You Might Be Insane

“You might be insane.”

I can still remember that conversation. I quickly pivoted to humor, but to this day it hurts me. I have made no secret of being on the Spectrum; that we don’t always interpret social situations the same way. It’s the idea that something off, but you can’t pin down what.

“You might be insane,” he said. I asked to meet for coffee while they were in town. We had since spoken on good terms. However, he probably couldn’t shake the fact I failed to interpret his silence a year earlier. I sent texts and emails, trying to strike up conversation never once considering they were choosing to ignore them. While I now realize the mistake I made, I didn’t while making them.

I have never gotten over those words. It hurts every time I remind myself of that conversation and remembering that we still haven’t met. I was never given the chance to legitimize myself in person- even to this day. While I don’t think it’s fair at all, that’s reality.

I talk about having Aspergers a lot in a bid to help people understand how we easily get off on the wrong foot. But never do I -or most anyone else for that matter- use their ASD as an excuse for bad behavior as depicted most recently in CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM and numerous other fictional programs.

Somehow Aspergers is still fair game. We’re just awkward people waltzing along in life blurting things out without a filter and then saying “whoops Aspergers- Jk!” This is such a shallow attempt to dissect how and why people reveal to those they care about, or those they hope to strike it off with that they are on the Spectrum. It’s not that they want a carte blanche, it’s that they hope those who are their friends will help correct us when we get it wrong.

We’re constantly learning from our experiences a lot later in life than most. We strive for self improvement and part of that is about being open and honest about who we are. We are not perfect, we have a developmental delay which means we don’t socialize and interact on the same wavelength as those not on the Spectrum. I am open about my disability because I hope that people learn more about me and that I can in turn learn more about them and also about best practices in a social setting.

We are not insane. We are not violent. We do not seek sympathy from others by noting our disability. We do not use our disability as an excuse. We simply strive for improvement and to have others understand us. To have television shows and movies continue to mock out effort at seeking common ground does nothing but perpetuate stereotypes which set back our efforts by decades.

Btw- *I might be* an extremely intelligent, respectful and empathetic person who just wanted to have a conversation over coffee with a mentor.


Memories Melodies

The past falls like dust on old records,
but this song remains the same.
It grows older but the lyrics never change.

The melodies grow fainter and the print on the jacket may fade. But every time I play this tune yesterday still feels like today.

Time doesn’t stop and the music may change. But this song will always be that year, that moment, and that day.

This moment on repeat, a never ending loop. The soundtrack to our lives edges ever closer to a final tune.

I dust off these records, give it another play but for this painful reminder that yesterday can never ever be today.

The past falls like dust on old records,
but this song remains the same.
Ten years gone but the lyrics they never change.

Repeat Ghosting

Repeat Ghosting

Ghosting is the act whereby someone stops talking to you, ceasing all communication and interaction without notice or reason. It is commonly done in modern romantic relationships but extends to platonic and professional relationships as well.

The psychological impact can be quite damaging, the victim is not provided any sense of closure. Often times they wind up questioning themselves, and can even wind up in gaslighting territory.

Ghosting for the most part is an act of finality. However it’s important to note that the act of ghosting isn’t necessarily confined to a one time disappearing act.

Repeat ghosting functions more like a haunt. The person still drops off without any communication or reason. However, every so often they will either reach out or find a way of passively interacting.

Some might say that’s not ghosting because the person hasn’t disappeared. They’re still there! What makes it repeat ghosting is that it becomes like a pattern: person disappears; person reappears for a while; person disappears again.

Perhaps this is the behavior of someone who isn’t fully committed to the ghost. They’re not ready to enter into a committed professional or personal relationship again so they sort of keep you on the back burner. They observe- they haunt.

However the impact on the person at the receiving end of this pattern of behavior still reacts the same as someone who has been ghosted— “what have I done to make them go away again? Was it something I did or said? What must I do to convince them to stay (or return)?”

Ghosting may not be intended to hurt someone. In fact it’s often done because social media has made it easier to do. It’s often employed by someone who may not have the right words to say. Among others it’s done by those who aren’t sure of how to approach someone. Maybe it’s not the right time. I would venture to say few ghosters are deliberately acting with malice.

