PDA

View Full Version : What's so bad about capitalism?


corplinx
9th June 2003, 09:24 AM
So many people act like the smelled a bad fart in an elevator when you mention capitalism. It's like they imagine a million Gordon Geckos trying to rob them blind when they imagine free markets.

I say its time to give capitalism a second chance in the industrialized west. We have come a long way since the robber barons, Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", and other early aberrations. We live in the information age. People can make more informed buying decisions than ever before.

While socialism seems to work best under artifical controls (limited immigration, low birth rate), capitalism seems to work well even with a huge immigrant influx like we have in America.

How about it folks?

baldrick
9th June 2003, 09:26 AM
Correct me if I'm worng, but people end up living on the streets in Capitalist Societies, whereas they don't in a Communist Society

corplinx
9th June 2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by perpetual-thinker
Correct me if I'm worng, but people end up living on the streets in Capitalist Societies, whereas they don't in a Communist Society

Kidding, seriously though your person on the street in a capitalist society is most likely suffering from mental or dependency problems. Usually the don't want help either. In the old Soviet Union, such people were simply eliminated.

In San Francisco much has been done to deal with this problem through government programs but nothing has been successful.

dsm
9th June 2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by corplinx

I say its time to give capitalism a second chance in the industrialized west. We have come a long way since the robber barons, Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", and other early aberrations. We live in the information age. People can make more informed buying decisions than ever before.


It's not the quantity of information that is the issue, but rather the quality of information. It doesn't matter if there are several hundred newspaper, television, and radio outlets if they are all controlled by a few major corporations.

Jedi Knight
9th June 2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by perpetual-thinker
Correct me if I'm worng, but people end up living on the streets in Capitalist Societies, whereas they don't in a Communist Society

Oh gosh, and what about the 150,000,000 that died under communism in the last century alone? Was communism concerned if they were homeless or not?

Do you consider 15 families squatting in your home 'living'? That is what happens under communism.

Oh, you are thinking of it as a 'roof over their heads', right? Is working for the 'state', receiving a wage of 10 dollars per month worth the 15 family (packed in like a meat locker) house? Ever try using the bathroom with 60 people waiting in line?

Then you have the block commanders every third house or so writing down everything you are doing and saying and turning it into the KGB. Is that worth keeping idle people 'of the streets'?

Golly, communism is such a pathetic ideology, I can't believe you even brought that nasty ideology up as a resolution to homelessness.

But look, if homeless people are really bothering you, pack them all into your house. Implement your own personal form of communism.

JK

corplinx
9th June 2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by dsm


It's not the quantity of information that is the issue, but rather the quality of information. It doesn't matter if there are several hundred newspaper, television, and radio outlets if they are all controlled by a few major corporations.

I think you have reality confused with the Max Headroom scifi drama. In it a few corporations controlled all information.

However, there was no source of independent media in that future. There will be always be alternative news sources because there will always be demand.

dsm
9th June 2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by corplinx


I think you have reality confused with the Max Headroom scifi drama. In it a few corporations controlled all information.

However, there was no source of independent media in that future. There will be always be alternative news sources because there will always be demand.

Yeah, right... (http://www.gnutellanews.com/article/6784)

:rolleyes:

Dancing David
9th June 2003, 10:10 AM
I haven't got a problem with capitalism perse, the evils of any econmic system equal each other out.

My objections are more theoretical:
A. Valuing humans only for thier economic value.
B. The association of capitalism with things like 'liberty'.

Capitalism is a great motivator in theory, our current practise is a bit off the mark. Perhaps profiteering?

I like the idea of a mixed system , competition and social concern.

dsm
9th June 2003, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Oh gosh, and what about the 150,000,000 that died under communism in the last century alone? Was communism concerned if they were homeless or not?


Reference, please? I'm curious where you came up with such a number.

p.s. While you're at it, how many Americans died in the last century?


Do you consider 15 families squatting in your home 'living'? That is what happens under communism.


Sadly, it also happens under capitalism...

