Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 110

Thread: How do you fix the US?

  1. #41

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    And why is there a much bigger anti-legalizaiton lobby? Because state and local government have an innate interest in pot taxes, because big pharma, big agri, and venture capital see huge growth potential in the industry. And as often as they fight together for regulation, they will fight each other big big pharma wants marijuana to be prescribed, whereas agribusiness want to grow and sell as much pot as possible. And then police unions and prison lobbies want to keep milking arrests and convictions that result from marijuana criminalizaiton.

    Your simplistic view of lobbying is removed from reality.
    Yet, we don't see it legalized on federal level, so my "simplistic" view is 100% correct. Otherwise, we'd see pot legalized long time ago. Same goes for many other substances too.
    Again, "corporations" aren't on "one side" or inherently against the "underserved and under-represented". Learn the system before you criticize it.
    Well, in case of US what's good for the establishment tends to be bad for the rest of the population (including "underserved and under-represented"), and visa versa.
    Corporate media is split between pro-business (WSJ, Reason, CATO), liberal outlets (CNN, WaPo, theGuardian), Progressives and Socialists (Salon, Jacobin), neutrality (AP, Reuters, NPR), and hyper-partisan conservatism (Fox, Breitbart, Federalist). Ceaseless allegations that the media is responsible for cultural decay (or whatever), are just as aimless and detrimental to public discourse as the grifters who use protests as an excuse to loot and burn.
    On surface level only, in reality majority of legacy media is still owned by a small handful of corporations, hence why we saw allegedly pro-business and "neutral" outlets kill their own credibility by throwing their hats with "progressives and socialists".

  2. #42

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Yet, we don't see it legalized on federal level, so my "simplistic" view is 100% correct. Otherwise, we'd see pot legalized long time ago. Same goes for many other substances too.
    Marijuana is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. 2018 agriculture bill legalized some forms of hemp agriculture, and before that, the Cole memorandum loosened enforcement of marijuana by federal authorities. Not to mention, the legalization of marijuana in a number of states to various degrees over the last 20 years.

    So this isn't a simple legal/illegal status, which goes to show, why your simplistic models are inapplicable to the real world. As with lobbying, as with drug legalization, you miss the nuance, which makes you miss the big picture.

    Well, in case of US what's good for the establishment tends to be bad for the rest of the population (including "underserved and under-represented"), and visa versa.
    There is no "corporate establishment". Like I've repeatedly said, there are just as many corporations on one side, as on the other. A great example of this is net neutrality, there are just as many corporate giants in support of net neutrality (because it is beneficial to their financial interests), as there are opposing it (again, because it's in their financial interest).

    On surface level only, in reality majority of legacy media is still owned by a small handful of corporations, hence why we saw allegedly pro-business and "neutral" outlets kill their own credibility by throwing their hats with "progressives and socialists".
    Your argument is self defeating. If media was subservient to corporate masters, they would not throw their hats in with progressives. If corporations are trying to cause chaos, then there is no need to spend the money to consolidate media. If the corporations are trying to control the message, then they wouldn't be throwing their hats in with progressives.

    The reality is, there are a number of corporations who have consolidated the media, yet they are antagonistic to each other, because they have divergent interests. More than media consolidation, the age of the Internet has ushered in decentralization of media. Where anyone can choose their own source of news. Hence why outlets like Breitbart and Jacobin have gained significant popularity.

  3. #43

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    Disclaimer: I don't think the US is broken - but this thread isn't really about that. More of a what-if wish list if you had the numbers. If you think everything is ok as-is, well this thread is going to seem like fairy tales so you've been warned.
    The US is very broken. It's just that time in it's history.

    Did you look at history antaeus? You don't just ask for what you want to be fixed. Something has to actually demonstrate itself to be broken to the point that the government fixes itself. That's how the US breaks and fixes itself. And I mean, literally, since its inception it has broken itself at least six times counting its formation. It's just a matter of what the parties are and whether you were alive close enough to well...shudder.

    The US has had six party systems, or, to say, six eras where party competition was somewhat stable. That is, both in balance of power, and in between the types of issues they fought over. Eras: 1796-1820, 1832-1856, 1868-1892, 1896-1928, 1932-1968, 1980-current. The transitions were led from the top down, typically catalyzed by societal crises. The first five party systems lasted, by this count, 24, 24, 24, 32, and 36 years.... a nice regularity, with length expending as people lived longer. By this pattern, be ready.

