What's so bad about capitalism?

[corplinx]

Re: Re: What's so bad about capitalism?

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]

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]

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Both capitalism and socialism are outdated anyways.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]

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]

I might embrace communism or socialism a little more if I didn't make so much damn money.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: What's so bad about capitalism?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[a_unique_person]

Work, consume, die.

 

[Ladewig]

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]

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??

 

[a_unique_person]

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??

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. Looks like you can't even escape Rupert by going to the satellite media.

 

[dsm]

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!