Governmental Conglomeration

     In our day and age, most consumers are familiar with the concept of synergy, even if they don't know it by that name. They're used to popular books being made into movies and other related merchandise becoming available for them to purchase and add to their collections. It's commonplace for a major corporation like Disney to own a television studio, a publishing house, a series of theme parks, an airline, a cruise line, a car rental service, and countless clothing, game, and toy factories globally. As individual people are becoming more and more specialized, major corporations are growing larger and larger, and putting their hands and monetary interests into more and more industries where some argue they don't really belong. And as these big companies are continuing to grow and extend their reach, it seems that the American government is doing the same, following a very similar business model.
     Synergy refers to the sale and promotion of a certain media product across different mediums and usually from different subsidaries of the same media conglomerate. Harry Potter is a prime example. The books were published and became very popular so they were followed by a movie series. Numerous spin-off books were also published and sold by the same publishing company that the original books came from. Wizard Cards and Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans and Chocolate Frogs became check-out line favors that any fan could purchase on their way out of Borders or Barnes and Noble. Warner Brothers, the company responsible for the movie series, put out Harry Potter editions of Clue, Monopoly, Scene-It, and other games like LEGO sets and jigsaw puzzles. There are Harry Potter themed chess sets and clothing and jewelry and figurines and stationery and mugs and stickers and iPhone cases and stuffed animals and any other kind of merchandise you can imagine, all from one series of books. In this case, Time Warner took that one popular series of books and made money off it through movies, games, and all the other merchandise formats I just listed and more. This is a prime example of synergy and it's very much in large companies' best interests for them to try this route and work as many angles as they can to make a profit.
     Unfortunately, though, this stifles competition. It's very difficult for more than one company to get their hands on the rights to anything Harry Potter-related. Only Time Warner can put out official Harry Potter merchandise because they're the only ones with the rights to it. If that weren't the case, numerous small businesses could benefit from a cultural phenomenon like Harry Potter and the merchandise that resulted would be of a better quality. If two candy companies both made Chocolate Frogs, people would buy the better ones and both companies would have to compete to make their product better. But as it is, the big corporation is the only one who can market Chocolate Frogs, so they have no motivation to make them good. They have no competition. This same sort of thing has been happening with a lot of government policies when the national government gets involved with something instead of leaving it to the states to work out.
     There are a lot of policies that I think should be left to individual states to decide for similar reasons that I think corporations shouldn't corner the market on things as much as they do. It stifles competition and diversity. If states have different policies that work for the majority of their residents, then the people who don't agree with a certain policy could move to a different state if it meant enough to them. Just like people can shop at different stores if they find one to be superior to another. Obviously moving to a different state is more significant than shopping at Target instead of WalMart, but it's the same principle of having the opportunity to choose something that suits you better. So, if a state has really high taxes and the residents don't think it's worth it to stay there, they'll go to a state that has a "better deal," so to speak. Then the first state will have to change its policies to make it more attractive for people to live there or they'll be in serious trouble.
     Leaving legislation largely up to state rule encourages the same sort of competition and motivation for improvement that you can see in the corporate world. And the same problems are posed when the federal government has its hands in something because they'll have no competition and won't be forced to make it worth the while of the country's residents. Most people find it much more difficult to move to a different country than to move to a different state, for obvious reasons. The federal government has no real competition as far as their business models go, like the states do. And the federal government has been steadily growing, much like the big corporations have. It seems natural because it's in the best interest of companies to grow like they've been growing, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate for national government. I think we should view the economical ramifications of giant corporations as a warning against what could happen if we let the government become the same way.

Additional Sources:

Bettina Fabos, Christopher R. Martin, and Richard Campbell. Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication, 8th Edition. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Print.