(08-10-2023, 08:54 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ](08-10-2023, 02:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]L2L has met me in person, so, yes.
Did some big city democrat or RINO rape and murder your wife? Because they didn't rape and murder his.
Yeah, I met you in person, and you admitted that the size and scope of the federal government was increasing and there was a power transfer to the corporate sector, but you had "hope" that it would make something better. I don't share your naivety. (i.e. I've adopted conspiracy theory that you haven't)
I am on this crusade because you guys are asleep at the wheel. You're not a Scottish army that knows you're in a fight. You're a bunch of lemmings that a following a narrative right to the edge of a cliff while chanting, "We have free agency!" I really shouldn't have to waste my time to lay out how we are losing our freedoms because it's obvious. The most frustrating part is that I know, even as I'm typing it, you are probably not going to acknowledge the truth of what follows, not because it's untrue, but because you want to believe that it's going to form something better. Just like our conversation we had that night. I hope you're right. Until then, let me oblige Marty and make this short.
I asked to define freedom so I could we could have a common frame of reference as I move forward. Grasping the essence of freedom as the 'absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action' is pivotal because it lays the foundation for assessing the subtle and overt ways in which our autonomy and agency are continually challenged in the modern era. It's going to seem like I am focusing on corporations, but the truth is that they have become inseparable from our federal government. I'll start there.
Federal Power and Regulatory Capture: The divide between corporate interests and state policy is rapidly blurring. Corporations, in many instances, are not just influencing but drafting the very policies intended to oversee them. When corporate interests define state policy, the American democratic framework is at risk. A 2014 Princeton study provided a bleak picture: policies favored by economic elites stand a solid chance of becoming law, while those representing the interests of the middle and lower classes? Almost none. The core finding was that when the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. Think about that for a second. This essentially suggests that if a policy is favored by the wealthy or by well-organized interest groups, you are likely going to get your way. Us? Near Zero. Your freedom of choice is an illusion. GASP!! Wealthy people have more political influence than those without wealth??!! Really?!
You mean like it's been since politics existed? LOL This isn't taking anyone's freedom - it's the way of the world around us and always has been.
Globalization of American Corporations: To make the above point worse, we need to look at how corporate values have changed. NAFTA opened the door to a global marketplace, and corporations walked through it. Brands like Apple, once viewed as American icons, have outsourced jobs for a global bottom line. The Economic Policy Institute's findings are damning: from 2001 to 2011, the U.S lost or displaced 3.4 million jobs to China. This isn't merely about lost jobs; it's about stagnating American advancement and a system that increasingly disenfranchises its own people. Furthermore, businesses are no longer bound to American values, but global ones. When you consider the capture of the American political system by global corporations who are writing their own policies, how can you not question how this affects American choice and opportunity? While you might say it's their right to do so, you can't also then argue that it's not limiting American growth.
A. Business was always going global. Thinking anyone/anything was going to insulate us from that is insanely naive.
B. American businesses moving aspects of their business outside our borders was in full swing long before NAFTA
Erosion of Political Capital: The lifeblood of a democracy is the vote of its people. However, the loud echo of big money is overshadowing this heartbeat. Take a look at the figures: campaign costs in 2020 exceeded $14 billion, a number the Center for Responsive Politics unearthed. This isn't a party issue; it's a challenge to the very bedrock of our democratic system. If your voice, your vote, is stifled by a surge of corporate cash, where does that leave the average American? Constraint comes alive in the dwindling power of individual votes. Political decisions increasingly veer toward the tunes of corporate songbirds. It's not just policy capture; it's a capture of democratic ethos. When the common American's voice is pushed to the background, what we're left with is a constrained choice, a puppetry democracy.
95% with you here. We are getting limited choices and they are being manipulated from the early stages of candidacy thru to actually holding office. I believe big money is running the show more than many want to admit. This has been the case for many decades - but it is probably getting worse.