That does little to comfort those on the receiving end of ghosting. Nor does it attempt to excuse the act itself. It is however important not to personalize it. I know that’s hard but the best way to treat this phenomenon is to understand that it’s literally not you, it is them.

In order to get past this difficult and common 21st century interaction, we must learn to not get emotional about it. I get that this is hard because the feelings are still hurt, I’ve been there myself. But don’t go down the rabbit hole of wondering why because you will never find an answer- you will never convince the ghost to act in a way that makes them present again.

Unless they want to be.



Intentions don’t mean a thing when perception is reality. This is a crucial thing to understand as we try and dissect what constitutes harassment. It is equally crucial in trying to ascertain whether we have come across inappropriately- falling short of harassment but still making someone feel uncomfortable.

What is harassment? I think this term has been interpreted to be rather subjective. It’s really not. Simply it is the repeated behavior of bothering someone whether intended or not. It need not be physical either. Inappropriate comments of a sexual nature, even something as innocuous as “that dress is very flattering on you,” can be perceived as harassment. The degree of harassment may vary but it is still a form of harassment.

What about when it’s consensual? Just because something was consensual doesn’t mean it will continue to be. That you may have gotten away with flirting or maybe even sleeping together in the past doesn’t mean you will tomorrow. Respecting boundaries is important. Not mixing business and pleasure is also good advice to live by.

How about female harassment? Most of the discussion surrounding sexual harassment is regarding male to female. Women can also make a man feel uncomfortable. This is tricky because it’s also the case that men are less likely to say something about it due to cultural perception of weakness. Some men may even feel flattered by compliment but intention is not what matters. Perception is. Some men may also feel uncomfortable given comments made.

Let’s really take a few more moments to examine how females can appear out of line while not realizing it. That’s the thing, culturally we have treated harassment as almost unique to men. But women often make comments because they’re trying to play the same game. They realize when they’re attractive and when they see a man who is also attractive, they’ll be a little more comfortable flirting because it’s not as common for a man to complain. So maybe you refer to that sexy guy as a ‘silver fox’ but never consider that maybe it makes them feel uncomfortable. Maybe they have a girlfriend. Perhaps it’s not consensual. They won’t always say it, they may even flirt back because of social customs around male-female dynamics but it doesn’t mean they’re ok with it.

Harassment is such a tricky thing because oftentimes the victim may not immediately say anything or note that it bothers them. So it’s really up to all of us-male or female- to carefully choose our words, especially when it involves a professional context or a person we’d aspire to work with.

Complements are not always complements and it’s easy to overlook that when we read about instances of touching, coercion and dick pics. Harassment is nuanced and must be treated as such. We’re all responsible for better filtering our comments and carefully managing our actions. If in a position of power, don’t tolerate it. It really boils down to those who can afford to speak out so that a workplace isn’t a breeding ground for predators who feel as if their actions won’t be reprimanded. Understand the dynamics between the powerful and the powerless and whether something is really consensual. Remember that just because you intended it otherwise, harassment isn’t about intention, it’s about perception.


Woop what?

“Woop woop,” the crowd cheered. A trio of hip hop performers in custom jerseys sporting a logo with a hatchet man took the stage. They sang lyrics about horror, society, sex and murder. They spit fast and hard to a downtuned guitar and the crowd pulsed with a sort of underground club energy. Slam dancing quickly turned to moshing, and at one point someone even threw up. Here I was in the midst of it all, a curious musical tourist witnessing her first (and only) Juggalo show. So allow me to share my unbiased opinion of this concert.

There’s a lot of misunderstanding about what this fandom is. One thing it most certainly isn’t is a gang. What I learned from standing in this crowd was that here was a group of people who started following this weird genre (dubbed horror core) because they themselves felt weird according to societies standards. Here is a group of people who embrace the principle of ‘no judgment.’ It is a group who cover themselves in face paint and oversized clothing stylized in custom fonts and horror images.

Why do they do this? Why does this group present themselves like this? To embrace the fact that they are strange and maybe even scary to some. They embrace being outsiders and outcasts, a joyful band of misfits. Simply, this fandom is an outlet for many to take their anger and frustrations with the world out. It is evident in the horror themes of their lyrics which often glorify violence or subject brutality and societal issues. But the violence is spoken word, not action. It is an outlet. It’s not so different from Eminem writing similar rants fueled by his own anger and feelings about being neglected and rejected by society. Much like the urban area of Detroit Enimem hailed from, ICP also began in Michigan.