:(

Frostbite
9th June 2003, 10:36 AM
I like capitalism. I like the idea that if you have a great idea you can go out there and start your own company, get public, get rich, etc. But what I really hate is materialism. As a consumer, I'm not always looking for the cheapest deal and the best bargain. Sometimes, I like to pay a little more and know that what I have is quality. And I wish big corporations wouldn't be so god damn cheap and hire kids in sweatshops or cheap labors in poor countries. That doesn't appeal to me. Whenever I buy something I so a little background study to know if whatever corporations I'll be buying products from are morally adequate, at least to my minimal standards.

corplinx
9th June 2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Frostbite
I like capitalism. I like the idea that if you have a great idea you can go out there and start your own company, get public, get rich, etc. But what I really hate is materialism. As a consumer, I'm not always looking for the cheapest deal and the best bargain. Sometimes, I like to pay a little more and know that what I have is quality. And I wish big corporations wouldn't be so god damn cheap and hire kids in sweatshops or cheap labors in poor countries. That doesn't appeal to me. Whenever I buy something I so a little background study to know if whatever corporations I'll be buying products from are morally adequate, at least to my minimal standards.

Sentiments most people agree with. You can buy toys that aren't made in sweatshops. They sell them at specialty toy stores and have weird norwegian sounding names. The reason we buy low commodity goods is because the marginal utility of the finnish toy isn't high enough to pay the price.

We all hate materialism. But I support anyone's right to be shallow and consumed with material desires.

corplinx
9th June 2003, 10:46 AM
I think one of the great myths of a capitalist federal republic is that one or two corps could take over.

However, I think if any entity threatened the sovereignty of the host country that it could be dealt with.

Would there still be an FCC or FTC? Of course!

dsm
9th June 2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by corplinx

I think one of the great myths of a capitalist federal republic is that one or two corps could take over.


Why would international corporations think as small as taking over one federal republic.

Remember, they don't have to be declared "ruler" to "take it over".


However, I think if any entity threatened the sovereignty of the host country that it could be dealt with.


By who? Those that were elected with corporation money?


Would there still be an FCC or FTC? Of course!

I repeat -- yeah, right... (http://www.gnutellanews.com/article/6784)

:rolleyes:

corplinx
9th June 2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by dsm



I repeat -- yeah, right... (http://www.gnutellanews.com/article/6784)

:rolleyes:

Gnutellanews, thats rich. Is every article there plagiarized in keeping with the spirit of gnutella?

Jedi Knight
9th June 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by dsm
Reference, please? I'm curious where you came up with such a number.

"The Black Book of Communism": ISBN: 0-674-07608-7; Harvard University Press; 1999; Courtois, Werth, Panne, Paczkowski, et all.

Sadly, it also happens under capitalism...

You're nuts. The communist state used institutions of the state to genocide 150,000,000 people last century. That never happens under capitalism.

Answer me this--why do seemingly intelligent people gravitate to an ideological perversion like communism? Communism is ten-fold worse than Nazism.

Is it because people do not understand what communism is? I think that is the case. It all boils down to the talking points of what some communists say like stealing property from the wealthy, stealing corporate power, stealing income from the producers to give to non-producers..so yes, there is an incentive there in mysticism that people will benefit. That said, it seems logical to me that stealing never benefits anyone and I don't know why communist advancement of theft from other humans is looked upon as credible.

Communism is evil and must be destroyed using any means necessary wherever and whenever it is encountered.

JK

Jedi Knight
9th June 2003, 11:16 AM
Communism = slavery.

JK

corplinx
9th June 2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Communism is evil and must be destroyed using any means necessary wherever and whenever it is encountered.



Stalinism should be eradicated. Freely elected communists in India who enact quasi-communist policies should be left alone.

Dancing David
9th June 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Communism is evil and must be destroyed using any means necessary wherever and whenever it is encountered.

JK [/B]

I hope not by using communism to defeat communism, or by saying that it's ten times more evil than nazism.

Please using evil to defeat evil is still evil.

Jedi Knight
9th June 2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Dancing David


I hope not by using communism to defeat communism, or by saying that it's ten times more evil than nazism.

Please using evil to defeat evil is still evil.

No, ask someone what I meant. That is not it.

JK

dsm
9th June 2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by corplinx

Gnutellanews, thats rich. Is every article there plagiarized in keeping with the spirit of gnutella?

That's a "rich" reply. :rolleyes:

Since the article is a simple copy of the statement that Ted Turner put out, show me where GnuTella "plagiarized" anything he said?