Corporate Censorship: On the surface, it appears as a free speech issue. But the crux runs much deeper. Big tech platforms aren't just corporate entities; they're interwoven with government mechanisms. I could give example after example of this collusion, but this is already long enough. If you can't google it, I will provide evidence at your behest. This ability to shape narratives has profound implications. It's not about silencing a single opinion but curbing discourse and dictating the broader narrative. When voices advocating for systemic change or critiquing the overwhelming power of federal government and corporates are suppressed, we're not just dealing with the loss of freedom of speech. We're witnessing an erosion of our democratic agency. It's not just about muzzling voices; it's coercing narratives, ensuring that certain stories, certain truths, don't see the light of day. And when the line between corporation and state starts to blur, this coercion is amplified, eroding the very essence of free discourse. That's not freedom. Meh. Not buying it. The digital age is still in its infancy in the grand scheme of things and some of this [BLEEP] is going to get sorted as more and more uniformity will take hold. Limiting propaganda while allowing a threshold of politically charged content. I'm not seeing any erosion of American citizens' freedom resulting from media content. We are inundated relentlessly with a bunch of inane garbage, but I don't see anyone's freedom being disadvantaged at all. If anything - the opposite. Idiots worldwide have a voice.This is a good one to watch - but it hasn't screwed us yet. It just makes us wade through a cesspool if we choose to participate. You know, because of our freedom to make that decision. A decision many don't have available.
Suppression of American wealth generation: Owning a home is more than a piece of the American Dream; it's a ticket to economic stability and a crucial vehicle for wealth transfer across generations. But, with big firms making their mark on the housing market, homeownership rates have suffered, as highlighted by the U.S Census Bureau: from nearly 70% in the early 2000s to around 65% in 2020. It's gotten even worse these last couple years, but it's hard to delineate true homeownership from investors. Nearly 1 in 5 are bought by investors. It's not just about owning a property; it's about the economic foundation of future generations. That's just one example. I could say the same thing about several other industries: restaurants, banking, small business, etc. When corporations monopolize the housing market or when jobs are shipped overseas or run under by the power of big business and federal government, they indirectly necessitate certain economic choices. Suddenly, we're choosing not out of aspiration but out of need, navigating a landscape rigged against us. That reduced generational freedom. Cyclical examples of this exist across the decades And it will cycle again. Not an eroding freedom. A cycling market with limited resource growing more limited.
Skewed and Biased News Consumption: In today's digital age, the interplay between businesses and news coverage has reached an unprecedented scale. Large corporations, especially those in the tech sector, have gained significant control over the dissemination of news, largely due to the monopolistic grasp of platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter on the flow of information. Furthermore, as traditional news outlets face financial hardships, they're increasingly reliant on ad revenue from these tech giants, making them susceptible to self-censorship or skewed coverage to appease platform guidelines and advertiser preferences. Additionally, media conglomerates with various business interests can exert influence over editorial decisions, either subtly or overtly, leading to potential conflicts of interest. Not to mention the role the WEF and the WFA play in crafting the rules platforms need to follow to earn their dollars. These platforms utilize algorithms to curate and prioritize content, and these algorithms often favor sensationalism, engagement, or advertiser-friendly content over impartial and in-depth journalism. In essence, the commercial imperatives of businesses, combined with centralized technological control, have introduced biases and filters that impact the integrity and diversity of news available to the public. How does that not create constraints on the American public? How does the working man have time to stay abreast of this? If his news is biased, he's certainly constrained.
Total nothing burger. The "news" is a [BLEEP] show. It sucks. But hasn't taken my freedom.
I hope we can get back to some semblance of journalistic integrity - but it's bleak. Getting credible info is tougher - but it hasn't altered my freedom.
Speaking of the World Economic Forum (WEF), its advocacy for stakeholder capitalism is emblematic of this government/corporate merger. On paper, stakeholder capitalism sounds utopian: businesses should benefit all stakeholders, not just shareholders. But in practice? There's a gaping void. These stakeholders aren't elected representatives; they're elites or appointed by elites to execute their vision. The notion of a corporate global governance, one that operates without the checks and balances of elected representatives, is a far cry from our democratic ideals.
