Bernie Speaks: The corporate media ignores the rise of oligarchy

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by LafayetteBis, Mar 17, 2018.

  1. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Guardian: The corporate media ignores the rise of oligarchy - by Bernie Sanders.

    Excerpt:
    Bernie goes on to point the finger-of-blame on a well-known (but far less reported) oligarchy that manipulates both media and politicians in order to achieve its goals.

    Given that the Russians will be reelecting an oligarch this weekend, the question comes to mind - Just what is the difference between the two countries (the US and Russia), once deeply in opposition?

    The Russians have very little (if any at all) experience of True Democracy. And, we like to think that we, the sheeple, in the US are therefore better-off. We are both fooling ourselves.

    How better off?
    *If Putin has virtually - since his rise to power - made of Russia a country run by oligarchs (whilst large portions of the country are desperately poor). Putin is the head of the oligarchs in Russia, who are some of the richest people on earth. Because when regime-change occurred a select few were able to purchase exclusive rights to a great many natural resources once owned uniqely by the government.
    * But, are we in America any different as regards market-consolidation? We have allowed also a comparatively select few to legally dominate markets (retail and financial) by allowing legally over the past 30-years feverish market-consolidation employing corporate buy-outs.

    Yes, of course, we are no different given the outcomes. We live in a "free democracy" is the knee-jerk response. But the fact of the matter is that we have allowed oligopolies (run by oligarch management) to flourish. How did we do that?

    Easy - just let a group of companies "corner" a market (without governmental oversight), arriving at 40/50/60% of total market-volume. Typically with one member defining the higher commercial product/service prices and two maybe three others following much the same but yet lower pricing than the market-leader. What is the single-most distinction of any such consolidated market?

    There is very little competition, but there is an "appearance of competition". It is difficult to prove any market-manipulation by the top three/four companies that they effectively "control pricing". In any case, the prices the consumer pays are not the same were that market truly competitive - they are much higher.

    Which is why oligarchs, like the Koch Brothers, easily manipulate markets based upon supposed but ineffectual market-competition that is not predetermined but casually allowed.

    How allowed?

    By simply buying up smaller groups in any truly competitive market until less than, say, ten or less exist throughout a national market. And just watch the profits come sloshing in whilst management simply attends to business ordinarily without any great concern for competition. Because all participants know that any real price-competition will destroy their "comfy profits from consensual market coexistence".

    And it's you and me (what suckers!) that pay oligopolistic market-prices manipulated by oligarchs:
    * Only truly competitive markets can assure that pricing is fair and competitive, and
    * Only much higher income-taxation can diminish the inducement of people to get richer
    than
    Croesus !
     
  2. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why we would we want to stop people getting rich?

    People want to get rich. To prevent them from doing so is highly anti-social in intent.
     
  3. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess to Bernie 100 million corporations all around the newly globalized world is an oligopoly? Even China now has 30 million corporations and the fastest/longest economic growth rate in human history thanks to rapid Republican capitalist corporatizing.
     
  4. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, because we were supposed to have a republic.
     
  5. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are far better off with democracy because it distributes some of the power to the people. The more broadly power is distributed away from central govt the better according to our Founders' very conservative Republican theory
     
  6. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, when the majority wants slavery, we'll have that again, too.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  7. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    liberals want central govt to rule with one policy for all thus disrespecting the minority or the weak and making them start a war. This explains all the blood and gore in human history!
     
  8. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    best way to avid universal mistakes like that is not to have liberal central govt rule with one policy for all.
     
  9. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought the people had more power? Now you say the government has the power? Besides, the dems and reps are two sides of the same coin. They just voted on a spending bill without ever reading it, in the house. Is that why you elected them? Are they there to just say, "okay, looks good"? It doesn't matter what their philosophy is. Most just want what is right for all, but power corrupts anyone.
     
  10. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They are going to get what they want. We can't stop folks who don't think they are wrong. They are drunk with power, and those who get money from them are also drunk with self-righteous power. How do you stop that? Who would stop it? I have no answers. Do you?
     
  11. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    <<MOD EDIT - Rules 2 and 3 - Removed Insulting Flamebait >> Lee S

    From here:
    You are living in a Democratic Republic!

    OK, so now let's see your bit of one-liner sarcasm that says the above ain't true.

    Here's my bit of truth. It was a very wrong mistake at the origin of the American republic - based upon three entities, namely, an Executive, Legislature and Judiciary - to institute the Electoral College for the election of the all local, state and national political representatives with the sole exception of one.

    That is, the selection of President that, despite a popular-vote of citizens, is manipulated by an Electoral College that is not the least bit representative of the popular-vote*. There is one and only one voting procedure that is acceptable in the selection of a candidate for political office, and it is the popular-vote made in a fair and impartial manner. (Meaning that gerrymandering is unlawful.)

    Moreover, from here:

    *Popular vote definition (from here):
    1. T
    he vote for a U.S. presidential candidate made by the qualified voters, as opposed to that made by the electoral college.
    2. The vote for a candidate, issue, etc., made by the qualified voters, as opposed to a vote made by elected representatives.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2018
  12. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes the rules believe in Nazi like central government no matter what
    Yes liberals believe ultimately in Nazi like concentration of power in central government. You stop it with intellectuals like Wm Buckley Jr. and charismatic people like Jefferson and Reagan
     
  13. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your posted definition is the same as mine. Check again.

    Here's a great explanation of what we have. Democracy does not come into play. Actually, the definition of a federal republic is that which we have.

    There is your definition. Many want to call it a democracy or a democratic republic, but it is not, nor has it ever been one.

    The rest of your post is radical leftist propaganda for those who have not yet understood our nation due to the onslaught of folks twisting truth to help their personal agendas.
     
  14. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I haven't read or heard Buckley in many years. He had some great editorials. I don't really remember what he said, though. It's been too long. Jefferson, at times, was a federal republican, but at other times seemed like a whacky whimsical slave owner with a penchant for dark skinned women who don't have the ability to say no with any authority. His rewriting of the bible into his own words was creepy at best and showed some sort of mental or emotional imbalance, at worst. His writing was gloriously strong and bold. He was well versed in vocabulary, unlike his contemporaries. He was well chosen for his job.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
  15. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    he created post WW 2 conservatism which included Goldwater and Reagan. More like Buckley could stop liberalism dead.
     
  16. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jefferson and Madison founded the Republican Party in 1793 and created the notice of freedom from govt. More like them would stop liberalism dead!!
     
  17. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Our genius Founders correctly saw democracy as mob rule and so gave us a republic
    2) Churchill said the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with a voter. In America only 20% can name the Vice President and 1% know what the Federal Reserve Board is.
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He also supported the use of chemical weapons on those he didn't like...
     
  19. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so Churchill was wrong and the best argument for democracy is a 5 minute conversation with an average voter who cant name the president and vice president? Isn't thinking fun? Old world meets new world-right?
     
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is this surprising, considering the country is looking more like Mexico?
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't support someone that celebrated concentration camps and the use of WMD. You can?
     
  22. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Give us your evidence that they gave us a republic BECAUSE they "saw democracy as mob rule".
     
  23. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Democracy is mob rule, it is self evident. The maroity have proven themselves to be the least likely to advance favorable outcomes. Too much ignorance to overcome.
     
  24. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see zero evidence in your post.

    Rutgers University did a study of democratically-run worker-owned co-ops and found that they are 4% more productive, and 14% more profitable than equivalent traditional privately-owned "top-down" businesses. -
    https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/17/senators-look-take-vermont-worker-owner-effort-nationwide/
     
  25. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Would those worker owned co-op be as productive and profitable if the "community " democratically ran the business rather than the workers? I think not.
     

Share This Page