Although it says exactly the same thing, perhaps you'd prefer a pointer to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56132-2003May29?language=printer)?

c0rbin
9th June 2003, 12:01 PM
I am all for capitolism. However, I draw the line at the Federal Goverment.

Big Business should not be involved in government because a business's bottom line is profit, the gov's bottom line should be the people.

Gem
9th June 2003, 12:06 PM
JK, did you ever stop and think that Communism was used as an excuse? The best example is Stalin. He wasn't a communist. He wasn't even a dictator of the proaeletrarians (I can never spell it right). If i remember reading the manifesto, Communist is an "Ordered Anarchy," if you will. The soviet union was anything but communist. But that didn't stop them from CLAIMING they were.

And a economic/political system don't kill people, people kill people through that system as an excuse.

As for the original thread, today's "capitalistic" society in the US is very different from that late 19th century one. In economics we refer to it as "mixed system" or "mixed capitalist," as the government plays a larger role than military/security spending. Communist is outdated, it was designed against captilist of the 19th century. Socialist, the new alternative, is where the government produces some/all goods.

If you think about it, there are many non-capitalist ideas in the US. For example, many service comapnies (gas, water, etc) in small towns are either owned by the government, or a monopoly. That's not capitalistic, or at least it's not competetive.

I think that capitalism in the US is a very good system in the US. It works extremely well with Americans; they have that sort of mentality. I think that throwing in a few social programs (health) and experimenting with market enviromentalist (Bush Senior anyone?) along with government involvement (real tax cuts, and or spending programs like in the new deal) would make the US better.

Gem

Frostbite
9th June 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Communism = slavery.

JK

That's when the people in power are corrupt. On paper it works. :)

Gem
9th June 2003, 12:14 PM
On paper it works.

Capitalist in Russia worked on paper too.

The invasion of Russia by Hitler worked on paper too.

Capitalist is perfect on paper too.:D
Like just about everything in life.

Gem

P.S.: I'm not criticizing you.

jj
9th June 2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
I say its time to give capitalism a second chance in the industrialized west. We have come a long way since the robber barons, Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", and other early aberrations. We live in the information age. People can make more informed buying decisions than ever before.


Ken Ley? Oh, geeze, the list from the last two years is so long I don't even want to start.

You're (*&(* right we've come a long way. The latest bunch stole a whole lot more than the Railroad Barons.

No, Corps, don't take this as a call for communism. It's even more bankrupt. It's totally failed (sorry, Victor, that's how I see it.).

Enlightened capitalism, with some enforcement of ethics, does seem to work, but we have specifically abandoned that in the last few years.

jj
9th June 2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


I think you have reality confused with the Max Headroom scifi drama. In it a few corporations controlled all information.

However, there was no source of independent media in that future. There will be always be alternative news sources because there will always be demand.

No, he's not confused. The latest FCC rules allow us to live in Max Headroom land, and no, there won't always be alternative news sources because the government controls access via radio/TV licensing, and the barrier to print media is very high.

jj
9th June 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by dsm


Reference, please? I'm curious where you came up with such a number.

p.s. While you're at it, how many Americans died in the last century?



Sadly, it also happens under capitalism...

:(

Ukraine.

Yes, people die in both. The government, itself, starves and murdered them in the biggest experiment in "communism" that ever happened.

Now, I know it's not "true communism" but what it shows is that "true communism" is an unstable thing that degenerates into "king of the hill".

Just like capitalism. Whoa, could it be there's human nature involved?

jj
9th June 2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
I think one of the great myths of a capitalist federal republic is that one or two corps could take over.

However, I think if any entity threatened the sovereignty of the host country that it could be dealt with.

Would there still be an FCC or FTC? Of course!

The FCC just officially dropped any soverignity over monopoly markets in media.

On the other hand, look what the USA does to efficient, productive capitalistic corporations. Not pretty, eh?

jj
9th June 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Communism = slavery.

JK

Every once in while, Jedi, you do get it right.

Congratulations.

One of the myths of communism is that the proles own the government.