So, what's different since 1996? What freedoms have we lost? How can you not see it? Why do I have to waste my time explain this? you don't - you chose to - because "freedom" LOL
The gears of necessity, coercion, and constraint have been turning, gradually eroding the bedrock of American freedom. It's not just about rights on paper; it's about the lived experience of freedom in its truest sense. It's about the deconstruction of what's quintessentially American. The intertwined might of corporations and governments, the muzzling of dissent (not by peons like me or you, but those who actually ability contest the establishment), combined with the fading dream of homeownership, the barriers to entry for small businesses, and the inability to craft laws that favor the people... they all create a weight felt by many people in this country. I'm glad you don't feel it. It doesn't mean it's not there. It's not about left or right, but about safeguarding foundational American opportunity. That's freedom.
PS Marty. [BLEEP] you. Read my book, [BLEEP].
William Wallace was a little more to the point. Whatever.
(08-10-2023, 10:18 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ](08-10-2023, 08:54 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I met you in person, and you admitted that the size and scope of the federal government was increasing and there was a power transfer to the corporate sector, but you had "hope" that it would make something better. I don't share your naivety. (i.e. I've adopted conspiracy theory that you haven't)
I am on this crusade because you guys are asleep at the wheel. You're not a Scottish army that knows you're in a fight. You're a bunch of lemmings that a following a narrative right to the edge of a cliff while chanting, "We have free agency!" I really shouldn't have to waste my time to lay out how we are losing our freedoms because it's obvious. The most frustrating part is that I know, even as I'm typing it, you are probably not going to acknowledge the truth of what follows, not because it's untrue, but because you want to believe that it's going to form something better. Just like our conversation we had that night. I hope you're right. Until then, let me oblige Marty and make this short.
I asked to define freedom so I could we could have a common frame of reference as I move forward. Grasping the essence of freedom as the 'absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action' is pivotal because it lays the foundation for assessing the subtle and overt ways in which our autonomy and agency are continually challenged in the modern era. It's going to seem like I am focusing on corporations, but the truth is that they have become inseparable from our federal government. I'll start there.
Federal Power and Regulatory Capture: The divide between corporate interests and state policy is rapidly blurring. Corporations, in many instances, are not just influencing but drafting the very policies intended to oversee them. When corporate interests define state policy, the American democratic framework is at risk. A 2014 Princeton study provided a bleak picture: policies favored by economic elites stand a solid chance of becoming law, while those representing the interests of the middle and lower classes? Almost none. The core finding was that when the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. Think about that for a second. This essentially suggests that if a policy is favored by the wealthy or by well-organized interest groups, you are likely going to get your way. Us? Near Zero. Your freedom of choice is an illusion. GASP!! Wealthy people have more political influence than those without wealth??!! Really?!
You mean like it's been since politics existed? LOL This isn't taking anyone's freedom - it's the way of the world around us and always has been.
Globalization of American Corporations: To make the above point worse, we need to look at how corporate values have changed. NAFTA opened the door to a global marketplace, and corporations walked through it. Brands like Apple, once viewed as American icons, have outsourced jobs for a global bottom line. The Economic Policy Institute's findings are damning: from 2001 to 2011, the U.S lost or displaced 3.4 million jobs to China. This isn't merely about lost jobs; it's about stagnating American advancement and a system that increasingly disenfranchises its own people. Furthermore, businesses are no longer bound to American values, but global ones. When you consider the capture of the American political system by global corporations who are writing their own policies, how can you not question how this affects American choice and opportunity? While you might say it's their right to do so, you can't also then argue that it's not limiting American growth.