So in essence, this group of people who label themselves Juggalos are quite often people who at one point felt marginalized by mainstream society and sought to band together with others like them. If a sociologist were to study them- I’d imagine many come from working class backgrounds, many had personal difficulties, many struggled from depression and many others from substance abuse or just general feelings of being misunderstood. This is not a one size fits all generalization but it seems many who follow the acts under the Juggalo banner have their own inner demons and the music and the community help them to overcome.

So while an outsider to this world, I left the show with a greater understanding of the fandom. While I don’t particularly care for the music nor would I probably attend another show- I respect that this community has found an outlet for themselves. It is a community which also seems to be very supportive of other members going through hard times. They go above and beyond, and it is why many refer to the fandom community as “family.” Perhaps that’s also because this group feels a lot more like family than their own families.

So no it’s not my cup of tea, but who am I to judge others for what they like? It’s not fair to simply label a group a gang because they gather in large numbers, have code slang and unite under certain logos and colors. It’s simply a bizarre but benign fandom. That’s what I learned by going beyond the talk in the media following the group’s protest March in DC. I went to see for myself and established my own opinion- even if part of that opinion is that the music is sort of secondary to the act itself and of low quality. But hey, let people like what they like- whether that be the much maligned pumpkin spice latte or a group calling themselves by a weird name.

A New Chapter

Going forward I will be forced to be a lot more selective about what I write. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s good to have strong opinions as a writer, but it’s also important to balance that with diplomacy.

Sometimes I lack a filter, being on the spectrum. I say things that make ordinary folks face palm. I also tend to overshare at times in an effort to be understood. I am becoming a lot more self aware of when I do this, and that’s an essentially important development.

I am so grateful to be where I am now not solely for professional reasons but also for personal development reasons. Working on a studio show has forced me to become a lot more self aware. I cannot simply speak without consequence any more as a writer or as an employee. I am apart of something much larger than just myself and words always have consequence but especially so in this industry.

Beyond my social media presence this self awareness also extends to social interaction at work. I must be careful about how I come across in emails and respect the power balance emphasized in those emails and interpersonal communications. Hollywood is hierarchical not because they want to be Marie Antoinette about things but because this hierarchy is what enables the business to work and have order. It’s important because without it there is no way we’d function as an industry given the time constraints we work under.

So I am very excited about how much I have grown this past month and how much I will continue to grow. Being apart of a really great crew also makes this Hollywood adjustment easier as well. While I’ve worked within the industry, never have I had such access to executives and above line professionals before. Such responsibility is most appreciated because it is molding me into not only a more capable professional but also a more self aware and mature person.

So while I may be on the spectrum, I will never use that as an excuse for my behavior. It is a challenge, yes- but if people from Dan Ackroyd to Tim Burton could do it then so can I. We all have our challenges in life, so long as we always look to personal improvement we will not be impeded by our own difficulties.

Scab Work & Snake Oil

Let’s talk about free spec work, unreputable and predatory contests! Thinking about paying a premium to submit to that screenplay contest? Or maybe a studio has offered you an incredible opportunity to enter your short film into a contest. Perhaps someone just offered you a chance to pitch to them or write for them — for free. Regardless what situation you find yourself in it’s important to consider whether it’s really just too good to be true. That maybe, just maybe you’re actually harming versus helping yourself.

This August Warner Bros. released the latest in the popular conjuring universe, ANNABELLE CREATION. Directed by the helmer of horror feature LIGHTS OUT (originally a two minute short on YouTube), the studio wanted to capture the sentiment of the YouTube to Hollywood fantasy. So WB created a contest to encourage aspiring filmmakers a chance to enter their own two minute short for a chance to get optioned and fly to LA to meet the director and WB execs.

Sounds great, right? Not so fast. Upon further inspection a few glaring sentences are evident in the fine print. First of all- the winner isn’t even guaranteed to meet with the director or execs. More disturbingly, the option is only $50. Most disturbingly, the cost to exercise that option in the three year period is only an additional $50 all the while you obtain no ancillary rights and the studio can do whatever they want with your creation without additional compensation or credit. Additionally, you’re not guaranteed screen credit or story by credit which could get you into the WGA. So basically you’re a free spec hire to a multinational corporation that just used your hope to further its bottom line. Oh and if you want to sue- even if you win the studio also has in this contract that you’re only entitled to $10 in damages. Woohoo $110 and fifteen minutes of fame!

So why time after time do young aspiring filmmakers enter into these contests? Simple- they’re desperate and think it’s their ticket to success. The winner has already been approached by managers- and brings this up when criticized for participating in a scheme which undervalues the creative process. However if he is still contacted by those same reps in six months I’d be shocked. It’s normal to be contacted by reps after winning a contest. To maintain that interest requires exceptionalism.

Surely someone who won a contest of this magnitude is exceptional, you may say. Regardless that’s irrelevant because simple business suggests that this person valued their talent at $50. Like so many young filmmakers, they figured entering into this contest would pull them right out of bartending and into Hollywood royalty. It doesn’t work that way, and it never will. Even if he does get in the room with others, that he valued himself at $50 makes negotiations for future pay very hard. If he was willing to lowball himself once, why not again? If you’re this person’s manager or agent, you’re not going to eat very well on the commission earned. Therefore if he is still contacted by reps in six months, I’d be surprised. Which is ultimately why undervaluing yourself for a foot in the door is a very bad initial career move.

There’s more to why this is not only bad for the creator but also for everyone else making movies and writing. It allows studios to continue marketing these predatory contests because aspiring filmmakers desperate for a shot will keep submitting material. Even if 98% is garbage, that 2% could yield fruit. Even this winner of the ANNABELLE contest was quite derivative. It was a clone of almost every James Wan film before it. So if studios can acquire content for $50, and they can keep going to that well- it’s that same studio which in turn will be less likely to shell out money for a traditional option. So essentially, by selling your self out for $50, you’re working as a scab. You lower the going rate for everyone else because studios know they can get away with it.

Without over-focusing on this contest, I also wanted to say the same of many script contests that equally prey on writers and creatives hopes. Screenwriter John Gary calls it the “hope machine.” That’s exactly what that WB contest was doing- preying on the hopes and dreams of desperate young creators. So too do many snake oil salesmen that charge for notes or “access.” Same of minor screenwriting contests that few reps monitor. Unless it’s the Nichol or on the Blacklist – it’s up to the individual rep whether they even care. Most don’t. And they also only care about winners, not second place.

This may all seem disheartening but the reason I write this is to underline that there is no short cut to success. All sorts of money-interested folks will try and take advantage of you by suggesting some secret path or access if you just sign away all your rights or pay up “right here.” The sooner you accept that and stick up for yourself the less likely you are to be conned. The moment you stop undervaluing yourself means that down the road you’ll have a better shot at sustainable financial compensation. The moment you stop doing free spec work is the moment other writers and creators like yourself will be paid properly. While not all contests are bad, it’s important you understand the fine print. Stop shilling for a predatory system thinking that despite ALL THE EVIDENCE you will be the exception and learn to do things properly. Get in line and work hard like everyone else.


The bar smelled like ammonia and stale beer mixed with patrons perfumes and various vices. It’s a place where most have given up. It’s a local watering hole where seats are practically assigned. It’s where you go to purchase conversation when you have no one to talk to.

Yet here they were in the corner, too good for this place. I ordered one of three beers on tap and clapped as they finished their set. They appreciated that, we exchanged a look: what are you doing here? I looked back, what are you doing here? Stuck in this suburban hellhole devoid of culture or any discernable path to a better life. The greatest city in the world is only miles away but from this hole in the wall it felt continents apart. Here we were, this band too good for this bar and me sat before it. A handful of battle scarred Millennials itching for a better life.

That was six months ago. Weeks after I would be laid off. Weeks after that I’d move to LA. Six months later I sat in a theater watching a story of suburban dreams next to agents, an actor and various industry players as a member of the studio system myself (a step above janitor anyhow).