The fact, in every case it's been tried to date that I'm aware of, is that it comes out the other way around.

jj
9th June 2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Gem
JK, did you ever stop and think that Communism was used as an excuse? The best example is Stalin. He wasn't a communist. He wasn't even a dictator of the proaeletrarians (I can never spell it right). If i remember reading the manifesto, Communist is an "Ordered Anarchy," if you will. The soviet union was anything but communist. But that didn't stop them from CLAIMING they were.


Quite so. However, can you point to any state espousing communism that did not degenerate into that scenario?

"State Managed" means that somebody has to decide. They have all the power. It's all downhill from there, in every example we've seen.

Frostbite
9th June 2003, 12:35 PM
Oh, and another thing about capitalism is the environment. Nobody gives a damn about trees, but they're even more important than clean air and water. But I guess being super-productive and making lots of cash is even more important than the environment. And when the environment is completely destroyed, then they can start charging us for breathable air and clean water. Yeehaw.

Jedi Knight
9th June 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Gem
JK, did you ever stop and think that Communism was used as an excuse? The best example is Stalin. He wasn't a communist. He wasn't even a dictator of the proaeletrarians (I can never spell it right). If i remember reading the manifesto, Communist is an "Ordered Anarchy," if you will. The soviet union was anything but communist. But that didn't stop them from CLAIMING they were.

Gem, just because the Soviet Union didn't achieve pure communism doesn't mean that they were not a communist nation-state. They were.

The Russian Revolution was the 'taking people down to the lowest common denomenator together" as envisioned by Marx in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. The Stalinist purges later were the continuance of the evolvement of the communist state, based upon Marxist principles in communist development in the nation-state as it makes its transition to pure communism.

That means that just because the Soviet Union didn't achieve 'utopia' (a myth and pseudo-ideology), doesn't mean they weren't communists. They were. They were communists to their soul. I am pleased they fell and wish it were hydrogen bombs that dispatched them, not economic agression.

And a economic/political system don't kill people, people kill people through that system as an excuse.

Certainly, but the Communist Manifesto tells national thinkers to send people to hell together (lowest common denomenator), to break them of their previous construct. To think that there would be no loss of human capital during those transition purges is pretty hilarious.

As for the original thread, today's "capitalistic" society in the US is very different from that late 19th century one. In economics we refer to it as "mixed system" or "mixed capitalist," as the government plays a larger role than military/security spending. Communist is outdated, it was designed against captilist of the 19th century. Socialist, the new alternative, is where the government produces some/all goods.

Yes, the blending of ideology--the taking of some Marxist ideology and blending it with capitalist ideology. I am fluent with that theory and was exposed to it extensively in college. I am skeptical of it, however.

If you think about it, there are many non-capitalist ideas in the US. For example, many service comapnies (gas, water, etc) in small towns are either owned by the government, or a monopoly. That's not capitalistic, or at least it's not competetive.

Those are called public-private partnerships. They seem to work now based solely upon the susbcription value of the system and the economy. It may be trading one demon for another. When private corporations function as government, then there arises the potential for fascism but that is for another debate.

I think that capitalism in the US is a very good system in the US. It works extremely well with Americans; they have that sort of mentality. I think that throwing in a few social programs (health) and experimenting with market enviromentalist (Bush Senior anyone?) along with government involvement (real tax cuts, and or spending programs like in the new deal) would make the US better.

When a political candidiate promises the US Treasury in exchange for elected office, chances are that by giving away the labor of producers to non-producers he will get the office. That doesn't make it right.

The only reason why Communism has any gasp of credibility is because some Communist states possess nuclear weapons. If the Nazis possessed nuclear weapons, they would not have been propagandized against like they were. Communism is ten-fold worse than Nazism and yet is glamorized in US education circles, government and the private sector to a certain degree when it favors the corporation.

Communism however is a perversion of man, the most dangerous political ideology the world has ever seen and the greatest contributing factor to the genocide of humans ever in history.

I can't wait for the Star Wars missile shield to go into effect so the last bastions of communism can be completely and utterly destroyed by capitalists using every ordinance in the US aresenal. I would be honored to be a General Officer in that global ideological cleansing.

JK

Dancing David
9th June 2003, 12:47 PM
So much hate so much anger.

Strong the darkside is...hmm...

Funny thing JK you are espousing the group think ideals that you decry. Just nuke the communist countries, even you msut be kidding.

I guess that all those poor civilians chose to be communist and thats why we should nuke em.

Tmy
9th June 2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Originally posted by Gem
[B]

I can't wait for the Star Wars missile shield to go into effect so the last bastions of communism can be completely and utterly destroyed by capitalists using every ordinance in the US aresenal. I would be honored to be a General Officer in that global ideological cleansing.

JK

Whats the Bill mahr line? "What good is a missle sheild against box cutters."


havent you ever played Missle Command. A missle sheild wont work.

jj
9th June 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Frostbite
Oh, and another thing about capitalism is the environment. Nobody gives a damn about trees, but they're even more important than clean air and water.

Ok, I guess I missed something, here. What is so important about trees?

Blue-green Algae, diatoms, etc, yes, but trees? They're temporary carbon reservoirs at best.

Jedi Knight
9th June 2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Dancing David
So much hate so much anger.

Strong the darkside is...hmm...

Funny thing JK you are espousing the group think ideals that you decry. Just nuke the communist countries, even you msut be kidding.

I guess that all those poor civilians chose to be communist and thats why we should nuke em.

If those civilians don't try and change the system, they are communists. It isn't our fault.

Communists are dangerous. They are worse than Nazis. Communist countries are more dangerous than Nazi Germany. That is why they are primary targets of strategic nuclear weapons.

JK

Dancing David
9th June 2003, 01:18 PM
So they try and change the system and they get tortured or put in prison. Then you blow them up, wonderful.

I suppose the children are guilty too.

Churchill certainly seemed to feel that nazi was worse than commie.

Jedi Knight
9th June 2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Dancing David
So they try and change the system and they get tortured or put in prison. Then you blow them up, wonderful.

I suppose the children are guilty too.

Churchill certainly seemed to feel that nazi was worse than commie.

That's just because the commies didn't reach England yet so Churchill didn't understand what they were all about.

JK

Number Six
9th June 2003, 01:34 PM
The word "capitalism" has become like the word "feminism." That is, different people have different definitions for the words and so asking someone what they think of it doesn't accomplish much. Until the people having the discussion have a common definition a disccusion seems pointless.

I think that too often people and positons get labelled pro-business or anti-business on the wrong basis. It seems that if you're in favor of a business making more money you're pro-business and if you're in favor of a buisness making less money you're anti-business. Instead though I think that people should focus on fair play. That is, if a business cheats it shouldn't be pointed out that business is bad but rather that the business that cheated was *anti-business,* at least according to the definition of pro-business I'm using where playing fair is a fundamental requirement.

Someone mentioned that capitalism is bad for the environment because people make money while destroying the environment. Well forget the word "captialsim" for a minute because as I said above the definition of that is murky, but just consider for a minute businesses that make money while destroying the environment. The problem isn't harming the environment per se but rather that the companies that do it often don't have to pay for what they're doing. In other words, if you harm the environment but truly pay the amount to fix it then fine. But if you harm the environment and don't pay to fix it when someone else will ultimately have to pay to fix it, you're in essence stealing. That should be considered anti-business, in my book at least.

Frostbite
9th June 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by jj


Ok, I guess I missed something, here. What is so important about trees?

Blue-green Algae, diatoms, etc, yes, but trees? They're temporary carbon reservoirs at best.

Yeah but they look cooler, and you can climb in them. :)

corplinx
9th June 2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by jj


Ken Ley? Oh, geeze, the list from the last two years is so long I don't even want to start.


Yes your right, Under socialism and commonism there will be no crime. How enlightened.

corplinx
9th June 2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by jj


The FCC just officially dropped any soverignity over monopoly markets in media.


The whole point in the whole liberty thing is that you as a consumer don't have to support a monopoly media market. If say Rupert Murdoch took over your time, you still don't have to read is paper or watch his television. In fact the resistance of people to do so make an opening for competition.


This FCC stuff is a bg red herring and I see some are eating their serving pickled.

DialecticMaterialist
9th June 2003, 02:04 PM
The same thing with socialism and marxist socialism: the system is a simplistic one to a complex issue.

