Jan 6 Sham Hearings a Ratings BUST for Big Networks

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Condor060, Jun 11, 2022.

  1. Xyce

    Xyce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2019
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have asked the question multiple times, and you refuse to answer on whether you supported sending in the National Guard during the BLM riots. I am not going to keep asking the question. I'll just assume you're a hypocrite, unsurprisingly.
     
  2. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I actually answered your question—you just don't like the explanation.
     
  3. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am going to take your post at face value, as if this is your legitimate understanding, of the picture painted, by those numbers. Therefore, I will merely correct your math. Your numbers show that, of any story shown by any one of the three major networks, what is the largest audience (fr among the red numbers) that the story will get? The answer is, 7.4 million (on ABC). Instead, how many viewers saw the hearings, on just these 3 networks-- that is, the combined total of the three values, in black: 4.35 mil. + 3.31 mil. + 3.24 mil. = 10.9 million.

    That means that 3.5 million more viewers, saw the hearings, amongst these networks, than would have seen any story, any of them had shown, independently. That is, because they are showing the exact same thing, there is an additive effect, for which you need calculate. Further, you (& presumably your source) have left out all the other channels, also broadcasting the hearings, particularly PBS, but also the likes of CNN, and MSNBC. When all are showing the same thing, of course, no one is going to have a relatively much greater appeal. But it is the cumulative total which is the relevant one.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2022
  4. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,788
    Likes Received:
    14,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't see beyond economics teaching. Let's look at the definitions. The money supply gets increased. That causes a dilution of the value of the currency. Only government can increase the money supply. Don't tell me the FED is not government. I call that inflation. I don't know what you call it. But that process isn't about prices. It is about the money supply. Because of it things cost more, not because of supply and demand but because the currency is worth less. The economy has nothing to do with it and can't change it. It is possible to stop what I call inflation by stopping increases in the money supply. It can only be reversed by deflating the money supply. The money supply has increased throughout my lifetime and the dollar is worth a fraction of what it was worth when my life started. If you can't accept that then we don't need to continue this interchange.

    The economy responds to imbalances in supply and demand with price changes. I know of no economist that doesn't accept this as fact. The imbalances are caused mostly by things that occur within the economy. They tend to fix themselves over time with changes in supply and demand. Government can do things that result in the imbalances but government really has no way to balance them. The economy itself must do the balancing. I call that CPI or prices or supply and demand or anything other than inflation because I have reserved the term inflation for manipulation of the money supply.

    So we have two completely separate phenomena. One is a government caused manipulation of the money supply and the other is normal price fluctuations that occur within the economy. These two phenomena have different causes, different results and different requirements for addressing them. If you can't accept that then we aren't on the same page at all. Yet economists insist on combining the two of them under the definition for inflation even thought they are not related or even similar. So we have people screaming for a reduction in fuel prices from government when government doesn't control prices and can't really address them. And we have people thinking that are being screwed by business because they have to shell out more dollars for what they buy without understanding that it probably results from the dilution of the value of those dollars. At the moment both phenomena are in play.

    We can't do anything about these phenomena when we fail to understand them and when we throw everything into a single phenomenon popularly called inflation. We only confuse and mislead the public, the government and even the economic community by doing that. What I am saying is common sense and readily seen. I think it needs to be straightened out and the economic community needs to straighten it out. I hope that helps explain my position.
     
  5. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,788
    Likes Received:
    14,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why does this matter? I think it is problematic that people are shown a one sided hearing with all the panel members on the same side of the issue. It is problematic that they don't even listen to opposing positions. It is problematic to the core. I'm all for televising committee hearings but the networks should refuse to air those without any balance at all. So you have 10 million people watching a one sided roasting aimed at political gain. Thank god it isn't more.
     
  6. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,543
    Likes Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should talk to Kevin McCarthy about that. The Select Committee has done an excellent job of presenting a factual report of the lengths tRaitor tRump went to, to subvert the 2020 Presidential election.

    If the "Committee" appears to be unbalanced, that's on McCarthy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2022
  7. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,543
    Likes Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "FED" is a privately held banking entity, that is no more Federal than FedX
     
  8. freedom8

    freedom8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    1,842
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your theory is shared by many experts and decried by others. Maybe it's a token of the barrier between Finance and Economics.

    As, in your explanation, both "inflation" and "prices increases" are happening at the same time, this leads to confusion for most of people, including me, I must admit.
    Assuming you're right, then I think people are more worried about prices increases than about inflation. What would be your recpe to decrease both of them?
     
  9. freedom8

    freedom8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    1,842
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously, you didn't watch. There was no rasting (this is not a court); these were people (mostly Trump family members, friends and appointees freely testifying what they had witnessed in the context of the January 6 events. Very interesting indeed!
     
  10. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If I couldn't "see beyond economics teaching," I wouldn't have been able to apply it to the real world and make money.
    So far, so good.
    Prices are impacted by the money supply because more money translates into increased demand.
    Deflation, btw, increases real interest rates.
    Of course. The Fed embarked on a long-term program of average 2% inflation (not zero in order to avoid bouts of deflation).

    upload_2022-6-25_7-0-23.jpeg
    Of course.
    At this time, significant imbalances are cause by covid where people are mitigating the risk of catching the virus by switching spending to goods from in-person services.
    Government can make a difference in some instances. I believe fewer people would be avoiding in-person services if they had better information about the risk of catching covid. Many older people are erring on the side of caution.
    Don't because inflation is measured by prices.
    No, they're interconnected. That's why I said you should spend a bit of time reading about supply, demand and markets. It wouldn't take long.
    I have explained the basics of economics—the laws of demand and supply, markets, elasticity of demand and supply, and money (this is the hard one)—to many thousands of students who weren't taking economics because the knowledge is essential for citizens.
    It could set prices. (Not what I would do.)

    You're close to putting it together.

    It's too bad your economics instructor was incompetent.
     
  11. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,788
    Likes Received:
    14,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For whom? Government? At my end of things money supply increases make the value of my dollars less valuable thereby decreasing demand. I think you need to separate inflation (money supply) from supply and demand (prices.)

    Well it certainly requires the debtor to repay with more valuable dollars. That is why government won't allow any deflation.

    Yes and over the years it has decimated the value of the dollar.

    Yes. That is the economy causing it, not the government. The government caused the reaction to the virus. The economy responded.

    That is an understatement.

    Yes but it should not be. It misreprents inflation to the public. I mean actual inflation, of course.

    I disagree that they are interconnected. Economists have connected them improperly. You don't deal with money supply issues in the same manner as supply and demand problems.

    A worthwhile effort. Money isn't just hard, it is unrelated to supply demand and markets.

    Not in a capitalist system.

    Maybe not. Things have evolved over the 60 years since I took that course. In those days many things were different. I think I have put it together using common sense.
     
  12. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,788
    Likes Received:
    14,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wouldn't watch such a thing. It would have no influence on me and it wouldn't be entertaining. It is partisan. I am not.
     
  13. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,132
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're refusing to watch legal experts and people who actually served under Trump tell the truth? Yeah, you sound very non-partisan. *rolling eyes*
     
    DEFinning likes this.
  14. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,788
    Likes Received:
    14,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Held by whom? Who determines who will manage it? It simply isn't privately held. Sorry.
     
  15. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,788
    Likes Received:
    14,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it is on Pelosi who didn't allow McCarthy to name members to the panel. You know that as well as I do.
     
  16. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,788
    Likes Received:
    14,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is failing to watch something partisan? I don't like or watch horror movies either. I'm really curious why you would say that. I am not like you. Sorry.
     
  17. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,788
    Likes Received:
    14,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Basically, the solution is to get government to stop spending money it doesn't have. That ends the inflation end of things. Ending the supply and demand imbalance is basically up to the economy itself, not you nor I nor the government. That will occur naturally over time.

    As for fuel prices specifically, government has caused a lot of it by telling the oil industry that it is on borrowed time. That stops investment in production. That reduces supply and raises prices. The economy will maintain current prices or even higher prices as long as demand remains strong. If prices rise to the point where people buy less fuel, then prices will decline. Supply and demand. It is what it is. I don't see any decline in fuel prices until we have a more sensible administration.
     
  18. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,543
    Likes Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Private banks both foreign and domestic.
    Our President nominates the chairman and board of governors for terms of 14 years. (which, not accidentally, spans many administrations)
    It's nothing like simple but, in fact, it is.
    https://www.facts-are-facts.com/news/the-federal-reserve-is-privately-owned
    Also search YouTube for "Money as Debt"
     
  19. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,543
    Likes Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    113
    McCarthy had the option of naming other Committee members or at least seating the 3, none of which would have been Cheney or Kinzinger. Instead he went to a corner and pouted. Actually his game was to put Jordan and Banks on the Committee to hamstring it, and then when they were rejected he pulled all tRumpublicans so he could calim SHOUT bias.
     
  20. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,788
    Likes Received:
    14,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is one way to look at it. Not the way I saw it play out. The result is a one sided panel. Period.
     
  21. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,788
    Likes Received:
    14,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So these banks hold stock in it? I believe they are simply customers of the FED. Not exactly the same thing as ownership. The FED is government.
     
  22. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,543
    Likes Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they were one sided why have they, almost, exclusively used Republican Federal and State Officials, some part of the tRump administration, as witnesses?
     
  23. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,543
    Likes Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  24. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Out of there normal daily viewership of over 21 million
     
  25. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,788
    Likes Received:
    14,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is one sided because all the panel members have the same motivation to go after Trump. There is nobody on the panel from the opposing side. Why did I have to tell you that?
     

Share This Page