Bernie Speaks: The corporate media ignores the rise of oligarchy

Lafayette · Mar 17, 2018

The Guardian: The corporate media ignores the rise of oligarchy - by Bernie Sanders.

Excerpt:

The rapid rise of oligarchy and wealth and income inequality is the great moral, economic, and political issue of our time. Yet, it gets almost no coverage from the corporate media.

How often do network newscasts report on the 40 million Americans living in poverty, or that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major nation on earth? How often does the media discuss the reality that our society today is more unequal than at any time since the 1920s with the top 0.1% now owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%?

How often has ABC, CBS or NBC discussed the role that the Koch brothers and other billionaires play in creating a political system which allows the rich and the powerful to significantly control elections and the legislative process in Congress?

Sadly, the answer to these questions is: almost never.

We urgently need to discuss the reality of today’s economy and political system, and fight to create an economy that works for everyone and not just the one percent

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.

Lafayette · Mar 17, 2018

Excerpt: From the Obama Administration, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS, ISSUE BRIEF (UPDATED MAY 2016), "BENEFITS OF COMPETITION AND INDICATORS OF MARKET POWER"

This issue brief describes the ways in which competition between firms can benefit consumers, workers, entrepreneurs, small businesses and the economy more generally, and also describes how these benefits can be lost when competition is impaired by firms’ actions or government policies. Several indicators suggest that competition may be decreasing in many economic sectors, including the decades-long decline in new business formation and increases in industry-specific measures of concentration.

The causes underlying a possible decrease in competition and corresponding increase in market power are not clear, but candidate explanations include efficiencies associated with scale, increases in merger and acquisition activity, firms’ crowding out existing or potential competitors either deliberately or through innovation, and regulatory barriers to entry such as occupational licensing that have reduced the entry of new firms into a variety of markets.

ttwtt78640 · Mar 17, 2018

Lafayette said:
Excerpt: From the Obama Administration, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS, ISSUE BRIEF (UPDATED MAY 2016), "BENEFITS OF COMPETITION AND INDICATORS OF MARKET POWER"

Factors that help keep to the cost of labor artificially down for the 90% are as (or more?) important than those that keep it artificially up for the 10%. That constant (persistent?) poverty in the US, although said to be only 15% of the total population, gets ever larger public subsidies (always said to be necessary "fight poverty" but which actually only perpetuates it) keeps wages for most workers down.

Those "safety net" subsidies fill the void (gap?) between what a (meager?) paycheck provides and what the worker and their dependents need to meet their basic living costs. That creates a supply of labor that can accept an artificially low paycheck which is augmented by the "safety net". Couple that (15%) group of "safety net" recipients with a (7%) group of illegal immigrants and you have nearly 22% of the labor pool that will work for very low (below the FPL) wages.

The "job creators" love this system since they need only offer a wage which is necessary to attract and retain qualified labor - not even enough to lift a worker with dpendents above te poverty level. Since the base (entry level or low skilled) hourly wage is artificially low (even if above the statutory MW) then other wages based on that hourly wage + $X are also depressed.

Lovebug · Mar 17, 2018

I think Bernie was on the receiving end of the Clinton oligarchy, yet he made little noise about it. He was my hope and my favorite candidate, but may be it is for the best that he didn't make it to the top, sad to say.

Lafayette · Mar 17, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
Factors that help keep to the cost of labor artificially down for the 90% are as (or more?) important than those that keep it artificially up for the 10%. That constant (persistent?) poverty in the US, although said to be only 15% of the total population, gets ever larger public subsidies (always said to be necessary "fight poverty" but which actually only perpetuates it) keeps wages for most workers down.

Not so. See here:

From the above, we can see the Poverty Rate is fairly constant over time since the mid-1960s. The US succeeded in reducing it till then, but not much further since.

I'd like to have an explanation, because the time-span is fairly long. Which means, to me, that there is one singular reason - not multiple. And I am willing to say that it is due to the high cost of post-secondary education. Those without an advanced degree constantly are employed-unemployed-employed-unemployed. I.e., they are not permanently employed and shift not only from one job to another but from job-types to job-types (and all of them basic).

Only post-secondary schooling credentials allow workers to progress uniformly in and across industries maintaining a level of income. (And if I had factual info underlining that conclusion, I'd put it up. But I don't, so its only a hunch.)

ttwtt78640 said:
Those "safety net" subsidies fill the void (gap?) between what a (meager?) paycheck provides and what the worker and their dependents need to meet their basic living costs. That creates a supply of labor that can accept an artificially low paycheck which is augmented by the "safety net". Couple that (15%) group of "safety net" recipients with a (7%) group of illegal immigrants and you have nearly 22% of the labor pool that will work for very low (below the FPL) wages.

Probably so. Your logic makes sense.

Besides, whatever works and keeps them off the streets selling crack.

But (for me) it is not an ideal solution. In the richest country on earth (gdp per capita), we should be able to do better for the lower classes.

ttwtt78640 said:
The "job creators" love this system since they need only offer a wage which is necessary to attract and retain qualified labor - not even enough to lift a worker with dpendents above te poverty level. Since the base (entry level or low skilled) hourly wage is artificially low (even if above the statutory MW) then other wages based on that hourly wage + $X are also depressed.

Yes, which is why the Minimum Wage will not budge until we kick-it-in-the-ass. That is, double-it to $15 an hour. NYC did it, so can the rest of the US. But, companies complain about "profits being hurt" because labor-costs will rise. Which is short-sighted thinking. Why?

Heres why:
*The poverty-threshold is $24K of income (for a family of four), which net means about $11.5/hour. If the US raises the Minimum Wage to $15/hour, they will all live better lives and quite likely spend the extra-money. Meaning that they would enhance GDP!
*Everybody wins! The poorest below the poverty-threshold and the richer benefiting from better corporate profits due to enhanced Consumer Demand!

Let's not get obsessed with lowest possible labor-costs. It is a meaningless fear. (Yes, too high labor costs are also unproductive.) But the US must go upmarket in this Information Age where skills are enhanced because the work requires higher-level skills.

There will always be low-skilled jobs around, but fewer and fewer. As a nation, and like most of the rest of the world, we must go up-market with jobs.

Even China has seen that lesson. From here:

Approximately 25 million students in China pay an average of $400 to $2,200 a year in tuition (Includes instruction, room/board, and meals) to attend public and private institutions

I'll state it simply: The future of the nation depends upon higher-education. Every child should get the opportunity to undertake a post-secondary education of their choice - vocational, 2- or 4- or 6-year post-graduate).

ttwtt78640 · Mar 17, 2018

Lafayette said:
Not so. See here:

From the above, we can see the Poverty Rate is fairly constant over time since the mid-1960s. The US succeeded in reducing it till then, but not much further since.

I'd like to have an explanation, because the time-span is fairly long. Which means, to me, that there is one singular reason - not multiple. And I am willing to say that it is due to the high cost of post-secondary education. Those without an advanced degree constantly are employed-unemployed-employed-unemployed. I.e., they are not permanently employed and shift not only from one job to another but from job-types to job-types (and all of them basic).

Only post-secondary schooling credentials allow workers to progress uniformly in and across industries maintaining a level of income. (And if I had factual info underlining that conclusion, I'd put it up. But I don't, so its only a hunch.)

Probably so. Your logic makes sense.

Besides, whatever works and keeps them off the streets selling crack.

But (for me) it is not an ideal solution. In the richest country on earth (gdp per capita), we should be able to do better for the lower classes.

Yes, which is why the Minimum Wage will not budge until we kick-it-in-the-ass. That is, double-it to $15 an hour. NYC did it, so can the rest of the US. But, companies complain about "profits being hurt" because labor-costs will rise. Which is short-sighted thinking. Why?

Heres why:
*The poverty-threshold is $24K of income (for a family of four), which net means about $11.5/hour. If the US raises the Minimum Wage to $15/hour, they will all live better lives and quite likely spend the extra-money. Meaning that they would enhance GDP!
*Everybody wins! The poorest below the poverty-threshold and the richer benefiting from better corporate profits due to enhanced Consumer Demand!

Let's not get obsessed with lowest possible labor-costs. It is a meaningless fear. (Yes, too high labor costs are also unproductive.) But the US must go upmarket in this Information Age where skills are enhanced because the work requires higher-level skills.