    On this pattern there are four major periods of democratic transformation in the United Sates, not counting today. The Revolutionary War(Monarchy to self-governance), the 1830s(major expansion of the franchise to nonpropertied white males), the Progressive Era(major expansion of franchise to women), the Depression, and the 1960s(voting rights and enfranchisement of Black people re poll taxes, plus some governence reforms), and generally now. There's a regular pattern, with some kind of transformation coming about every 60 years or so. The United States is due for a wate of democratic transformation.

    Now, past performance is no way we can bet on future returns. There are elements of current US politics that make our draws for another transformation and renewal deeply random. But the lessons have value. They can tell us what looks like a map, what looks like we haven't been, and what updates we need to keep the US working.

    Now, everybody knows about the US's first-past-the-post system. That gives it a two national party structure for political competition. In turn, two parties have had to be big-ten coalitians, theoretically. But these are hard to maintain over long periods of time, as allies on certain issues, are enemies on others. Demographics change, altering the relative balances of power, both within parties and between parties. Voting loyalties, however, tend to stick. Breaking from the party comes at a high cost if the opposing party can't meet your demands either. MAJOR EVENT. Econimic depression. Conflict over race. BIG THING.

    Let's look at history.

    Back in 1832-1856 the system was based on a mostly balanced competition between the frontier based Democratic Party founded by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, against the more industry friendly Whig Party. The parties argued between themselves over canals and tariffs. Internally, over slavery, since both had northern and southern groups. When the westward expansion made the slavery question unavoidable, both parties split, and a civil war and a new alignment emerged.

    The rest is history.

    Almost a century later, the party system of 1932-1968 came together in response to the shock of the Great Depression. Democrats dominated with the New Deal Coalition, both Northern and Southern, but divided on how to send ONLY to white people. The coalition held as long as civil rights was a local issue. The Civil Rights Revolution of the 1960s jettisoned the Southern conservatives from the Democratic Party and the success of the New Deal shifted the politics of redistribution.

    The rest is history.

    That both parties are fractured does not harald a realignment. Division is a constant in America. What does signal a potential realignment is the lack of any substantive arguments about the big questions that have defined partisan conflict throughout US History: The role of government, the regulation of economy, or the United States role in the world. Instead this election is about why the other party would destroy democracy and the country, in narratives with race.

    Each time, amendments were passed. Each time, laws were passed. Each time, life in America changed. But is it guaranteed? Who knows? How will it change?
    Last edited by Gaidin; October 05, 2020 at 09:43 PM.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  4. #44
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    The US is very broken. It's just that time in it's history.

    Did you look at history antaeus? You don't just ask for what you want to be fixed. Something has to actually demonstrate itself to be broken to the point that the government fixes itself. That's how the US breaks and fixes itself. And I mean, literally, since its inception it has broken itself at least six times counting its formation. It's just a matter of what the parties are and whether you were alive close enough to well...shudder.
    I guess for a little context... the point behind this thread, is to give structure to the common complaints raised in these forums. We do a lot of complaining, but not a lot of constructive debate about how to improve that which we complain about.

    I suffer from a status-quo bias. So I'm rarely one for advocating revolutionary change - I think government systems need to be able to evolve over time. They need to be responsive to unforeseen circumstances, and they shouldn't depend entirely on subjective interpretation of out of date content. I think the founding fathers probably agreed with me - in that they provided tools for evolving the structures of government. Thus my opinion is that things aren't broken, so much as lagging in their ability to respond to changing circumstances. Also, not being American, and having experienced the governments of other countries - some based directly on the US system, and seeing how they don't have to break to respond, I am also a positive thinker - I don't think things have to break down completely to be fixed. The US has numerous tools to 'tune-up' the structures of government.

    I don't think partisanship is breaking the US any more than it was during each of your examples. It existed prior to the founding debates and has ever since. Rather I think in particular one of the institutions that manages the partisanship, has become problematic because of demographic change over the long term (see my post on the Senate from previous pages). Through most of your examples, the US continued to exist as recognisably "American". It's structures would be recognisable to the founders. The changes you point out are the kinds of things most democracies have confronted over the past centuries. Reckonings on race have driven politics in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and every other former British colony (thanks guys!). As have the issues of two party first-past-the-post elections, as have the demographic basis for the major political parties. These aren't unique issues. Whether the US was broken because of these, or just evolving is kind of subjective to an extent. Arguments for both could be made. I think the argument that can be made is that most countries confront the issues, and become better democracies because of it. But it requires responsiveness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    Each time, amendments were passed. Each time, laws were passed. Each time, life in America changed. But is it guaranteed? Who knows? How will it change?
    I think this is the crux of the issue for me. As I mentioned... the US government has in the past been able to remodel and reshape itself within the constitutional frameworks created at the beginning. Since 1792, most amendments to the constitution were proposed, debated and ratified within a single electoral cycle, without the need for war. This is the process that allows the US to be responsive. But this is currently impossible thanks to the demographic shifts of the 20th century, that have continued into the 21st.
    Last edited by antaeus; October 05, 2020 at 10:42 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  5. #45

