Question

Can you summarize this article?

An Economic Analysis of the Intellectual Monopoly in The Lego Movie Beckett Chung

This paper aims to identify the intellectual monopoly in society. It draws inspiration from themes in The Lego Movie (2014) and examines various papers that define the causes of intellectual monopolies. Using a case study of the firm BlackBerry, this paper seeks to understand the severe consequences of an intellectual monopoly. It concludes by suggesting the market power return to the everyday worker, so society can be wholly creative.

The Lego Movie (2014) delivers an ominous warning of the darkness that lurks underneath society’s bed. The plot is structured around overcoming the antagonist, Lord Business, and his monopolistic company, Octan. Octan dominates the Lego Universe, and maintains full control over every single market. By taking advantage of key markets, such as legislation and media, Octan controls the way people think. For example, Lord Business thrusts mandatory instructions onto the laps of his citizens, ensuring everything as simple as waking up in the morning is standardized. By airing only one TV show, and playing only one song, Lord Business manipulates the people of the Lego Universe into realizing his vision of perfection. When thinking processes are monopolized, human creativity is hindered, and technological innovation will suffer.

In “The crisis of intellectual monopoly capitalism,” Pagano (2014) explored how knowledge is controlled in modern society. This paper aids in understanding what an intellectual monopoly is, and offers a socialist solution to stabilize the market for knowledge. In “Why U.S. firms are dying: Failure to innovate,” Denning (2015) presented a multitude of statistics to quantify the lack of support for creativity that workers feel. His numbers help this paper view the effect of a thought monopoly on everyday people.

Classical economics insists that a market dominated by a monopolist cannot function at maximum efficiency. Unfortunately, classical economics fails to reveal the inevitability of an intellectual monopoly as a product of competitive markets. Competition drives capitalists to maximize the efficiency in their labour power, which is rented from the workers. To maximize the efficiency of the rented labour, capitalists streamline production by dividing labour. Instead of hiring one expensive high-skilled worker to produce something, capitalists employ many cheap low-skilled workers who complete small, individual tasks to produce the same thing, at a higher volume for a lower price. Pagano (2014) argued that labour division removes the creative process from the production process (p. 1141). The division of labour represents the division of creativity from production. It is a crucial step towards creating a knowledge monopoly. Overtime, workers become entrenched in their roles, becoming mindless producers. Denning (2015) reported that a very small percentage of workers feel inclined to innovate (para. 11), which he blamed on the overwhelming focus on a firm’s stock price. This is because high production drives the stock price upwards.

The people who are creative have their ideas patented, which further boosts the stock price of the firm. However, only the few people at the head of a company are thinking, and they make it illegal for others to use their ideas. If good ideas contribute positively to stock prices, then why are firms failing to support creativity among their workers? Marxist theory dictates that the capitalist class and the working class are bound to conflict. The capitalist rents labour from the working class at a cost lower than the value of what the worker can produce. The price of labour must stay low enough for the worker to afford the cost of living, but may never grow so that the worker can begin saving. If workers begin saving, they may accrue capital, allowing them to break from the working class and become capitalists. Likewise, if workers feel pushed to innovate, they may innovate beyond the role of a mere worker. If workers begin outputting influential ideas, there is little to stop the workers from patenting their ideas, accruing capital and becoming capitalists. This threatens to dramatically shrink the workforce; which capitalists heavily rely on. So, in the name of profit, firms will continue to alienate their workers, even at the risk of falling to the intellectual monopoly they have created.

Consider the firm BlackBerry. Ten years ago, nearly everyone used their products. Now, the products are rarely seen. From 2009 to 2013, the stock price of BlackBerry plummeted by ninety percent (Gustin 2013). Using the technology industry as a model, it is possible to quantify what could happen to society should it continue under an intellectual monopoly. When Apple launched the first iPhone in 2007, they severely disrupted BlackBerry’s tight hold on the smartphone market. The iPhone emerged backed with a slew of patents, to lock in its monopoly and secure profits. Lacking the creative power to overcome the iPhone’s strengths, such as interface and internet access, BlackBerry chose to attack the iPhone’s weaknesses, such as emailing and security (Ladurantaye, McNish, & Silcoff, 2013). With only a few people in the company innovating, and intellectual property laws forbidding copying, BlackBerry was doomed. Many argue that the patent system encourages innovation because when firms race to idea A, the winner gets all of the profits. This is true, but it is risky for the losers. It hurts competing firms, and it limits true, cooperative innovation. If idea A is fruitful, then two heads are better than one. When multiple firms with diverse problemsolving skills work on an idea, they can maximize the potential of the idea at a faster rate than when one firm works alone.

At the end of The Lego Movie (2014), Lord Business discovered that the true beauty of life was not found by following the instructions, but that it lay in the individual creativity of everyday people. When the people were encouraged to live life freely, happiness blossomed. Creative freedom must return to the people if innovation is to thrive and the economy is to prosper. The intellectual monopoly must dissolve into one of perfect competition, where no one can individually influence the market, but together, everyone can work at maximum efficiency. A uniquely human gift, creativity must be shared and supported. A more diligent study would examine a case of innovation lacking on a macroeconomic scale, and would include the consideration of sociological factors such as childhood education.

Answer 1

An economic Analysis of the intellectual Monopoly in The Lego Movie Beckett Chung. It shows the intellectual monopoly of the society through The lego Movie(2014) and they used a case study of a firm Black Berry to understand this.

This movie tells that the darkness of society. The plot is shaped around overcome the antagonist, Lord Business and his monopolistic company Octan.Octan control the way of people think through taking advantage of key markets. Classical economics not succeed to realize the inevitability of an intellectual monopoly ofas a product of competitive market.

Pagano argued that, labour division removes the creative process from the production process.Denning reported that the very small percentage of overwhelming focus on a firm's stock price.Marxist theory indicates that the capitalist class and the working class are bound to conflict. Black Berry tried to overcome the power of iphone.But failed. At the end of this movie, shows that the the creativity of individuals in everyday life.