There will always be low-skilled jobs around, but fewer and fewer. As a nation, and like most of the rest of the world, we must go up-market with jobs.

Even China has seen that lesson. From here:

I'll state it simply: The future of the nation depends upon higher-education. Every child should get the opportunity to undertake a post-secondary education of their choice - vocational, 2- or 4- or 6-year post-graduate).

The poverty rate stopped dropping during the late 1960s (and has remained at 12% to 15% since) in conjunction with the birth of the Great Society "safety net" programs. I admit that is only correlation but likely far from a mere coincidence. Your theory of higher education does not wash since the percentage with college degrees has been steadily rising.

https://www.statista.com/statistics...nment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/

Raising the MW won't much matter because the work requirement for "safety net" benefits is only 20 hours/week and increased labor costs (accross the board) will be inflationary making CPI based COLAs for federal pensions (including social security) and the FPL go up nearly as much. The "safety net" also creates cliffs such that earning a bit over the FPL now actually cuts your net. IMHO, raising the MW is not the answer - capping the "safety net" benefits such that they do not exceed that possible from 2X that of a full-time MW job would make folks want to work both more hours and for higher pay.

Lafayette · Mar 18, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
Your theory of higher education does not wash since the percentage with college degrees has been steadily rising.

Yeah, so has the population.

The percentage of the population that gets a post-secondary degree has shown improvement since WW2,which is goodness, as shown here:

But that secondary-schooling degree is without cost for most Americans. What is key in this Brave New World of ours (called the Information Age) is the attainment of a tertiary-level degree. And, as the above infographic shows, barely a third of the American population is doing so.

Here's why (from the Census Bureau here):
Average total tuition, fees, room and board rates charged for full-time undergraduate students in degree-granting institutions, by level and control of institution: Selected years, 1984–85 to 2014–15

Current Dollars:
4-year institutions - $38K
2-year institutions - $24.3K
All institutions - $37.4K

OECD - US Employment rates by educational attainment (here):

Employment rates, by educational attainment (2012)
(Percentage of employed 25-64 year-olds among all 25-64 year-olds):
*Lower secondary education - 52%
*Upper secondary education - 67%
*Tertiary education - 82%

The benefit of a Tertiary Education should be obvious. What I mean by that is not just a high-school education where one presumbably knows who to read-'n-write. But a skills-based Tertiary Education where graduates have a basic "know-how", which guaranties a better income.

From here:Benefits of Higher Education: Graduate Salaries and More

The monetary benefits of higher education can be seen in the lifetime difference of 65% earning power when comparing graduate salaries and the earnings of those with just high school education. Median earnings of individuals with a bachelor’s degree in 2011 (latest available data) were on average US$21,100 higher than those with a high school degree.

ttwtt78640 · Mar 18, 2018

Lafayette said:
Yeah, so has the population.

The percentage of the population that gets a post-secondary degree has shown improvement since WW2,which is goodness, as shown here:

But that secondary-schooling degree is without cost for most Americans. What is key in this Brave New World of ours (called the Information Age) is the attainment of a tertiary-level degree. And, as the above infographic shows, barely a third of the American population is doing so.

Here's why (from the Census Bureau here):
Average total tuition, fees, room and board rates charged for full-time undergraduate students in degree-granting institutions, by level and control of institution: Selected years, 1984–85 to 2014–15

The benefit of a Tertiary Education should be obvious. What I mean by that is not just a high-school education where one presumbably knows who to read-'n-write. But a skills-based Tertiary Education where graduates have a basic "know-how", which guaranties a better income.

From here:Benefits of Higher Education: Graduate Salaries and More

Your first sentence (bolded above) shows a lack of education on your part.

Having a degree that is not in demand for better paying employment just makes you a waiter, Walmart associate or fry cook with an expensive degree in underwater basket weaving.

21% of jobs require a bachelor's degree and, according to your fancy graph, that demand is being (more than?) met.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/3...pically-requiring-postsecondary-education.htm

Lafayette · Mar 18, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
Your first sentence (bolded above) shows a lack of education on your part.

Having a degree that is not in demand for better paying employment just makes you a waiter, Walmart associate or fry cook with an expensive degree in underwater basket weaving.