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    I like your last paragraph. It’s like you forget the Civil War exisisted.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  6. #46
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    I like your last paragraph. It’s like you forget the Civil War exisisted.
    I did consider adding it, but I didn't think the Civil War broke the US. Again, from the perspective of the structure of government, the US of 1863... or 1866 for that matter was largely recognisable to those in government 60 or 70 years earlier. Even the Confederacy wanted to keep government and its structures largely consistent. If anything, the Civil War shows how strong the institutions of government are - they can survive that kind of haemorrhage, and they can change in response. But it wasn't a situation like say the Russian Revolution or even the English Civil War, where government fundamentally changed in nature - instead it was two different visions on the same thing.

    Although I also think that our different perspectives here are semantic. I'm arguing that the US has survived because it has solid, responsive structures (that could be improved to ensure they continue to do the job). You're arguing that the US has survived through an iterative process of crisis and response (sorry for straw man). I don't think the perspectives are incompatible.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  7. #47
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    21,467

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    the only way to fix the US is to cull the elite overproduction; you have too many failsons in american leadership positions who shouldn't even be there, and who are leading the nation to ruin eg trump and his clan, clintons, etc.
    A revolution would clear the way, as the former slaver and mass rapist thomas jefferson once put it, the tree of liberty must be watered from time and time again with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
    human sacrifice is a real thing for the american culture.

  8. #48
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    8,528

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    You cant. The whole system is broken in its roots.

  9. #49
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    I think the notion that the US is somehow broken is absurd. Its functioning well for the people who run it.

    Cows may think the abattoir is broken, but their opinion hardly matters.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  10. #50

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I did consider adding it, but I didn't think the Civil War broke the US.
    It's not about how the US broke. It's how the parties broke after come to a brink and snapping based on demands of new generations.

    That generation literally did lead to a war though.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  11. #51
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    21,467

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    How do you fix the US? Define the conditions for a 'fixed' US. Peace?
    The only way you're gonna get peace is if you break apart the United States, it's much too big and the african american demographics must be allowed their own nation state on the lines of the Kosovans after the breakup of Yugoslavia. It's apparent now that african born americans will never be safe in the white supremacist apartheid United States unless they have their own enclave/safe space.

  12. #52

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Exarch View Post
    How do you fix the US? Define the conditions for a 'fixed' US. Peace?
    The only way you're gonna get peace is if you break apart the United States, it's much too big and the african american demographics must be allowed their own nation state on the lines of the Kosovans after the breakup of Yugoslavia. It's apparent now that african born americans will never be safe in the white supremacist apartheid United States unless they have their own enclave/safe space.
    By the same token, I assume you support Uyghurs and white South Africans getting their own countries.

  13. #53

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Marijuana is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. 2018 agriculture bill legalized some forms of hemp agriculture, and before that, the Cole memorandum loosened enforcement of marijuana by federal authorities. Not to mention, the legalization of marijuana in a number of states to various degrees over the last 20 years.

    So this isn't a simple legal/illegal status, which goes to show, why your simplistic models are inapplicable to the real world. As with lobbying, as with drug legalization, you miss the nuance, which makes you miss the big picture.
    And yet we see powerful lobbies that prevent it from federal legalization. Heck, Democrats didn't even mention that its on the tables this election. So much for lobbying doing anything good, eh?
    There is no "corporate establishment". Like I've repeatedly said, there are just as many corporations on one side, as on the other. A great example of this is net neutrality, there are just as many corporate giants in support of net neutrality (because it is beneficial to their financial interests), as there are opposing it (again, because it's in their financial interest).
    Not really. Corporations don't need to compete when they can use their wealth to influence political and get government to regulate in their favor. Hence why corporate establishment is an objective fact.
    Your argument is self defeating. If media was subservient to corporate masters, they would not throw their hats in with progressives. If corporations are trying to cause chaos, then there is no need to spend the money to consolidate media. If the corporations are trying to control the message, then they wouldn't be throwing their hats in with progressives.
    Progressives are a movement aimed at suppressing working class dissent against the establishment. Makes sense for corporations to throw their hats with people that are under Bezmenov's definition useful iditiots.
    The reality is, there are a number of corporations who have consolidated the media, yet they are antagonistic to each other, because they have divergent interests. More than media consolidation, the age of the Internet has ushered in decentralization of media. Where anyone can choose their own source of news. Hence why outlets like Breitbart and Jacobin have gained significant popularity.
    Again, corporate antagonism isn't really a thing, otherwise we wouldn't see formation of corporate oligopolies that act in concert to attempt to maintain the "status quo". Are those attempts failing? Yes. Does that mean they aren't trying? No.

