But wait, that's not happening at all, is it? Could it be that entering a market, blowing millions on building up your infrastructure (whether it's internet switches, laying cable, or building widget-factories), costs a lot of money, and only a total dumbass would invest like that when their competition is a giant multinational who has made perfectly clear that they will crush them the minute they open their doors? Could that be it?
Gee, it's almost like you're too stupid to understand how monopolies work, and that people with businesses don't just blindly run into whatever markets exist without actually doing some due diligence on them. It's almost like you've been drinking Ayn Goatfucker Rand's kool-aid all these years, and think that totally unregulated free-market capitalism runs on magic, and not the very depressing principles of human competition. It's almost like you don't bother to look out your window once and a while and see the actual results that occur in every instance when markets get deregulated.
Deregulating banks wan supposed to free up capital and introduce more-efficient financial structures that would more properly react to market needs. What happened instead? A massive implosion of wealth that wipes trillions of dollars in assets off the books and resulted in the single biggest transfer of wealth (and that from poor to rich) in US history. And here we are again, fighting any kind of regulation whatsoever, like none of that happened.
Jeez, you guys make me want to empty this bottle of scotch down my gullet, and then bash my head in with it. The overwhelming stupid is just unbearable.
Come to think of it, everybody should have dogs instead of gadgets and toddlers. They make us better people (usually, unless we really really suck at being people to begin with).
The musical scale used in most music in the Western tradition, however, does not use anything like a harmonic series. Rather, it (presently) uses an equal-tempered scale, such that each note is the same distance from the next. This is a convention adopted to make keyboard music in many different styles and keys more practical to play, but has almost no musical basis per se. To a sensitive ear, a lot of the intervals in an equal-tempered system (most notably the major third) are starkly out of tune from their harmonic manifestations.
Bach did not use, nor attempt to use, equal-tempered scales. This is an error of historical writing that was introduced by a poorly-informed musicologist into the 1890 edition of the Grove Dictionary of Music, and has persisted ever since. Bach not only could not have tuned his instruments to a truly equal temperament (the technology to do so was not available until the 1820s), almost everybody of his time agreed that more-equal temperaments sounded generally awful and unmusical. Bach used "Well Temperament," which is a distinct system of temperament (of which there are many variants; just which one he used is subject to debate), that kept most intervals in most keys acceptably approximate, while allowing each key to have a slightly different flavor/color.
I imagine the birds sing notes out of a harmonic series because the intervals are much easier to hear.
Given that the terribly-named Amplituhedron, recently discovered, reduces Feynman calculations that used to require supercomputers to some geometric manipulations you can do on a napkin, I wouldn't be surprised if some fundamental theoretical breakthroughs are going to come out in the next few years.
why not let free enterprise decide the fate of this endeavor instead of...
This is exactly what is driving these decisions. You know why Bayreuth is the only place in the world to do the full Ring cycle every year? Because mounting a 12-hour operatic spectacle is fucking expensive, and only the place with a guaranteed audience for it -- that is, an audience willing to pay a premium to see the opera in the house that was specifically built for this music -- can survivie doing it.
Make no mistake, the trends cited in TFA are not motivated by much creative interest. They are primarily motivated by cost-cutting and standardization drives, which -- you guessed it -- are the consequences of market capitalism. I mostly dislike orchestra unions -- they seriously interfered with a lot of work by myself and my colleages when we tried to compose things for orchestra that they didn't like -- but if we take your arguments and the OP's as valid, then they are protecting a legitimately valuable experience from debasement.
The moment you kick the immigrants out, you see cases like these ones, where billions of dollars of produce were left to rot in the fields because all the immigrants who would have picked them were driven out by tough anti-immigrant laws.
The US agricultural economy -- and a lot of the service economy -- is built on a steady influx of sub-minimum-wage labor, and only survives because of undocumented immigrants. Take it away, and large swaths of the economy collapse.
Let's say there are a hundred of you and your friends all locked in a room, and you're all starving. I walk in, and out of my fat wallet I pull a wad of bills that it more money than you'd make in a year. I set it on a table, and say, "the last one of you left alive gets this pile of money." Then, when all your friends are dead, you get rich, and I say, "see? The system is fair: any one of you can become a rich person, if only you try hard enough. It deliberately conflates "any of you can get rich" with "all of you will get rich." And you and your friends are so busy fighting each other that nobody is asking why there was only money for one of you in the first place.
Dr. Dre may have become a billionaire, but he grew up in a neighborhood systematically ghettoized, and the majority of the kids he grew up with ended up dead or in jail, and almost all of them stayed poor.
In all honesty, probably the better approach would be how it is done in German -- which I might point out shares a much older parent language with both versions of English -- in which "Mathematik" has no plural form, and is shortened to "Mathe." That makes grammatical sense. Also, I should mention that the idea of what is "standard" based on historical precedent cuts both ways: the way American English pronounces the R (which I have to admit, even as a native speaker, sounds hideous, is one of the things Americans consistently fail do lose when speaking German, and is also one of the hardest things for non-native speakers to pronounce correctly) is actually closer to how it was historically pronounced. Should your American colleagues give you lectures on how your pronunciation of R glides is non-standard and dialectical? (And here I'm even talking about the R in standard British English, not that god-awful north-country dialect that turns even non-terminal Rs into a sort of W).
Neither of us would presume to instruct our colleagues on the Indian subcontinent, for example, that English is the standard of Indoeuropean languages, and thus superior to, say, Hindi or Sanskrit. The same is true here: both British and American English in their present form are versions of an older language, and neither one of them should be construed as normative.