21% of jobs require a bachelor's degree and, according to your fancy graph, that demand is being (more than?) met.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/3...pically-requiring-postsecondary-education.htm

You, singular - yes.

You, plural - no.

Which is the mistake YOU and many on this forum make. They think the debate is all about THEM.

Besides, a higher education is necessary to have a better paying jobs, yes. But that is not the only reason.

"Education" itself means to teach people "how to think". Preferably openly, but some religious nutters must add Christianity to the education formula.

Whatever, education makes a person more rounded. Salary is NOT the only criteria, and in the long run not even the priority criteria ...

ttwtt78640 · Mar 18, 2018

Lafayette said:
You, singular - yes.

You, plural - no.

Which is the mistake YOU and many on this forum make. They think the debate is all about THEM.

Besides, a higher education is necessary to have a better paying jobs, yes. But that is not the only reason.

"Education" itself means to teach people "how to think". Preferably openly, but some religious nutters must add Christianity to the education formula.

Whatever, education makes a person more rounded. Salary is NOT the only criteria, and in the long run not even the priority criteria ...

We have wandered off of the oligarchy topic and well into the weeds of educating for the sake of making (some selected?) folks "more well rounded" now. I get it that you want more and more socialized with less (or no?) user fees involved and ever more income redistribution to make life more fun for all. We have far more pressing problems than making folks (feel?) more well rounded by offering "free" college courses in the liberal arts.

Lafayette · Mar 18, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
Your first sentence (bolded above) shows a lack of education on your part.

Having a degree that is not in demand for better paying employment just makes you a waiter, Walmart associate or fry cook with an expensive degree in underwater basket weaving.

21% of jobs require a bachelor's degree and, according to your fancy graph, that demand is being (more than?) met.

You, singular - yes.

You, plural - no.

Which is the mistake YOU and many on this forum make. They think the debate is all about THEM.

Besides, a higher education is necessary to have a better paying jobs, yes. But that is not the only reason for obtaining one.

"Education" itself means to teach people "how to think". (Preferably openly, but some religious nutters must add Christianity to the education formula.)

Whatever, education makes a person more rounded. Salary is NOT the only criteria, and in the long run not even the priority criteria.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that the US has one of the highest scores in terms of Tertiary Education - but comparing Europe and the US, one must take into account that Europe was devastated after WW2, and so it's still "catching up" (so to speak).

Nonetheless, the OECD stats show the following for Tertiary Level Education Achievement:
US - 45.7%
France - 34.6
EU - 13.2%

Conclusion: Europe and the US are not comparable at the Tertiary Level. Which surprises me, since I thought the newer countries (ex-Soviet Bloc) were keen on post-secondary education. (Russia has today one of the higher scores at 55.6%. So, despite today's election, let's not think that all Russians are stoopid.)

Lafayette · Mar 18, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
I get it that you want more and more socialized with less (or no?) user fees involved and ever more income redistribution to make life more fun for all.

Well, at least you've understood that key point.

Moving right along ...

jonny5 · Mar 27, 2018

Lafayette said:
[COLOR=#141414[FONT=ArialThe Guardian: [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/16/corporate-media-oligarchy-bernie-sanders"]The corporate media ignores the rise of oligarchy[/URL] - by Bernie Sanders.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Excerpt:[COLOR]
[COLOR]

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.[COLOR]
[COLOR]
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?[COLOR]
*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.[COLOR]

Yes, of course, we are no different given the outcomes[COLOR]. 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?[FONT][COLOR]

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[COLOR]?[FONT][COLOR]

There is very little competition[COLOR], 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.[COLOR]

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.[FONT][COLOR]

Once you look at an actual oligarchy, its clear the US isnt one. Power is wielded directly by people chosen via majority voting, and those reps make decisions by majority voting. But then, you live in France. And youre listening to a socialist.

Lafayette · Mar 28, 2018

YOU'RE DREAMING!

jonny5 said:
Once you look at an actual oligarchy, its clear the US isnt one. But then, you live in France. And youre listening to a socialist.