  14. #54

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    And yet we see powerful lobbies that prevent it from federal legalization. Heck, Democrats didn't even mention that its on the tables this election. So much for lobbying doing anything good, eh?
    Drugs aren't mentioned when the DNC platform explicitly calls for an end to the War on Drugs?

    Not really. Corporations don't need to compete when they can use their wealth to influence political and get government to regulate in their favor. Hence why corporate establishment is an objective fact.
    Corporations don't compete because they "want" to. They compete because that's what it means to be a corporation that's doing business.

    Progressives are a movement aimed at suppressing working class dissent against the establishment. Makes sense for corporations to throw their hats with people that are under Bezmenov's definition useful iditiots.
    This didn't address any of my points. Whether progressives are useful idiots or not, media and news are far more decentralized and democratized today than they've been at any point in history.

    Again, corporate antagonism isn't really a thing, otherwise we wouldn't see formation of corporate oligopolies that act in concert to attempt to maintain the "status quo". Are those attempts failing? Yes. Does that mean they aren't trying? No.
    This is false, and I can demonstrate that with any corporation you care to name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    The US is very broken. It's just that time in it's history.

    Did you look at history antaeus? You don't just ask for what you want to be fixed. Something has to actually demonstrate itself to be broken to the point that the government fixes itself. That's how the US breaks and fixes itself. And I mean, literally, since its inception it has broken itself at least six times counting its formation. It's just a matter of what the parties are and whether you were alive close enough to well...shudder.

    The US has had six party systems, or, to say, six eras where party competition was somewhat stable. That is, both in balance of power, and in between the types of issues they fought over. Eras: 1796-1820, 1832-1856, 1868-1892, 1896-1928, 1932-1968, 1980-current. The transitions were led from the top down, typically catalyzed by societal crises. The first five party systems lasted, by this count, 24, 24, 24, 32, and 36 years.... a nice regularity, with length expending as people lived longer. By this pattern, be ready.

    On this pattern there are four major periods of democratic transformation in the United Sates, not counting today. The Revolutionary War(Monarchy to self-governance), the 1830s(major expansion of the franchise to nonpropertied white males), the Progressive Era(major expansion of franchise to women), the Depression, and the 1960s(voting rights and enfranchisement of Black people re poll taxes, plus some governence reforms), and generally now. There's a regular pattern, with some kind of transformation coming about every 60 years or so. The United States is due for a wate of democratic transformation.

    Now, past performance is no way we can bet on future returns. There are elements of current US politics that make our draws for another transformation and renewal deeply random. But the lessons have value. They can tell us what looks like a map, what looks like we haven't been, and what updates we need to keep the US working.

    Now, everybody knows about the US's first-past-the-post system. That gives it a two national party structure for political competition. In turn, two parties have had to be big-ten coalitians, theoretically. But these are hard to maintain over long periods of time, as allies on certain issues, are enemies on others. Demographics change, altering the relative balances of power, both within parties and between parties. Voting loyalties, however, tend to stick. Breaking from the party comes at a high cost if the opposing party can't meet your demands either. MAJOR EVENT. Econimic depression. Conflict over race. BIG THING.

    Let's look at history.

    Back in 1832-1856 the system was based on a mostly balanced competition between the frontier based Democratic Party founded by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, against the more industry friendly Whig Party. The parties argued between themselves over canals and tariffs. Internally, over slavery, since both had northern and southern groups. When the westward expansion made the slavery question unavoidable, both parties split, and a civil war and a new alignment emerged.

    The rest is history.

    Almost a century later, the party system of 1932-1968 came together in response to the shock of the Great Depression. Democrats dominated with the New Deal Coalition, both Northern and Southern, but divided on how to send ONLY to white people. The coalition held as long as civil rights was a local issue. The Civil Rights Revolution of the 1960s jettisoned the Southern conservatives from the Democratic Party and the success of the New Deal shifted the politics of redistribution.

    The rest is history.

    That both parties are fractured does not harald a realignment. Division is a constant in America. What does signal a potential realignment is the lack of any substantive arguments about the big questions that have defined partisan conflict throughout US History: The role of government, the regulation of economy, or the United States role in the world. Instead this election is about why the other party would destroy democracy and the country, in narratives with race.

    Each time, amendments were passed. Each time, laws were passed. Each time, life in America changed. But is it guaranteed? Who knows? How will it change?
    Question, why did you gloss over the rise of the Republican Party in the 50s? As a free-market, anti-slavery party, they gathered support from both anti-slavery Whigs, and anti-slavery Dems?
    Last edited by Love Mountain; October 06, 2020 at 04:52 PM.

  15. #55

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Drugs aren't mentioned when the DNC platform explicitly calls for an end to the War on Drugs?
    Electoral promises and their fulfillment are two different things. Neither Obama nor Clinton administration did anything to end War on Drugs, in fact, they escalated it more then Republicans did.
    Corporations don't compete because they "want" to. They compete because that's what it means to be a corporation that's doing business.
    Unless it doesn't have when it colludes with other corporations as easier way to maximize profits.
    This didn't address any of my points. Whether progressives are useful idiots or not, media and news are far more decentralized and democratized today than they've been at any point in history.
    That simply is not factually true. Most major outlets are owned by a small number of corporations that actively collude together to create a narrative beneficial for a small minority of their corporate owners.
    This is false, and I can demonstrate that with any corporation you care to name.
    American legacy media is a good example of property of an established oligopoly which present same or very similar narratives.

  16. #56

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Electoral promises and their fulfillment are two different things. Neither Obama nor Clinton administration did anything to end War on Drugs, in fact, they escalated it more then Republicans did.
    I thought lobbying did nothing. So does it, or does it not? If it does, why is there a line in the DNC platform, contrary to what you claimed?

    Unless it doesn't have when it colludes with other corporations as easier way to maximize profits.
    Someone needs to take Econ 101.

    "In the United States, collusion is an illegal practice which significantly deters its use. Antitrust laws aim to prevent collusion between companies. Thus, it is complicated to coordinate and execute an agreement to collude. Further, in industries which have strict supervision, it is difficult for companies to partake in collusion.

    Defection is another key deterrent of collusion. A company which initially agrees to take part in a collusion agreement may defect and undercut the profits of the remaining members. Additionally, the company that defects may act as a whistleblower and report the collusion to the appropriate authorities."


    That simply is not factually true. Most major outlets are owned by a small number of corporations that actively collude together to create a narrative beneficial for a small minority of their corporate owners.
    Who owns New York Times, who owns Washington Post, and how are they using these media publications to collude with each other?

    American legacy media is a good example of property of an established oligopoly which present same or very similar narratives.
    American Legacy Media is in direct competition with each other.

    These are the top ten newspapers in circulation. USA Today is owned by Gannett, a public media company. I.E., their business is selling media. WSJ is controlled by the Murdoch family, which also owns Fox. Their business is also media. They sell media to make money. New York Times is a public company, it's major shareholders, Vanguard, Blackrock, and Jacksons Square Partners are investment funds. They typically buy a large number of stocks to diversify their portfolio, and none of these firms hold a majority stake or even add up to it. New York Post, is owned by News Corp (Murdoch), LA Times is owned by an Asian billionaire from South Africa who made his fortune creating drugs for cancer.

    So tell me, how do these people and corporations, who have a varying range of financial interests, often in conflict with each other, collude together?

  17. #57

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    I thought lobbying did nothing. So does it, or does it not? If it does, why is there a line in the DNC platform, contrary to what you claimed?
    Because we have history of Democratic party doing 180 once reaching office and pandering to corporate elites more then Republicans do. Last presidency before Trump was a perfect example.
    Someone needs to take Econ 101.

    "In the United States, collusion is an illegal practice which significantly deters its use. Antitrust laws aim to prevent collusion between companies. Thus, it is complicated to coordinate and execute an agreement to collude. Further, in industries which have strict supervision, it is difficult for companies to partake in collusion.

    Defection is another key deterrent of collusion. A company which initially agrees to take part in a collusion agreement may defect and undercut the profits of the remaining members. Additionally, the company that defects may act as a whistleblower and report the collusion to the appropriate authorities."
    Yeah, and how does it contradict what I said?
    Who owns New York Times, who owns Washington Post, and how are they using these media publications to collude with each other?
    You literally quoted the answer.
    American Legacy Media is in direct competition with each other.

    These are the top ten newspapers in circulation. USA Today is owned by Gannett, a public media company. I.E., their business is selling media. WSJ is controlled by the Murdoch family, which also owns Fox. Their business is also media. They sell media to make money. New York Times is a public company, it's major shareholders, Vanguard, Blackrock, and Jacksons Square Partners are investment funds. They typically buy a large number of stocks to diversify their portfolio, and none of these firms hold a majority stake or even add up to it. New York Post, is owned by News Corp (Murdoch), LA Times is owned by an Asian billionaire from South Africa who made his fortune creating drugs for cancer.

    So tell me, how do these people and corporations, who have a varying range of financial interests, often in conflict with each other, collude together?
    It is not in competition. I mean we have archaic legacy media outlets that are desperately trying to secure their position by actively suppressing grassroots media, but we do not see much competition between the legacy outlets themselves. Perhaps their ownership simply views preservation of past century's "status quo" as more important then one-upping each other. Perhaps its simply lack of vision by the owners. Could be a bit of both.

  18. #58

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Because we have history of Democratic party doing 180 once reaching office and pandering to corporate elites more then Republicans do. Last presidency before Trump was a perfect example.
    I don't know what you are referring to, and this doesn't support the argument you made earlier. You claimed there wasn't even a line due to pressure from lobbyists, when there clearly was.

    Yeah, and how does it contradict what I said?
    How does a basic principle that collusion is difficult to achieve, and even less likely to last, contradict your statement that the "corporate establishment" is in collusion against Americans? Are you having difficulty understanding that?

    You literally quoted the answer.

    It is not in competition. I mean we have archaic legacy media outlets that are desperately trying to secure their position by actively suppressing grassroots media, but we do not see much competition between the legacy outlets themselves. Perhaps their ownership simply views preservation of past century's "status quo" as more important then one-upping each other. Perhaps its simply lack of vision by the owners. Could be a bit of both.
    How are they not in competition? New York Times, an independent organization, is constantly fighting to make sure it is a trustworthy and influential publication. They do this because their main source of funding are newspaper subscriptions and advertisement dollars. They are in direct competition with companies like Wall Street Journal, who have the exact same model.

    How is that not competition?

  19. #59

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    I don't know what you are referring to, and this doesn't support the argument you made earlier. You claimed there wasn't even a line due to pressure from lobbyists, when there clearly was.
    No my point was that lobbying only makes richest voices heard, to the detriment of society.
    How does a basic principle that collusion is difficult to achieve, and even less likely to last, contradict your statement that the "corporate establishment" is in collusion against Americans? Are you having difficulty understanding that?
    Organizing human trafficking ring was also difficult to achieve, but Jeffry Epstein and Hollywood celebrities had that going on for them for decades.
    How are they not in competition? New York Times, an independent organization, is constantly fighting to make sure it is a trustworthy and influential publication. They do this because their main source of funding are newspaper subscriptions and advertisement dollars. They are in direct competition with companies like Wall Street Journal, who have the exact same model.

    How is that not competition?
    Could be shortsightedness of their ownership, could be that their ownership is simply more concerned with generating a specific narrative, profits be damned (or come from somewhere else, kinda like how American media would write good things about organized crime figures when they paid them).

  20. #60

    Default Re: How do you fix the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    No my point was that lobbying only makes richest voices heard, to the detriment of society.
    I don't see how that was your point, when you were clearly talking about legalization of marijuana in relation to lobbying. Moreover, it's just false. Emily's list is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, and they are tied to women's issues, not corporations.

    Organizing human trafficking ring was also difficult to achieve, but Jeffry Epstein and Hollywood celebrities had that going on for them for decades.
    That's not a rebuttal. Collusion is not impossible either, but it rarely happens and is usually short lived. Yet United States does not suffer from collusion in its economy. If you have any actual evidence for massive-scale corporate collusion, the FTC and FBI would love to see it, as would I, so you're more than welcome to post it.

    Could be shortsightedness of their ownership, could be that their ownership is simply more concerned with generating a specific narrative, profits be damned (or come from somewhere else, kinda like how American media would write good things about organized crime figures when they paid them).
    You didn't answer the question. How is this not competition? As for profitability, NYT scored a profit, despite the pandemic. As did Gannett, Murdoch's media empire, and others.

    How is NYT or WSJ or Fox News not in direct competition with each other?
    Last edited by Love Mountain; October 06, 2020 at 09:18 PM.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •