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 !
Excerpt: From the Obama Administration, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS, ISSUE BRIEF (UPDATED MAY 2016), "BENEFITS OF COMPETITION AND INDICATORS OF MARKET POWER"
It used to be the case that lefties thought, if I can control the media, control the message, the stupid electorate will vote how I play them. The internet has broken that game. If it was even true. Now the electorate all publish for themselves. The corporate media, the Guardian and friends, no longer hold sway over public political opinion. "Bernie" hasn't worked it out. He's still living in the 20th century still trying to be a 20th century political oligarch. Still trying to rule. Still trying to manipulate people. Still using the same old tired methods of propaganda everyone has learnt not to trust.
Well no, but the Republicans are now doing that with the help of extensive gerrymandering. Seems you don't actually hear what he says. He is more consistently "for the people" than any other politician.
After socialism slowly killed 120 million its modern practitioners are for the people?? Does that make sense even to a liberal?
Best for me was when he said right out of the Marxist playbook " it's silly to have 23 deodorant companies when there are children going hungry." He a simple deadly commie and nothing more!
Although I am generally a Trump supporter........ I am kind of hoping that the Mark Zuckerberg theories on a minimum income...... gain considerable attention. Teaming up with Oprah is one way that he could gain attention for his ideas on this. V. P. candidates to serve along with Oprah? One of the obvious advantages to a basic minimum income... .is that it would tend to cause the working poor to begin to catch up....... (relatively speaking).... to the top one percenters! And yes...... (relatively speaking)..... even to the top one percent of the top one percent of the top one percenters!
Zuckerberg is no different from others of his kind that are precursors. Bill Gates, for instance. They are motivated by the muney. Only after having obtained massive amounts do they come up against a wall. That goes like this: "What the hell am I going to do with all this damn money for which I haven't even the slightest need?" It should have been taxed-away and been given better usage. What comes to mind? A National Healthcare System and Free Tertiary Education. We don't need Oprah to tell us that. What we need, and do not have, is a Common National Will to do it. And that must come from the lower classes that need it most and manifested at the voting-booth. But, stats show - the lower classes may bitch-'n-moan but they don't typically vote. Those already with a 2- or 4-year degree could care less (unless they came from the truly poor portion of our American society ...) Otoh: Oprah should give the presidency a try. A "black woman as PotUS?" Imagine the outcry from the Rabid Right ... !
Good points..... I really am hoping that Oprah will be willing to toss her hat in the political ring......... I know that I know that she would run a very different campaign from what Hillary did....... and she would give President Trump a serious run for his position......(I can't say money due to his performing the role of USA President for a token sum of one dollar per year). I am personally hoping that the nations of Israel, Australia and Canada may be able to put a plan in front of President Trump...... and his 2020 rival....... that will cause America and the world to look very differently at both the threat as well as some of the opportunities and challenges presented by climate change. Should Sorek 2 be in Australia or California?
A TRUE DEMOCRACY Agreed. Hillary ran a campaign that was good enough to win the election (by a 2% margin). Which she did. Not only did we not elect the first female President, but a person more than qualified for the job. Let's understand the fundamentals, like this one: Only the popular-vote of citizens decides the elected official. This is the case for ALL ELECTIONS to political-office in the Unites States. Except One. So, the reason for the difference of that "One", we should get rid of it. Instead of bantering nostalgic excuses about why the Electoral College should remain. (It was a voting artifact that the southern-states insisted upon in order for them to adopt the Constitution.) Artifact, definition (from here): 1. Any object made by human work; esp., a simple or primitive tool, weapon, vessel, etc. 2. Any non-natural feature or structure accidentally introduced into something being observed or studied Let's stop the studying - it's been more than 200 years! Until the EC is gone, America is not a True Democracy ...
True democracy is mob rule and we don't want that. and, we don't want coastal elite liberals deciding elections so we want to keep electoral college so that heartland Americans with old fashioned values get a large say!.and we want to keep unqualified people from voting and being brain surgeons to improve our democracy and surgery results
The government prevents competition and props up so called oligopolies. BTW, can you give an example of a group of firms that constitute an oligopoly?
MARKET-ECONOMIES NEED SPEED LIMITS Thank you for asking. From Investopedia here: What are some current examples of oligopolies? Excerpt: For as long as American consumers foolishly believe that BigNames are a real guaranty of good product/service, then there will exist major oligopolies that "master" (ie "dominante" but do not "control") major sections of some lucrative industries. MY POINT As a result we-the-consumer pay through the nose for those riches accumulated by a select few indulging themselves to indecent levels of High Salaries and low Income Taxation. Take the incentive away (by means of confiscatory Income Taxation at the top) and see a different kind of competitive ball-game being played in the market-place ... Market-economies, like highways, need speed limits ...
Those are great examples of the government limiting competition to a few, well-connected companies. Monopolies and oligopolies are created by government restrictions on competition.
The phenomenon of market-concentration (i.e., "oligarchies" that cause limited competition to maintain higher market pricing by corporations) is typical of the past 20/30 years of America's economic development. It happened because consolidation of markets helped promote profits, and profits give on directly to the Wealth of today's Corporate Management - especially when they are offered stock-options for free and resell them. This has given rise to a new kind of political Ku-Klux-Klan - the Ultra Rich who spend their money manipulating politics by funding candidates for elections. Howzzat? By election commercials the sell politicians like soap-detergent. They all "wash whiter than white". And Americans swallow that inanity hook, line and sinker at election-time. How else could a Donald Dork get elected ... ?
The Establishment controls the MSM and the Establishment consists of both Red and Blue. I agree with your central premise - that the internet has put a ***** into the armor of this racket. This is why the establishment is now already censoring the internet and this censorship will increase in the future. So enjoy the brief window where there is such a thing as fair and free media.
The consolidation of markets is caused by government barriers-to-entry imposed on potential new participants in the market.
Why is anybody surprised? Look at the state of politics in America. It's in the pits. The RabidRight lucked out with this dunce of a Donald Dork, and now they think they can do any and all that they never could have done before. (But do it quickly before the elections in November.) Because, like the children we are, we gave them control of all three central elements of national governance - the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. And all for what - a democracy that has become aberrant and manipulative because of two very wrong devices: *The 12th Amendment that created an Electoral College in order to manipulate the popular-vote, which is EXACTLY how Donald Dunce got elected. *Gerrymandering that manipulates state/local votes to assure comfortable majorities. The singular most important attribute of any Real Democracy is the outcome of the popular-voted unaided and unabetted by "manipulative routines" that try to centralize the vote with one-party. What the hell are Americans learning in Civics Class? (If they ever really took one ....)
Even if one does take a civics class these days one will not learn the main principles on which this nation was founded. 1) Individual rights and freedoms "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. What the legitimate purview actually is and why. 2) That this authority comes from we the people - as opposed to "divine right/God" or the Supreme court 3) Classical Liberalism/Republicanism - and the meaning of "Tyranny of the Majority" In addition - the basics of Philosophy is not taught - Logic, Logical Fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument, critical thinking. Without these basic tools how is the voter supposed to wade through the cacophony of fallacy and bad argument raining down on a daily basis from politicians and the MSM ? Without and informed electorate and free and fair media - there is no such thing as a functional democratic process.
WE, THE SHEEPLE Too true, too true, too true! People are not taught how to think, they are taught how to count, a geographical representation of Our Great Country, basic English that they immediately forget upon watching American TV - and then sent out the door. Where is "debate" (the profound and objective exchange of opinion supported by factual evidence) being taught and practiced by students? (Help anybody! I no longer live in the US so I don't have a real idea of what is happening in secondary-schooling. All I know is that the educationè-stats are awful for the supposedly "Greatest Nation on Earth"! That is, if the game-of-politics is so effing "crooked", "manipulated", "deceptive" (take your pick, but all three apply), why should ANYBODY go out to vote? Because we have been hoping-against-hope that it isn't. But a presidential election that gives the presidency illegitimately to the loser of the popular-vote is deceitful, unacceptable and a farce. And yet we've done it TWICE in the past quarter of a century. Farce = "a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations". We loved Reckless Ronnie, but what he left us by reducing drastically upper-income taxation is a country where the rich manipulate the popular-vote. Because Americans watch too many puerile TV-commercials and not enough intelligent political debates. And we, the sheeple, are the poor suckers who are manipulated ...
I have on numerous occasions asked teachers - both in person and in on-line forums like this- "Why is it that through 12 years of school we manage not to teach the main principle on which this nation was founded and the basics of Philosophy (logic, logical fallacy, how to construct a valid argument). Not once but a few times (but not always) the teacher responded "We do not want kids arguing with us". Get stuffed .. I was dumbstruck. Let's keep our kids ignorant and ensure a disfunctional democratic process because "we do not want kids arguing with us". Make no mistake. It is not by accident that such ideas are not part of the curriculum. Ignorant sheep are much easier to control.
I read the history of the decline of Rome and its final end with the Goths. Four hundred years is not bad. But, I don't think we'll make it to that ...