Both capitalism and socialism are outdated anyways. Adam Smith developed his theory of capitalism in the 17th century, looking at a 17th century society, during the age of feudalism and mercantalism where no real capitalism could actually be observed.

You cannot run a 21st century economy on a 17th century economic theory. You can, but it will not be efficient.

The same with socialism, written in the 19th century with no real socialism to observe taking place.

Both of the above were also based on conjecture and guess work.

In any event I think the best system is that of a flexible mixed economy, or something new that is actually based on research.

I think america as of now, is too capitalist. I also think that america, as the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth can also pull off a mixed economy with flying colors.

Ladewig
9th June 2003, 07:21 PM
Unbridled capitalism is as undesireable as unbridled socialism. DM is right in calling for a mix. I 'd go with 70% capitalism / 30% socialism.

Purchasing adequate health insurance in the U.S. is almost Sysiphean. The "invisible hand" may provide health care for wealthy people, but lower income people have to deal with a different part of the invisible body.

KelvinG
9th June 2003, 07:52 PM
I might embrace communism or socialism a little more if I didn't make so much damn money.:D

jj
9th June 2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


Yes your right, Under socialism and commonism there will be no crime. How enlightened.

You know as well as I do that I never suggested what you've implied. Why did you bother to build this unethical construct to throw at me?

Your honor is lacking, sir.

jj
9th June 2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


The whole point in the whole liberty thing is that you as a consumer don't have to support a monopoly media market. If say Rupert Murdoch took over your time, you still don't have to read is paper or watch his television. In fact the resistance of people to do so make an opening for competition.


This FCC stuff is a bg red herring and I see some are eating their serving pickled.

Let me ask you: How much experience do you have being in, serving, working for, or supplying to the media?

I ask because your opinion is nearly opposite everyone I know in the media's. And, yes, Corps, I know quite a few. I would suggest you're simply wrong on this one.

a_unique_person
9th June 2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


The whole point in the whole liberty thing is that you as a consumer don't have to support a monopoly media market. If say Rupert Murdoch took over your time, you still don't have to read is paper or watch his television. In fact the resistance of people to do so make an opening for competition.


This FCC stuff is a bg red herring and I see some are eating their serving pickled.

Except that Rupert controls a lot of what is said in his media. It keeps him in the good books with the other Power Barons.

Captialism is like Democracy, flawed but the best model we have come up with yet. I would be more in favour of it if the blatant failings of it were treated more consistently. The overwhelming popular response to the exploitation of the powerful is to democratically curb their power. This control is then wound back step by step till once again everyone decides, enough. Unfortunately, it usually takes a massive social upheaval for this to happen.

Why doesn't Rupert just enjoy the billions he has made and leave it at that. He can't have that much longer to live. Why does he have to centralise control of media. If it is bad for government to have too much central control, it is also bad for capitalism.

Gideon S
9th June 2003, 09:45 PM
Capitalism is cool, but it doesn't really work that well under a representative democracy where large corporations are able to lobby government bodies.

Of course, an arguement could easily be made that with as many second, third and fourth generation politicians we have that we aren't living in a representative democracy, but instead a post-modern form of government sponsored corporate feudalism...

A purely capitalist system would work well under a more socialist style system, but it seems that the generation in power equate socialist programs with communism.

dsm
9th June 2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by corplinx

The whole point in the whole liberty thing is that you as a consumer don't have to support a monopoly media market. If say Rupert Murdoch took over your time, you still don't have to read is paper or watch his television. In fact the resistance of people to do so make an opening for competition.

This FCC stuff is a bg red herring and I see some are eating their serving pickled.


LOL :D

Liberty is meaningless. Consumerism is powerless. Resistance is futile. You, too, will be assimilated.

:cool:

a_unique_person
9th June 2003, 10:06 PM
Work, consume, die.

Ladewig
10th June 2003, 03:18 PM
If it is bad for government to have too much central control, it is also bad for capitalism.

Just to play devil's advocate for a bit.

The original FCC percentage limits were constructed when television and radio were the only electronic sources of news. Since that time, cable television (with over a dozen diferent stations devoted to news), satellite radio, and the internet have become very competitive alternatives. So much so, that some media companies complain that broadcast television news is no longer profitable; advertisers are going to other outlets. The larger media companies asked for the 35% limit to be removed while the smaller companies wanted it maintained. The FCC proposed 45%.

Pure capitalists might argue that removing all restrictions would allow the market to decide how many stations each market really wants. If there were only one source of news and the people wanted a second source, then they would be willing to pay for it and an enterpreneur would start a second news source. The problem of course is the very limited bandwidth available for TV and radio, along with the tremendous start-up costs.

dsm
10th June 2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Ladewig
Just to play devil's advocate for a bit.

Me, too. :)

Pure capitalists might argue that removing all restrictions would allow the market to decide how many stations each market really wants. If there were only one source of news and the people wanted a second source, then they would be willing to pay for it and an enterpreneur would start a second news source.

The bad assumption in what you're saying is that people would even recognize a need for a "second source". If there was only one source of news, that source could appear to be many sources to the general public by slight variations in the way it presents the news through all it's different avenues (television, radio, newspaper, internet, etc.). Also, because the news source is controlled by very few organizations, the ability of new entrepreneurs to "make a case" for an alternative is extremely curtailed. The significant majority of the general public, therefore, may never realize that it is being manipulated (intentionally or not) by news that is slanted in the manner that the news source wants.

Is this not what is happening today?? :eek:

a_unique_person
10th June 2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by dsm


Me, too. :)



The bad assumption in what you're saying is that people would even recognize a need for a "second source". If there was only one source of news, that source could appear to be many sources to the general public by slight variations in the way it presents the news through all it's different avenues (television, radio, newspaper, internet, etc.). Also, because the news source is controlled by very few organizations, the ability of new entrepreneurs to "make a case" for an alternative is extremely curtailed. The significant majority of the general public, therefore, may never realize that it is being manipulated (intentionally or not) by news that is slanted in the manner that the news source wants.

Is this not what is happening today?? :eek:


I was struck by Michhael Gorbachevs story about when he and his wife were young, Stalin died. Most people were sad and crying at the time, truly affected by the death.

They obviously don't feel so bad about it now. Back in Russia then, you only had one source for news, and people naturally could not be too critical in their thought. It doesn't matter if the news source is government or private, concentrating it inhibits peoples' ability to see more than one side to an argument.

corplinx
10th June 2003, 11:05 PM
Rubbish. So much damned rubbish. Whenever there appears to be a cultural majority in a free country, there will always be a counter-culture.

You people talk about america as if it was russia where the _governmtent_ was the one and only allowed source of news.

If Rupert Murdock owned the cable network in Memphis, the local paper, and the local radio stations; there would inevitably rise up opposition media.

I just don't buy this garbage about single source media.

BillyTK
11th June 2003, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That's just because the commies didn't reach England yet so Churchill didn't understand what they were all about.

JK

Complete and utter nonsense. Where exactly is Marx buried?

Dancing David
11th June 2003, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That's just because the commies didn't reach England yet so Churchill didn't understand what they were all about.

JK

I think it was based on meeting Stalin and Hitler and deciding that Hitler was the greater of two evils. You are slipping JK, Churchill is obviously not someone who felt communism was a good thing. I wonder where the phrase 'Iron Curtain' came from? I chose Churchill because unlike your revisionist idea, Churchill felt that the nazis were worse than the commies.
Nyah,nyah,nyah,nyah.

Dancing David
11th June 2003, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by corplinx


I just don't buy this garbage about single source media.

So are the air waves the property of the people or the companies?
If they belong to the people then why should these media conglomerates care so much about low power FM stations?

believe me if there was a left biasis in the system then every right wing kook would be screaming about this.

dsm
11th June 2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
If Rupert Murdock owned the cable network in Memphis, the local paper, and the local radio stations; there would inevitably rise up opposition media.


Oh really? Tell us all what's happened in Memphis since this article (http://www.cjr.org/year/97/1/telecom.asp). Looks like you can't even escape Rupert by going to the satellite media (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5256-2003Apr10?language=printer).

:rolleyes:

dsm
11th June 2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by corplinx

You people talk about america as if it was russia where the _governmtent_ was the one and only allowed source of news.


Oh, and by the way, we're not talking about America anymore. We're talking about the WORLD where everyday these international corporations come closer and closer to having a monopoly on news outlets around the world!

:eek: