Apr 13, 2014

The GOP & Fox News Follow A Few Rich People As Thier Leaders (It's Called A Plutarchy)





A basic definition of Monopoly and Oligopoly:

What Does Monopoly Mean?
A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.

According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. 

 In such instances where a single firm holds monopoly power, the company will typically be forced to divest its assets. Antimonopoly regulation protects free markets from being dominated by a single entity.

Investopedia explains Monopoly
Monopoly is the extreme case in capitalism. Most believe that, with few exceptions, the system just doesn't work when there is only one provider of a good or service because there is no incentive to improve it to meet the demands of consumers. Governments attempt to prevent monopolies from arising through the use of antitrust laws.

Of course, there are gray areas; take for example the granting of patents on new inventions. These give, in effect, a monopoly on a product for a set period of time. The reasoning behind patents is to give innovators some time to recoup what are often large research and development costs. In theory, they are a way of using monopolies to promote innovation. Another example are public monopolies set up by governments to provide essential services. Some believe that utilities should offer public goods and services such as water and electricity at a price that is affordable to everyone.



What Does Oligopoly Mean?


A situation in which a particular market is controlled by a small group of firms. An oligopoly is much like a monopoly, in which only one company exerts control over most of a market. In an oligopoly, there are at least two firms controlling the market.

Investopedia explains Oligopoly
The retail gas market is a good example of an oligopoly because a small number of firms control a large majority of the market

Extracts are from here and are in italics:

Why do economists object to monopoly? The purely “economic” argument against monopoly is very different from what noneconomists might expect. Successful monopolists charge prices above what they would be with competition so that customers pay more and the monopolists (and perhaps their employees) gain. It may seem strange, but economists see no reason to criticize monopolies simply because they transfer wealth from customers to monopoly producers. That is because economists have no way of knowing who is the more worthy of the two parties—the producer or the customer. Of course, people (including economists) may object to the wealth transfer on other grounds, including moral ones. But the transfer itself does not present an “economic” problem.

Rather, the purely “economic” case against monopoly is that it reduces aggregate economic welfare (as opposed to simply making some people worse off and others better off by an equal amount). When the monopolist raises prices above the competitive level in order to reap his monopoly profits, customers buy less of the product, less is produced, and society as a whole is worse off. In short, monopoly reduces society’s income.


Explanation:

By having a monopoly in the news media you reduce the quality of media across a whole spectrum of media. for example; Murdoch's tabloid style newsmanship is a model that works for business, in that it attracts attention, and makes money and can direct attention of viewers for advertising purposes.

[Note: To assume that a business model is correct simply because it works is the equivalent of assuming that slavery should be accepted because it has economic value, i.e. cheap labor.] 

The more Monopolistic or Oligopolistic power he gains, the more other news media has to follow him to compete with him for market share... and the more the news media will sound, 'like the gossiping of a 14 year old girl'. [Keeping in mind that the type of news structure that works best for a democracy is different from the gossipy /rumor mongering style - click here for more info.]

The growing monopoly of Murdochs rumor mongering type news media rests upon the deregulations put into effect by George W. Bush ...


By deregulating the market the result is that one type of 'newsman' gets more power over dessimination of news and thus the quality of the product (i.e. news) becomes lower. (i.e. Rupert's style is of a rumor mongerer, so, at the very least, that is what we will get).

Especially notice that Colin Powell's son states that "[this deregulation] will advance our diversity and localism goals and maintain a vigourously competitive environement". Obviously, the opposite has happened - decrease in competition is the very definition of conglomeration.

Another reason for regulation:

By removing regulation towards monopolies, the ones with large amounts of capital can control a larger and larger share of the global news market. This can create a bias in news that can blind the public from proper perspectives - for example; this video clip shows how a large segment of the news media was focused on an outdated 'new' product rather than news from a region that wasn't deemed interesting by high level exec's;


The market share for polticheck is much lower (i.e. less people 'view' the website about facts in politics than they do Fox News, so Fox News's view AND it's bias will dominate)... this also means that Fox News views will predominate the public debate and influence public policy (as the debates are centered around media manufactured issues). I think this is an iron-clad case to regulate monopolies and oligopolies in media, especially when you take these three pieces of evidence into account:

1. How a large media conglomerate can manufacture and promote news



Notice how one newspaper is used to comment on (or more accurately, 'advertise') another paper.

Stephen Colbert : The Post isn't saying she's a lesbian, they are just asking the question

By asking a question you place a thought in someone's head. For example; I f I were to say, "DON'T think of a PINK elephant, for 5 minutes and I'll give you ten thousand dollars!" - Unless you are a yogi, you will be thinking of pink elephants for the next 5 minutes continuously. by constantly talking about an idea - whether it's true or not - will place that idea firmly in the minds of the listeners.

Notice the placement of the story in relation to other stories, the idea of that woman (whoever she is) as a lesbian, is most certainly being promoted as a matter of policy - irrespective of whether it worked or not.

The train of planting News goes as follows - First story in the Wall Street Journal, Second Story in the NY Post and finally, news story on Fox News - Seems like different news sources commenting on a story but in reality it's ONE news story, created and promoted by the SAME news source.


2. Fox News has a large market share for news in America and look at its types of news bias...



Partial list of Fox News's FALSE Statements as checked by PolitiFact.com

Less than 10 percent of Obama's Cabinet appointees "have any experience in the private sector."


Texas board of Education may eliminate references to Christmas and the Constitution from textbooks


Healthcare reform is a government takeover of healthcare


The Muslim brotherhood has openly stated they want to declare war on israel


American troops have never been under the formal control of another nation


Florida's Gov. Rick Scott's approval ratings are up (lol!)


Massachusetts health care plan is wildly unpopular among state residents


There's been more debt under Obama than all other pPresidents combined


Health care bill includes death panels


Cash for clunkers will give government complete access to your home computer


Halting gulf drilling costs 8 billion a day in imports


Democrats plan largest tax increase in history


John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in drinking water


Nobody at Fox News ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance


3. Fake perspectives on the countries economy can be created, thereby delaying taking action to remedy the economic situation - The United States of America led the whole planet into a depression with the antics of its last administrators (and ideologies begun there are beginning to show their fruits in Europe as well). The news media is just one example but it is still an important means for spreading disinformation,and, if it is not regulated can affect the entire political and economic debate across the nation causing allot of short-term and long-term political and economic damage;



Notice this statement: "Wall Street Journal has been sold to Rupert Murdoch, This is good news for the economy because from now on Wall Street Journal will only report good news on the economy"

During George W. Bush's administration Fox News only reported good news about the economy (it's reporting has been so 'biased' that one commentator (Goldberg) even got fed up!). Even though the huge debt, the housing crises, the problems in wall street, the water wars, etc. All began or reached fruition with that administration. Because of Rupert Murdoch's Monopolistic position he has manged to influence the national (and global) debate away from science and on to ideology, creating, dare I say, the possible beginning's of a new Dark Age.

More info on Fox News is here (sorry, some videos are blocked).

Also, please note the war mongering stance taken by Hannity and Glenn Beck. If Rupert Murdoch is aware of these activities, understands their implications AND approves. Then this is very serious indeed.









Apr 7, 2014

Koch Brothers Own A Stake In The Keystone XL Pipeline THAT's Why Fox News is Promoting It!


From the Guardian: Koch company declared 'substantial interest' in Keystone XL pipeline: Document filed with Canada's Energy Board appears to cast doubt on claims by Koch Industries that it has no interest in the controversial pipeline.



Why the Keystone XL Pipeline should be abandoned...

1. Citizens don't want their property destroyed:
"See the land owners and citizens of Nebraska as they voice thier concerns about the Trans Canada XL Pipeline which could affect the protected Sandhills and drinking water supply"...


2. The Keystone Pipeline creates ONLY a few temporary jobs (i.e. it's a pipeline... how many people do you need to manage the pipes in your house? None):
"The State Department said in a report to Congress yesterday that the pipeline would create 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs during the two years needed to build the project, based on labor expenses TransCanada included in its application."


3. From Bill Moyers:

Wait a minute, environmentalists and Tea Partiers? It’s true. Talking Points Memo reports :

“on the portion of the pipeline that would link Nebraska to Texas, TransCanada has threatened to use disputed eminent domain powers to condemn privately held land, over the owners’ objections. And that’s creating unusual allies — Occupiers, Tea Partiers, environmentalists, individualists — united to stop TransCanada from threatening water supplies, ancient artifacts, and people’s basic property rights .”

Farmer Julia Trigg Crawford fought back, filing a restraining order against TransCanada earlier this month. But on Friday, a judge rescinded that order.

Despite the setback, environmentalists and Tea Partiers vowed to continue the fight against the pipeline.



What's going on? Biased decision making by Congress (i.e. corruption)? 


EXXON Bailout... even-though it made a profit!

(as per article 1  section 8, Congress makes the laws... people often forget that)


Update Feb 2 2015

On my "political philosophy for a new age" website... Liberal Libertarianism.org: The Koch Brothers Seem To Be Buying The Keystone XL Pipeline With Their Supporters Using Lies As Their Primary Marketing Tactic!

{Debt Ceiling History Example} The GOP's/FoxNews's Primary Goal Is To Do Anything To Win Elections INCLUDING Destroying The Economy If Necessary!


There is no possibility of honest negotiations with the GOP as their primary goal is to cause economic catastrophe to win elections or worse. Maybe 30 years ago the left and right could have worked together but that time has past.

Washington Week: Interview


(full interview here)

Notes:

"As soon as Republicans show some leg on raising taxes, it's over"

There is no political incentive to do a good job on the economy, everything is focused on defeating the opposite side.

Republicans won't raise taxes and Obama won't accept cuts on medicare without a tax increase

"The dirty secret about the cuts is that they don't occur till 2013, which means its after the next election"...

In other words, congress can rewrite a policy before a default as they have allot of time, so the primary political goal has become to attack Obama (and each other) and NOT to fix the economy...

At one point, McConnell said: "I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable." In an interview with CBS News, the president noted that McConnell has described his major political goal as making Obama a one-term president.


Here is the plan McConnel came up with...



1. "I would advocate that we pass legislation giving the president the authority to REQUEST of us an increase in the debt ceiling that would take us past the end of his term" - "that [legislation] would be subject to disapproval. That resolution of disapproval, if passed, would then go to the president, he could sign it or he could veto it." - McConnell - Theme: Passing legislation to 'disapprove it later.

2. "The reason default is no better idea today than when Newt Gengrich tried it in 1995, is it destroys your brand [i.e. America's credit rating] and would give the president the opportunity to blame Republicans for bad economy" - Defaulting was seriously tried by Newt in 1995.

3. "Look, he owns the economy. He's been in office almost 3 years now and we refuse to let him entice us into co-ownership of a bad economy" McConnel - The co-ownership is referring to the United states economy.

Important Republican Party Position: McConnel admits that making sure Obama is a one term President is his primary political goal. This means that the worse the economy is the better chances are that Obama will be a one term president.

Therefore...

Republicans devise a way to reject a debt cieling raise twice but getting the debt ceiling raised anyways (that way they can satisfy both constituntes, i.e. tea party and wall street)

[ Eric Cantor - only concession, "The fact they we are even talking about a debt ceiling increase..."]

AND...

Interview: How Republicans hope to put the blame on Obama by hoping people believe that not cutting taxes is the reason for the American economy getting destroyed...



Overview of the break-down of Congress:

Daily Show: When it comes to resolving the debt ceiling crisis, Congress is the equivalent of a skunk with its head in a jar of Skippy peanut butter.



On Gold:

Fear created by Debt Ceiling haggling in the US dropped the dollar and boosted the price of gold. As the BBC reports; "The price of gold has risen to a fresh all-time high of $1,594.16 an ounce, and the dollar has fallen, on concerns the US may default on its debts."


On raising the debt ceiling OR 'putting the debt ceiling in context of modern economics':



Above: George Bush increased the debt ceiling in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006. 2007 and twice in 2008 (The Democrats have used the same strategy, though ineffectually)

Rather than defaulting on debts it makes more sense to raise the ceiling and solve the budget problem. THEN, over time, the debt will decrease if that is how the budget is balanced. 

The speaker of the house voted for spending that led to the current debt...

[Note: Left out unfunded Bush wars + the huge reduction in taxes for the rich which is the single largest contributor towards the debt i.e. if you don't remove the causes of a problem the problem will persist.]


By Fareed Zakaria, CNN "I know you have all heard so much about the debt ceiling that you're probably exhausted. But I think it's important to point out a few facts because this matter has been so clouded by rhetoric.

Did you know that there is only one other country in the world that even has a debt ceiling? That's Denmark, a strange anomaly, and its debt ceiling is deliberately kept very high so that it will never need to be raised.

Why does no one else have a debt ceiling?

Because when a legislature votes to authorize spending at a certain level but authorizes tax revenues at a lower level, it is assumed that the government will have to borrow the difference.

The vote to have higher expenditures than tax revenues is - in effect - a vote to borrow money to cover the difference.

And in the United States, Congress - including Republicans - voted for a budget in which expenditures exceeded tax revenues.

The logical consequence of that budget - again, passed by Republicans and Democrats, is that the government has to make up the difference by borrowing.

"
To come at it now after the budget has been passed is like getting your Visa bill and calling up the company to say, "Actually we don't want to buy all that stuff we bought."



 From CNN

Anderson Cooper: They're saying they're not holding anybody hostage. They're saying, 'Look, this is what we said we would do to get elected. We've been elected. This is what people elected us to do.'

Fareed Zakaria: Well, unfortunately, as I say, I think they don't understand the workings of democracy. They have not been elected as dictators of the United States. They have been elected to one house in one branch of the American government. The only way you can translate your wishes into public policy in America is if you can convince your branch and the other one, the Senate and the White House, to go along with it.

If you can't, you've got to figure out amongst yourself what you can agree on. This is why it is fundamentally anti-democratic –"counterconstitutional" in the words of Charles Krauthammer - to be trying to do this. It's just an extraordinary act of hostage-taking on the part of the Tea Party. It is holding the country hostage.

And it has already damaged the good standing of the United States. It's very important to understand that Tea Party talks a lot about morality. In a capitalist framework, the obligation you owe in terms of repaying your debts is a moral obligation. When the Visa bill comes you can decide that stuff you bought is stuff that you don't want. You pay the bill.

Then you can have an interesting conversation about how to reform your spending. But you can't renege on your debts.




From The Economist:

The problem for Republicans, then, is that the debt ceiling is not the size of government. The latter is something you can toy with without the chance of sudden default. The former is not. Or, to use everyone's favourite analogy regarding the debt ceiling, there seems to be some disagreement over who the hostage is. Much of the public thinks the hostage is big government, and many place little value on its life. Republican leaders, though, know the hostage is actually America's credit-worthiness and economic stability. That should make things interesting if ever it comes time to pull the trigger."



Another article from The Economist:

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.




From "The Guardian"

"But though the speaker sets the agenda, he quite clearly took his cues from a boisterous set of backseat drivers: his new Tea Party members."



From the Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow for International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations;

The U.S. debt deal announced tentatively in Washington on Sunday may have been the best that was politically possible; but it is still scarcely worthy of the name. Barring a last minute break-down in negotiations, it will save the U.S. government from defaulting on its obligations to pensioners and others. But it does not address the long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation. It does not remove the policy uncertainty that is damaging the economy. And it does not undo the severe harm to America's reputation caused by the standoff.



Given that a debt ceiling has nothing to do with how a country organizes it's finances but with its reliability in the market place... here is an example of an echo chamber that was promoting the idea of a default (and may still be doing so)



On Taxes

To balance the budget you need to cut spending and raise revenue. Taxes is one of the main ways revenue is raised. [Learn more about economics here]

Daily Show: Unlike liberal elitist job evolutionists, Republicans believe in job creationism as part of their conservative tax cut religion.


Note: There are no negotiations for political reasons, history proves this! Reagan increased taxes in the 1980's during a recession and he is the one most Republican's turn to as their role model. Clear political nonsense.

Ronald Reagan actually increased taxes, putting the tax burden on the middle class and poor, which contributed to the increase in economic inequality in the US:

Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.

Moment of Zen: Somehow the fact that Taxes are revenue is consistently ignored...


Note: George Bush says that the lack of revenue that is one of the reasons for the financial mess the country is in should be extended permanently (complete lack of awareness of economic realities - same no tax rise attitude as the Tea Party).