how to detect them etc. etc.

LJ is the last platform of free communication in Russia (together with microblogs like FB, but LJ communication is deeper, and texts are just longer), so it's not completely North Korea, no.

[beautesauvage13.livejournal.com]

It's all a matter of perspective really. 

One man sees a glass half full the other sees it half empty.  They all miss the guy who comes in and empties the glass. 

As for the Russian presence on LJ..I got nothing except it wasn't like this when I joined LJ in 2003.  It was with another user name.  I deleted that lj years ago.  Had other LJs since. 

I believe lj was owned by the Americans up until a couple years ago when it changed over to Russian ownership.  But I really don't pay much attention to stuff like this. 

Athena

[topum.livejournal.com]

We have what you call propaganda too from all sides, if you just mean attempts at manipulation, etc. It must be happening from the other side too, no? And trolls and irrelevant and angry comments happen everywhere, very often the majority of them are like this. Defending your point of view is never easy, I do not think though that we can do it not by debating but just by branding our opponents "propagandists" (in most cases).
Oh FB is hardly a free platform in my book, the censorship there is unbelievable. You couldn't upload Rubens there because it was 'nudity' I think.

[topum.livejournal.com]

Would be strange if we took the celeb's money away given that we paid it to them ourselves voluntarily though. So in the comments I think they were discussing why we ourselves choose to pay so much for that stuff and not something else. So their obscene wealth is just a reflection of what we choose to pay for they are saying there.

[diejacobsleiter.livejournal.com]

...from all sides

Of course, I understand it and agree with you. And I don't think that all my opponents are propagandists because they look at politics differently.

I mentioned this propaganda thing by one simple reason: it is VERY massive in ru-net, and so it distorts the picture of political opinions so strongly that I myself from other continent cannot get a real picture...

I don't like political discussions because they never lead to some sort of "result" whatever you could mean by result. I read them only because I want to understand what happens in my country. Many things changed in the course of last 3 years, and I want to know how. But I can't get a realistic picture.

[beautesauvage13.livejournal.com]

Interesting idea that.  To just say to all the Celebs we want our money back we paid you for all that entertaining you did. 

But you know we would not have paid if we didn't want whatever it was they were selling.

Be it an album of 10 songs they wrote or a novel they wrote or a painting or a gripping dramatic performance on film/stage.  We paid to listen, own, watch or admire because we enjoy such things.  I mean it is fun dancing to a song or watching a well acted play or movie.  Fun isn't always free. 

I do believe artists should be paid for their creations just maybe not as much that some are getting.  Mind you in reality it's more often the producers that are making the big bucks while the artists is getting mere pennies for their creations..Which is I think why Prince choose to take complete control over his work.  Seems to me he said as much in an interview with Larry King.  He didn't always technically own Purple Rain for example even though he wrote and performed the song his at the time Record producer owned it.  He got lawyers though and got out of that contract and started doing it all himself so he would get all the money instead of just a portion from the sales. 

See I'm of two minds on this.  On the one side I believe artists should be paid for the blood sweat and tears they put into their work..But on the other side I question the insane amounts of money some get while other artists starve who are equally if not better at the craft. 

Athena

[topum.livejournal.com]

I don't think they meant to ask for the money back ha ha, just not to spend it on this anymore if they ask for so much.
I actually do not have a view here at all, the way they framed the discussion in this post. I think the question has to be framed differently.

[mariana-aga.livejournal.com]

What a nasty article!

They can't just mention his sister, they have to say something nasty about who or what she was in her former life. Nothing about who or waht she is now.

And they equate someone's wealth with someone's money. Someone's poverty with someone's access to money. Someone's death, their corpse being covered with flies with access to 800 million dollars. Wait a minute, Prince himself died alone in the elevator. He was just discovered quickly enough, too soon for the flies to arrive and settle on his body.

The world is the way it is because it has people who write such articles, instead of sitting next to a dying person or helping someone with medicine, food or even a glass of drinking water. It has nothing to do with money.

And nothing really is OVERvalued in a free economy. People pay what they are willing to pay. So it's fair. It wasn't just Prince personally who took money for his shows, it was all his entourage, agents, tv networks, etc. He simply didn't waste his own portion. I have never heard a song by Prince, he is not my kind of singer... all I know that he was a kind and good person who helped people(from the stories told about him by Carmen Electra). So I am sad that he is gone. May he rest in peace.

[topum.livejournal.com]

The original author got almost 300 comments to this post. I have to say I am a bit curious what the Russian users' reaction to it was.

[doomcookie99.livejournal.com]

That is a bit heavy handed. No one is purrfect.

[topum.livejournal.com]

Quite a bit, it ends with "This is the Apocalypse."

[doomcookie99.livejournal.com]

o_o

[mariana-aga.livejournal.com]

To which she personally responded. : ) Obviously she has no time left for work or charity. It's her personal Apocalypse, what happened to her with her popularity in the livejournal community.

[afrosnow.livejournal.com]

Very interesting perspective. I don't think it's right to call out the sisters past... and it is her brother who ceased, so who are we to determine if she is deserving or not. However, I do agree that it is absolutely obscene the amount of money the entertainment industry collects. The income inequality is fucking nuts. We could do better for humanity but then there are private jets and fur coats and multiple luxury cars just for show. Whateva.

[topum.livejournal.com]

I think she specifically states that she is not judging whether the sister is deserving or not:
"I absolutely do not care that the amount that can not even be comprehended (so huge it is), will go to a former drug addict and prostitute. It is absolutely none of my business.
But then if she didn't why bring it up indeed.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

An interesting take on things. But surely, if the existence of rich men while poor people are starving is apocalypse, then it started thousands of years ago and is ongoing?

I feel I don't have enough detailed knowledge of economics to comment on the rest of it, but I wonder if the relatively short Russian experience of market economies is colouring it.

I will volunteer in response to other comments that I think the British Queen actually has a pretty tough job and has done it well, through times when I am fairly sure any normal politician would have retired to spend time with his family. I wouldn't want her job for all the thrones and crowns in the world.

[pageeater.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I wonder what kind of responses she received to this. Personally, I pay with joy for the pleasure of the arts - others pay with joy for the pleasure of viewing sorts - and on and on. How much money one person may amass and what they choose to do with it is just none of my business.

Thanks for sharing this. I've been with LJ since it's beginnings and it's been a long time since I've added a new 'friend' - and I'm enjoying your written posts as much as your photography.

[topum.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

I wonder too, and I might translate some of them later and do a Part II for this.

I think that she does not question what he did with his money and how he was spending it. Neither does she question that all of it goes to his sister (she explicitly states "it is none of my business"). The way it looks to me, she does not attack Prince, she attacks us. She is not shaming him for amassing so much money or for being rich and not spending enough to help those starving kids. She is asking how comes that in the world where we are informed, educated, and apparently striving for justice, equality, compassion and sharing (we talk about it a lot all the time!) and in the system where we vote with our money we are making people who sing songs so insanely rich while a huge amount of people are absolutely struggling in the world. Is something wrong with us? Or with the system? She is saying that the world were educated voters (us) who claim to value justice and equality a lot and are free to vote with their money for whatever cause they see fit a singer who sings songs should not be valued above the lives of a couple of countries of starving kids. And yet we voted differently.

Btw, I do not agree with her post. I think she framed the problem too simplistically and is missing a couple of links in the chain. It is quite a bit more complex I think.

[dreamsugar.livejournal.com]

The Russian blogger just sounds a bit bitter to me. If I could still remember how to write in Russian (I learned when I was a teenager and have since forgotten), I would leave a comment on that post and ask her if she donates to charities or volunteers to help starving children or less fortunate people anywhere. I'm guessing she does not, but how could I know. I think her post is rude and judgmental, to be honest. Shortly after his death was announced, a celebrity/Hollywood blog released a statement saying how Prince secretly donated money to the family of Trayvon Martin. I think when someone is really wealthy, they should be able to do whatever they want with their own money (as long as no one is being harmed), and it's good if they want to donate to causes or charity, but they don't have to if they don't want to. This certainly isn't the Apocalypse. Entertainers make so much because consumers want to buy it and do. That's good, isn't it? Prince was an artist and a good person, and he deserved all of the nice things and the wealth he had. It's sad that he's gone.

[topum.livejournal.com]

I cannot relate to her post, find it unpleasant and do not agree with her conclusions. But I think she is not attacking Prince on not donating, how he spent his money or that it goes to her sister (she says explicitly "It is none of my business"). It looks to me like she is attacking us. She is not shaming him for amassing so much money or for being rich and not spending enough to help those starving kids. She is asking how comes that in the world where we are informed, educated, and apparently striving for justice, equality, compassion and sharing (we talk about it a lot all the time!) and in the system where we vote with our money (as you rightly said, they are rich because we choose to pay them) we are making people who sing songs or pretend to be other people on TV so insanely rich while a huge amount of people are absolutely struggling in the world. Is something wrong with us? Or with the system? She is saying that in the world were educated voters (us) who claim to value justice and equality a lot and are free to vote with their money for whatever cause they see fit, a singer who sings songs should not be valued above the lives of a couple of countries of starving kids.

I also do not think it is relevant whether she donates or not, it does not affect the reasoning she puts forward. Just because she doesn't donate, she does not lose the right to say that not donating is bad. This cannot turn right or wrong depending on whether she donates or not.

I think though that she oversimplified the problem and missed a lot of links in the chain.

[randomdreams.livejournal.com]

I think it's framed pretty well, but I'd probably ask it right back: if a person sellsl a product for $1, and 800,000,000 people buy it, who is at fault? I think the answer is to heavily tax people that make that kind of money, and use that money to pay the teachers and ditch-diggers who are making stuff we'll need tomorrow.
The problem is that a majority of my fellow Americans disagree with me.
Then you have to decide whether the government gets to overrule the majority, and once you've decided that, you have to figure out what happens when the government decides to do other things the majority doesn't like, like lock them all up.
Unfortunately I don't think that would translate into Russian very well.

[randomdreams.livejournal.com]

As I said elsewhere, if a million people want to pay someone to sing songs or throw a ball, who is at fault for the income inequality? They chose to give their money away, presumably for some momentary pleasure.
I think we need to handle this in a different way than either trying to stop people selling things or trying to stop people buying things.

[randomdreams.livejournal.com]

One of the links that she didn't cover, that partly explains what we see, is that in consumption goods, where we only know if we like them after we've already paid for them, we rely heavily on popularity to guide our choices. As a result, there are a million musicians out there, but a few get almost all the money because once they get some money that is itself an advertisement for their goods so we all pile on.
I don't think anyone would criticize someone for buying three albums a year. If we all do that, and we all use popularity as a major driver for which albums to buy, then someone makes $800M. That's an emergent property of economics and taste. There isn't a culpable party in this small view.

[topum.livejournal.com]

I really want to respond to you but will have to do it tomorrow. Writing (even a short comment) is a huge pain for me even in my native language and English is my third. I literally cry every time I have to write more than three lines I hate it so much. That's why I post pics mainly.

[topum.livejournal.com]

Of course, we do not mean just direct action, ie people should not buy. Rethinking the system is included too.

[topum.livejournal.com]

That's why "Or with the system?" is included in my comment above.

[randomdreams.livejournal.com]

I think rethinking the system is probably the only option.

[randomdreams.livejournal.com]

I understand. I occasionally try to argue in Japanese. It's like pulling my own teeth.

[randomdreams.livejournal.com]

Yep. Now, THERE, is a whole pile of difficult arguments. (And no simple conclusions, I don't think.)

[topum.livejournal.com]

I don't think what she does or doesn't do is relevant here though. I am only interested in reasoning she puts forward not who she is personally or what she does. This cannot turn right or wrong depending on her donating or not. Also someone who does the wrong thing does not lose their right to call it the wrong thing (and definitely are not required to call it the right thing) just because they are doing it too. I think personal attacks are counterproductive almost in all cases. I am really not a fan of Ad hominem and Tu quoque logical fallacies. So much so that my very post was about it: http://topum.livejournal.com/2016/02/01/

[topum.livejournal.com]

In short, I would be against the super tax but I would welcome a tax / donation hybrid instead. Such that it is mandatory as tax but allows me (some) freedom to choose from a range of predetermined things it is going towards.

[mariana-aga.livejournal.com]

You are right of course. Even those who do ad hominem attacks do not deserve to be attacked ad hominem themselves.

As for doing... there are different definitions of doing. Some do by actually doing the deed, others - by calling to do the deed.

I said what I said not because I was interested in the author of the topic or even in late Prince and his inheritance. Remember that most people sit in front of the computer screen, reflecting upon themselves, they see in the eye of another what they fail to see in their own eye. Everything said about 'others' is a statement about self in no small measure. In psychology it is called 'projection'. In folklore: "Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye but don't notice the log in your own eye?"

I was mostly pondering about the price that I pay for spending so much time publishing and commenting 'in livejournal' instead of doing good deeds, and about inheritance that I am leaving after myself to internet addicts and www whores, former or not.

[topum.livejournal.com]

I understand )). I also don't think that she attacked Prince in her post ad hominem or otherwise. Yes she did not express sympathy and mentioned a couple of facts about his sister that were unnecessary but I did not see an attack on Prince. She did not shame him for not donating more and specifically mentioned that is was "none of my business" that the money was going to his sister. What I saw was more of an attack on us (including herself perhaps, she is certainly included in "humanity" which "went mad"). It is possible that she would not deny that she would end up doing the same thing as Prince if she was surrounded by all these adoring fans and all that money was just thrown at her. I think she is asking how comes that in the world where we are informed, educated, and apparently striving for justice, equality, compassion and sharing and in the system where we vote with our money we are making people who sing songs or pretend to be other people on TV so insanely rich while a huge amount of people are absolutely struggling in the world. Is something wrong with us? Or with the system? She is saying that in the world were educated voters (us) who claim to value justice and equality a lot and are free to vote with their money for whatever cause they see fit, a singer who sings songs should not be valued above the lives of a couple of countries of starving kids. At the same time it is quite clear that we cannot stop buying music and that the artists have to charge for it. So what is wrong in this puzzle? Or everything is OK?

[mariana-aga.livejournal.com]

Wrong and right are moral judgments. Nature is more or less blind and quite cruel. Those who can survive, others don't .

System(s) are part of human history, I think. They evolve.

We help those whom we physically see, or hear. If people are dying in misery somewhere afar, silently, so to speak, we cannot possibly know they need our help. I live in Canada and here we help to whomever asks vocally on behalf of themselves or people from other countries. On top of that we help our relatives in poorer countries and give away 10% of our income to the church who helps those in need and spends on social activities for kids from less fortunate families. And our taxes are 50% of our income :))) So I cannot say there is something wrong with o u r system.

Obviously, there are countries where adults and kids die in poverty, from hunger, treatable diseases, etc. But I doubt that it is widespread in the US, where Prince was from. They die in the countries with their own billionaires and millionaires, so I guess that is where Apocalypse takes place. Or simply underdevelopment.

Money has to be concentrated in order to have power, to pay for large factories, large tv stations, telescopes, advanced medical facilities, precious art including architectural art, such as some mansions, gardens, etc. It cannot be dispersed evenly, that would be chaos and white noise. We've seen plenty of examples of poor people winning substantial lottery. They simply spend it on junk, so to speak.

When people speak about Prince's fortune, it is as if he was sitting on bags of paper money or gold coins. It was all in investments, it was all in form of stocks, bonds, etc. it was part of a large economy, people were actually using his money to run factories, hospitals, build roads, etc.

So yes, there is a level of societal development, where social services are not just in hands of nuns and doctors without borders, but part of a relatively wealthy government, with trained staff, etc. Most countries have reached it, some - very few - haven't. As you can understand, it is as difficult to interfere with affairs of poor countries, as it is with a poor neighbor's family. You cannot easily cross borders with your good intentions and dollars in your pocket. Until every country has a developed social welfare system and structures able to absorb and channel donations without stealing them or wasting them, kids will die from hunger and under bombs.

[randomdreams.livejournal.com]

I would like to see all income tax done that way: you have to pay X but you can allocate some percentage of it to only be spent on specific things.

Prince’s Mad Money

[livejournal.livejournal.com]

User prorsus referenced to your post from Prince’s Mad Money (http://prorsus.livejournal.com/4778.html) saying: [...] Originally posted by at Prince’s Mad Money [...]