Bollocks§ You've never been outside the three-mile limit and haven't the faintest notion of recent history. For instance, there is this "thing" called a Social Democracy that consists of France and 27 other European Union member nations with a common-market population of 510 million - about 60% larger than the US. It is NOT SOCIALIST in nature but in fact. (Free - or nearly free - post-secondary education and national healthcare insurance just to name two major perquisites!)

But, of course, as a typical Yank you are someone who thinks "social" that applies to anything BUT A CHURCH SOCIAL must be communist!

Duhhhh ... !

jonny5 said:
Power is wielded directly by people chosen via majority voting, and those reps make decisions by majority voting.

Me arse! Both national and statewide elections in the US are manipulated in two ways:
*The Electoral College is capable of electing a PotUS who loses the popular-vote, which is the means of voting for every other political position in the US! Which has occured TWICE in the past 30 years.
*Gerrymandering (along with the Electoral College) is another method of manipulating the popular-vote in order to intentionally favor one of either of just two parties.

And you THINK you live in a just democracy?

Wakey, wakey! You're dreaming ...

jonny5 · Mar 29, 2018

Lafayette said:
YOU'RE DREAMING!

Bollocks§ You've never been outside the three-mile limit and haven't the faintest notion of recent history. For instance, there is this "thing" called a Social Democracy that consists of France and 27 other European Union member nations with a common-market population of 510 million - about 60% larger than the US. It is NOT SOCIALIST in nature but in fact. (Free - or nearly free - post-secondary education and national healthcare insurance just to name two major perquisites!)

But, of course, as a typical Yank you are someone who thinks "social" that applies to anything BUT A CHURCH SOCIAL must be communist! [COLOR]

Duhhhh ... !

Me arse! Both national and statewide elections in the US are manipulated in two ways:
*The Electoral College is capable of electing a PotUS who loses the popular-vote[COLOR], which is the means of voting for every other political position in the US! Which has occured TWICE in the past 30 years.[COLOR]
*Gerrymandering (along with the Electoral College) is another method of manipulating the popular-vote in order to intentionally favor one of either of just two parties.

And you THINK you live in a just democracy?[COLOR]

Wakey, wakey! You're dreaming ...

Ironically, the one place I have been to outside of the country is France. Way to make assumptions.

Lafayette · Mar 29, 2018

jonny5 said:
Ironically, the one place I have been to outside of the country is France. Way to make assumptions.

On your way to where ... ?

jonny5 · Mar 29, 2018

Lafayette said:
On your way to where ... ?

France.

MrPeanut · Mar 29, 2018

Lovebug said:
I think Bernie was on the receiving end of the Clinton oligarchy, yet he made little noise about it. He was my hope and my favorite candidate, but may be it is for the best that he didn't make it to the top, sad to say.

I don't think that's fair. Trump and Clinton were both members of the oligarchy. Bernie just backed the one that was less likely to go after minorities, and more likely to inch closer to things like single payer healthcare. Obviously corporate owned media will ignore any issue that rocks the boat for their owners. They focus on fluff issues like PC culture to keep the middle class and below fighting each other while the rich get richer, and everyone else might stay the same if they're lucky.

jonny5 · Mar 31, 2018

MrPeanut said:
I don't think that's fair. Trump and Clinton were both members of the oligarchy. Bernie just backed the one that was less likely to go after minorities, and more likely to inch closer to things like single payer healthcare. Obviously corporate owned media will ignore any issue that rocks the boat for their owners. They focus on fluff issues like PC culture to keep the middle class and below fighting each other while the rich get richer, and everyone else might stay the same if they're lucky.

And yet, in the end, they also don't get to make decisions. The only ones who make decisions in this democratic republic is the people when they vote for reps, and the reps when they pass laws. This is not like Russia where they have fake elections and actual wealthy oligarchs are ministers who wield power and are not elected or nominated or confirmed or debated.

In the US, we literally have millions of middle class voters who choose reps. Why they keep purposefully choosing to fight each other instead of changing things, who knows?

Bernie Speaks: The corporate media ignores the rise of oligarchy

Lafayette

Lafayette

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Lovebug

Be humble and kind

Lafayette

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Lafayette

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Lafayette

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Lafayette

Lafayette

jonny5

Lafayette

jonny5

Lafayette

jonny5

MrPeanut

jonny5