Patti Cake$ spoke to me the way a lot of stories about dreams hadn’t before. Sure my family may not be as dysfunctional nor are we pursuing the same path. But it captured suburban milieu in a way that I hadn’t seen depicted on screen before. It showed what it’s like to be some Long Island or north Jersey kid growing up around big fish in a small pond; the guy who inherited his dads pizza shop and drives a custom car or the girl who’s famous at one bars sad karaoke night. Hey maybe it’s the jerk from high school who still calls you names at 27. The wise cracking deli guy. Or the school teacher you see drowning their sorrows one zip code over from where you attended science class. If it was anything, it was a zip code filled with broken dreams and those who settled. Patti wanted more. That band in the corner bar wanted more. I wanted more.

Leaving that milieu behind was the best decision I ever made. While there’s certainly many lovely aspects to the NY metro area, it wasn’t where I needed to be. Never have I been so clearly reminded of what I left behind. Patti Cake$ shows the strip malls, metros and boring bar life 2,800 miles in the rear view mirror. I don’t regret the decision one bit, even if I do miss the diners.

See Patti Cake$ in its limited release. Support original films. Don’t forget to dream even when it seems impossible. I certainly never thought I’d be here living off the Sunset Strip at the beginning of the year…

Car-Less in LA


When I first said I was moving to LA without a car, it drew some surprised reactions. Many posited that I wouldn’t be able to do it. Others insisted the public transit options were unsafe, unreliable and poorly planned out. More noted how dangerous biking is and that walking is made difficult by hills, distracted drivers and large intersections. I am writing this piece to show they’re all wrong; now car-less in LA for several months I will demonstrate it.

LA is more like a suburb than a city, culturally. The residents often oppose new developments, housing and most critically new transit options. The CEQA law, intended to be for environmental safety is often used by affluent residents to combat any new development in their towns (in case you were wondering why there’s no metro rail extending beyond Hollywood). Many Angelenos view public transit as an option for the poor, immigrants, young and driverless (like people with DUI). They view driving their own cars as both a status symbol and a form of freedom. Yet they’re making their own city inhospitable with traffic by not exploring other options.

What are those other options? Let’s start with the bus. I live in West Hollywood. Several busses cross through my area. I can take the bus to the beach; Downtown; to the Valley; to central LA and Mid City; to Hollywood and the East Side. Pretty much anywhere I want to go, there’s a bus line. Stops are numerous, making it easy to walk. My commute from Norma Triangle to Fairfax by bus is 30 minutes. Sure that’s 15 minutes longer than if I had my own car, but why would I want to add to traffic as a solo commuter? To go 1.9 miles in a car by myself is not only selfish, its environmentally toxic, and causes more traffic. If you live within a short distance to work, the bus is an excellent option.

So what are the cons to the bus? While the busses are clean, safe, well operated and accept cash (huge plus!), their safety tends to become worse at night. While I haven’t had any issues, friends have had run ins with crazy homeless. No different than what I experienced on the subway back home in NYC though. The other con is when you need to transfer or go a longer distance to work. Busses sit in the same traffic, albeit with the advantage of bus lanes and being able to switch the light green on many lines. So if you have a super long commute, a bus may not be ideal — maybe a carpool or finding work closer to home is better. Although I’ve gotten Downtown at rush hour in under one hour from the Westside. Combining bus to metro can reduce time considerably.

So what about the metro? In a word: limited. However it’s constantly improving both access and service! The Expo line now extends to Santa Monica. When used in addition to busses for areas where service is lacking, it makes the rest of the leg of your trip shorter. LA County is currently trying to adopt plans for a Purple Line which will run along the Westside (but is facing opposition). Right now the metro is great for folks who live near it or have their job close to it. More and more people can say this because of vital expansion. However access is sorely limited on most of the Westside. Additionally, they often run too few cars at peak hours of operation.

So what about getting around locally? I walk. West Hollywood is one of the most walkable areas of LA, and is why I chose it in addition to its safety and centrality. I also understand this area is very pricey for some, so other areas may not be as walking friendly (I.e vital services nearby). I walk to the grocery store, deli, 7/11, post office, library, bars, UPS store, shopping, hair salon, nail salon. Everything is nearby. For those who maybe need a car to go a bit further, Uber/Lyft is super cheap in LA because there is a surplus of them. I use Uber/Lyft to go to laundromat and it never costs me more than $3.50! Other areas are just as walkable contrary to popular belief. Hollywood, Silverlake, Echo Park, Santa Monica, Westwood, Studio City, NoHo, Beverly Hills, Downtown — to name a few — are all walkable. The only people who can say that their area is not walkable are those who live in canyons or deep into the hills off an access road (Bird Streets West Hollywood is obviously not as walkable as Norma Triangle West Hollywood). Even then, there’s always biking and taking advantage of more bike lanes and bike rental programs like the one in West Hollywood.

Finally, how did I like driving in LA? I wanted the option of driving so that I could compare it to my car-less routine. The result? I hated it. According to an AllState insurance study, LA drivers rank almost dead last for metropolitan area drivers. Nationwide, drivers average a collision every 10 years. In LA, it is half that time at five years! Drivers are terrible here; they’re on their phones, unsure of how to merge, timid where aggression is required, smoking pot, and just bad urban drivers. I learned to drive in NYC (including Manhattan). I have the best defensive driving skills of cities around the world and these people tested my patience daily because of how distracted and poor they are at navigating dense areas. I also don’t think having a car helped cut down on time. At least when taking public transit I can get other things done; browse social media, write, read, do paper work etc. I economize my time better taking public transit than sitting in traffic. Also, parking is either expensive or very limited, so the small time you save driving is often eaten up by trying to find parking.

I will not own a car in this city. A big reason for that is cost. I can afford to live in the Norma Triangle area of West Hollywood because I have no car. A car is expensive anywhere but especially so in LA. Here you have to pay not only your payment and high cost of insurance but higher gas prices, monthly parking spot, parking for extracurricular activities, smog checks and the highest annual registration fees in the country. Conservatively people spend around $400 a month just to own an entry level economy car in Los Angeles, excluding pricey registration fees and added parking spot to rent. My entire monthly transit cost including occasional Uber’s is $115. I have time to do work whereas that wouldn’t be possible as a driver. I often arrive to places faster than friends because I don’t have to search for parking. I’m in excellent shape because I walk everywhere. All those savings allow me to live in one of the nicest neighborhoods of the city.

Going car-less isn’t for everyone. Those with kids or a job that requires errands/runs mandate a car. If my wildest dreams came true and I were made that producer’s assistant, I’d have to get a car to do their chores etc. Even then, many chores can be accomplished without a car. Grocery stores deliver, so too do dry cleaning services. However hopping around to studios and picking up packages and materials requires a car. If your job doesn’t require a car, explore public transit. Spend your time commuting doing something like writing instead of staring at traffic. The savings you generate alone could allow you to move to a better area or closer to work. It’s good for the environment and your sanity. So the next time someone says “you can’t do LA without a car!” tell them they’re wrong and encourage them to be open minded about other options through experiences versus tired suburban mentality stereotypes.

Understanding Late Stage Capitalism

Late Stage Capitalism is a socioeconomic theory which maintains that Capitalism is an historically limited stage. Proponents of this theory suggest that eventually the pragmatic rational decision making of capital economies will result in hyper-conglomeratization, lack of competition, automation and a redistribution of resources and wealth to those who already have the most capital. If this sounds familiar, it is because this historically limited stage has run its course; capitalism is no longer the most efficient economic model on earth. As the term suggests we are currently living in the end stages of this economic system.

Political scientist and author Frederic Jameson wrote a book about this term in 1991, Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. In his book, Jameson noted that the late stage of capitalism would come to dominate human beings – it is a moment where low and high art collapse, culminating in the postmodern consumerist stage where everything is commodified and consumable. Everything is for sale, and a few businesses begin to emerge as those who wish to sell you everything (Amazon, Walmart). In fact, most of what we buy and watch in the media is owned by one of less than ten conglomerates, as alluded to in the infographic featured above.

Some examples of this trend include conglomerates merging and buying up smaller companies to fold into their brand. Disney bought Marvel and Lucasfilm. They also own half the content you watch on television, including ESPN. Outside entertainment it is Amazon, who recently purchased Whole Foods, Ltd. For $13 billion in an effort to get into the grocery business in addition to selling just about everything else imaginable– and it is of course an entertainment content creator too. Yet it began as an online book store.

As rational economics suggest, these actors make decisions rationally, that is they make choices on the basis of sound logical principal in accordance with self interest. Businesses will make decisions rationally in order to expand value and increase market share in order to benefit share holders and themselves. It is this strict adherence to rational economics which also supports the theory that Capitalism is an historically limited stage.

Rational economics is not the best distributor of resources. In the early stages of capitalism there were many markets. Someone created a product, brought that product to market and those with means exchanged something of value in order to obtain it. When a competitor emerged with a similar product, it created competition. With competition, the market for a particular good or item would fall because there was ample supply of it. Since Capitalism adheres to rational decision making based on supply and demand, eventually these markets would be consolidated to better control prices in accordance with self interest. In order to act in self interest, many of these good-makers decided to merge and reap the benefits of lower costs of production, and higher profits for themselves. The result is less competition, higher prices, lower wages and extreme wealth inequality.

Capitalism is a ruthless system which does not care for the well being of its economic participants apart from those with the most means. It does not distribute resources efficiently because it was never designed to.

Case in point the global affordable housing crisis. A week ago, Grenfell Tower, a public housing complex in North Kensington burned to the ground killing around 100 people. The cause of the fire is not immediately known, but the lack of safety measures is. As the supply of valuable property in London and other major cities becomes scarce, investors moved in as rational decision makers looking to capitalize on real estate investment. The result is hundreds and thousands of properties taken off the market to act as land banks– investment properties, AirBnB rentals, and vacation homes for the rich both at home, and especially abroad. Instead of hearing Grenfell residents concerns, Kensington and Chelsea acted in accordance with rational theory as well. They chose to put the concerns of developers first and install cheaper flammable cladding to the Tower complex in an effort to save £5,000 and make the public unit look nicer to neighboring affluent residents which in turn raises more revenue. Not once did the Council or its contractors make a decision with the safety of its poorer residents in mind!

Rational decision making cares about one thing and one thing only – maximizing profit by reducing costs and acting with the benefits of the company or individual in mind. Nowhere in that calculation is labor, or negative externality considered. It is not to the benefit of the capital class to distribute resources to those with less. It is not to the benefit of the capital class to spend more to prevent negative externalities. The only thing which can do that is public policy.

What do we consider rights?

Is access to affordable and safe housing a right? Is it reasonable to make sure that those living in a given city have access to such housing before investment properties and those looking to make a quick buck off AirBnB? Should we tax or restrict investment properties in given cities where vacancy rates are low, and cost is too high? Is it reasonable to have housing that is safe and up to code?

Is access to affordable education a right? Is it reasonable to reduce the cost of college, including private elite universities so that middle and lower class residents can compete on the merits against wealthier students without burdensome loans? Should unpaid internships be made illegal so that those who cannot afford to work for free get the same experience early in their careers as those who can?

Is healthcare a right? Should we make a profit off of those who are sick or should we subsidize medicine and health services so that we can reduce cost and better distribute resources to those most in need regardless their economic background?

Is a clean and green environment a right? Should we place regulations to restrict polluting industries from contaminating the local community and furthering the climate change crisis? Should we take steps to prohibit certain products and methods of resource exploration to preserve life on earth and the safety of local communities?

Is access to financial products with clarity a right? Should we regulate capital markets so that institutions do not act without the well-being of their clients in mind? Should financial advisors be held to high standards and accuracy, and make decisions with their clients in mind? Should certain financial institutions have faster access to trading floors, which enable them to rig the market in their favor? Should roughly ten companies own everything we buy?

These questions must be answered by public policy makers. Late stage capitalism does not distribute resources efficiently because it is only concerned with self-interest. Therefore a capitalist market is not good at self-regulating itself and leading to the best possible outcomes for all. The logical culmination of this theory is mass inequality, lack of opportunity, fewer choices and the commodification of every aspect of life.

However not everything should be commodified. If we believe in meritocracy, we must make and lobby for policy which makes sure that resources are distributed in a more equitable manner. We must protect aspects of our society which unregulated capital markets do not value; such as the environment, the arts and those with less means to provide for themselves. We must encourage policy makers to take automation seriously, and make plans for a post-work economy. Finally, we must come to the conclusion that while Capitalism has done a lot of good for our world, it is no longer the most efficient system for all. It is time to look at what comes next, and how best to implement policy that respects both those at the top and at the bottom; a system which is equitable and based on merit. Late stage capitalism is a turning point in human history. Where we head next is up to the people and the world they want to see. It will be a tough fight, but it is a fight worth having – it is a fight for the future, and for a better world than the one we live in today.