A. Business was always going global. Thinking anyone/anything was going to insulate us from that is insanely naive.
B. American businesses moving aspects of their business outside our borders was in full swing long before NAFTA
Erosion of Political Capital: The lifeblood of a democracy is the vote of its people. However, the loud echo of big money is overshadowing this heartbeat. Take a look at the figures: campaign costs in 2020 exceeded $14 billion, a number the Center for Responsive Politics unearthed. This isn't a party issue; it's a challenge to the very bedrock of our democratic system. If your voice, your vote, is stifled by a surge of corporate cash, where does that leave the average American? Constraint comes alive in the dwindling power of individual votes. Political decisions increasingly veer toward the tunes of corporate songbirds. It's not just policy capture; it's a capture of democratic ethos. When the common American's voice is pushed to the background, what we're left with is a constrained choice, a puppetry democracy.
95% with you here. We are getting limited choices and they are being manipulated from the early stages of candidacy thru to actually holding office. I believe big money is running the show more than many want to admit. This has been the case for many decades - but it is probably getting worse.
Corporate Censorship: On the surface, it appears as a free speech issue. But the crux runs much deeper. Big tech platforms aren't just corporate entities; they're interwoven with government mechanisms. I could give example after example of this collusion, but this is already long enough. If you can't google it, I will provide evidence at your behest. This ability to shape narratives has profound implications. It's not about silencing a single opinion but curbing discourse and dictating the broader narrative. When voices advocating for systemic change or critiquing the overwhelming power of federal government and corporates are suppressed, we're not just dealing with the loss of freedom of speech. We're witnessing an erosion of our democratic agency. It's not just about muzzling voices; it's coercing narratives, ensuring that certain stories, certain truths, don't see the light of day. And when the line between corporation and state starts to blur, this coercion is amplified, eroding the very essence of free discourse. That's not freedom. Meh. Not buying it. The digital age is still in its infancy in the grand scheme of things and some of this [BLEEP] is going to get sorted as more and more uniformity will take hold. Limiting propaganda while allowing a threshold of politically charged content. I'm not seeing any erosion of American citizens' freedom resulting from media content. We are inundated relentlessly with a bunch of inane garbage, but I don't see anyone's freedom being disadvantaged at all. If anything - the opposite. Idiots worldwide have a voice.This is a good one to watch - but it hasn't screwed us yet. It just makes us wade through a cesspool if we choose to participate. You know, because of our freedom to make that decision. A decision many don't have available.
Suppression of American wealth generation: Owning a home is more than a piece of the American Dream; it's a ticket to economic stability and a crucial vehicle for wealth transfer across generations. But, with big firms making their mark on the housing market, homeownership rates have suffered, as highlighted by the U.S Census Bureau: from nearly 70% in the early 2000s to around 65% in 2020. It's gotten even worse these last couple years, but it's hard to delineate true homeownership from investors. Nearly 1 in 5 are bought by investors. It's not just about owning a property; it's about the economic foundation of future generations. That's just one example. I could say the same thing about several other industries: restaurants, banking, small business, etc. When corporations monopolize the housing market or when jobs are shipped overseas or run under by the power of big business and federal government, they indirectly necessitate certain economic choices. Suddenly, we're choosing not out of aspiration but out of need, navigating a landscape rigged against us. That reduced generational freedom. Cyclical examples of this exist across the decades And it will cycle again. Not an eroding freedom. A cycling market with limited resource growing more limited.
Skewed and Biased News Consumption: In today's digital age, the interplay between businesses and news coverage has reached an unprecedented scale. Large corporations, especially those in the tech sector, have gained significant control over the dissemination of news, largely due to the monopolistic grasp of platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter on the flow of information. Furthermore, as traditional news outlets face financial hardships, they're increasingly reliant on ad revenue from these tech giants, making them susceptible to self-censorship or skewed coverage to appease platform guidelines and advertiser preferences. Additionally, media conglomerates with various business interests can exert influence over editorial decisions, either subtly or overtly, leading to potential conflicts of interest. Not to mention the role the WEF and the WFA play in crafting the rules platforms need to follow to earn their dollars. These platforms utilize algorithms to curate and prioritize content, and these algorithms often favor sensationalism, engagement, or advertiser-friendly content over impartial and in-depth journalism. In essence, the commercial imperatives of businesses, combined with centralized technological control, have introduced biases and filters that impact the integrity and diversity of news available to the public. How does that not create constraints on the American public? How does the working man have time to stay abreast of this? If his news is biased, he's certainly constrained.
Total nothing burger. The "news" is a [BLEEP] show. It sucks. But hasn't taken my freedom.
I hope we can get back to some semblance of journalistic integrity - but it's bleak. Getting credible info is tougher - but it hasn't altered my freedom.
Speaking of the World Economic Forum (WEF), its advocacy for stakeholder capitalism is emblematic of this government/corporate merger. On paper, stakeholder capitalism sounds utopian: businesses should benefit all stakeholders, not just shareholders. But in practice? There's a gaping void. These stakeholders aren't elected representatives; they're elites or appointed by elites to execute their vision. The notion of a corporate global governance, one that operates without the checks and balances of elected representatives, is a far cry from our democratic ideals.
So, what's different since 1996? What freedoms have we lost? How can you not see it? Why do I have to waste my time explain this? you don't - you chose to - because "freedom" LOL
The gears of necessity, coercion, and constraint have been turning, gradually eroding the bedrock of American freedom. It's not just about rights on paper; it's about the lived experience of freedom in its truest sense. It's about the deconstruction of what's quintessentially American. The intertwined might of corporations and governments, the muzzling of dissent (not by peons like me or you, but those who actually ability contest the establishment), combined with the fading dream of homeownership, the barriers to entry for small businesses, and the inability to craft laws that favor the people... they all create a weight felt by many people in this country. I'm glad you don't feel it. It doesn't mean it's not there. It's not about left or right, but about safeguarding foundational American opportunity. That's freedom.
PS Marty. [BLEEP] you. Read my book, [BLEEP].
William Wallace was a little more to the point. Whatever.
I appreciate the effort.
It's not bad at all, some are obvious dynamics we've lived with for some time - and I only see one bullet point that may actually be an example of eroding freedom progressively over time (which I believe was where this started, no?)
Anyway, I found some common ground with you there, but we generally just don't agree about the boogieman behind the scenes and I feel I'm just as free as I was under those presidencies I've listed.
(08-11-2023, 08:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ](08-10-2023, 10:18 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I appreciate the effort.
It's not bad at all, some are obvious dynamics we've lived with for some time - and I only see one bullet point that may actually be an example of eroding freedom progressively over time (which I believe was where this started, no?)
Anyway, I found some common ground with you there, but we generally just don't agree about the boogieman behind the scenes and I feel I'm just as free as I was under those presidencies I've listed.
Those are not six individual points. Those are six interconnected points. Each one amplifies the other. Any of them, by themselves, do not necessarily undermine our freedom. On the one point, you said "it's always been like that." On the next, you said, "It was always going to be like that." Well, if you take them together instead of individually, you should be able to understand my broader argument. The changes to NAFTA took National corporations and made them global, which changed their goals, which changed how they used the powers of our federal government, which changed the way our tax dollars work for us. How much of our money goes overseas? Not only that, there is an important point I forgot to mention.
Consolidation of Power: The digital age catapulted tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon into overwhelming dominance, reshaping our roles as both consumers and products. This completely changed the way businesses gathered information and increased their ability to actualize profits. Following the 1996 Telecommunications Act, we witnessed a fusion in media industries and a surge in banking sector power, particularly after the 2008 crisis. All this resulted in mega-corporations that are able to enact their vision for the world at an unprecedented level.
Collectively, they are taking the toll on American liberty and opportunity in an unprecedented way. The shifting landscape post-NAFTA led to increased outsourcing, with businesses prioritizing international profits over domestic prosperity. This period also marked the rise of titans like Microsoft, Walmart, and Disney, who dwarfed their competition in a winner-takes-all market. Coupled with the decline of independent journalism and the rise of corporate media, the narrative surrounding public issues became increasingly homogenized. All the while, as stock markets soared, wage stagnation persisted for many Americans, further widening socio-economic disparities.
Global businesses have captured American government and make policies that do not favor Americans. They pick our politicians, amplify and suppress desire messaging, and they make policy that favors their ambitions. We have no say in what they do, and people who get a voice large enough can have that voice completely removed from the public sphere. This all results in less actual opportunity for the average American to generate wealth or compete in a fair arena.
I'm glad you don't feel it. That's a bit of an arrogant defense, don't you think?
(08-10-2023, 08:54 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ](08-10-2023, 02:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]L2L has met me in person, so, yes.
Did some big city democrat or RINO rape and murder your wife? Because they didn't rape and murder his.
Yeah, I met you in person, and you admitted that the size and scope of the federal government was increasing and there was a power transfer to the corporate sector, but you had "hope" that it would make something better. I don't share your naivety.
I am on this crusade because you guys are asleep at the wheel. You're not a Scottish army that knows you're in a fight. You're a bunch of lemmings that a following a narrative right to the edge of a cliff while chanting, "We have free agency!" I really shouldn't have to waste my time to lay out how we are losing our freedoms because it's obvious. The most frustrating part is that I know, even as I'm typing it, you are probably not going to acknowledge the truth of what follows, not because it's untrue, but because you want to believe that it's going to form something better. Just like our conversation we had that night. I hope you're right. Until then, let me oblige Marty and make this short.
I asked to define freedom so I could we could have a common frame of reference as I move forward. Grasping the essence of freedom as the 'absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action' is pivotal because it lays the foundation for assessing the subtle and overt ways in which our autonomy and agency are continually challenged in the modern era. It's going to seem like I am focusing on corporations, but the truth is that they have become inseparable from our federal government. I'll start there.
Federal Power and Regulatory Capture: The divide between corporate interests and state policy is rapidly blurring. Corporations, in many instances, are not just influencing but drafting the very policies intended to oversee them. When corporate interests define state policy, the American democratic framework is at risk. A 2014 Princeton study provided a bleak picture: policies favored by economic elites stand a solid chance of becoming law, while those representing the interests of the middle and lower classes? Almost none. The core finding was that when the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. Think about that for a second. This essentially suggests that if a policy is favored by the wealthy or by well-organized interest groups, you are likely going to get your way. Us? Near Zero. Your freedom of choice is an illusion.
Globalization of American Corporations: To make the above point worse, we need to look at how corporate values have changed. NAFTA opened the door to a global marketplace, and corporations walked through it. Brands like Apple, once viewed as American icons, have outsourced jobs for a global bottom line. The Economic Policy Institute's findings are damning: from 2001 to 2011, the U.S lost or displaced 3.4 million jobs to China. This isn't merely about lost jobs; it's about stagnating American advancement and a system that increasingly disenfranchises its own people. Furthermore, businesses are no longer bound to American values, but global ones. When you consider the capture of the American political system by global corporations who are writing their own policies, how can you not question how this affects American choice and opportunity? While you might say it's their right to do so, you can't also then argue that it's not limiting American growth.
Erosion of Political Capital: The lifeblood of a democracy is the vote of its people. However, the loud echo of big money is overshadowing this heartbeat. Take a look at the figures: campaign costs in 2020 exceeded $14 billion, a number the Center for Responsive Politics unearthed. This isn't a party issue; it's a challenge to the very bedrock of our democratic system. If your voice, your vote, is stifled by a surge of corporate cash, where does that leave the average American? Constraint comes alive in the dwindling power of individual votes. Political decisions increasingly veer toward the tunes of corporate songbirds. It's not just policy capture; it's a capture of democratic ethos. When the common American's voice is pushed to the background, what we're left with is a constrained choice, a puppetry democracy.
Corporate Censorship: On the surface, it appears as a free speech issue. But the crux runs much deeper. Big tech platforms aren't just corporate entities; they're interwoven with government mechanisms. I could give example after example of this collusion, but this is already long enough. If you can't google it, I will provide evidence at your behest. This ability to shape narratives has profound implications. It's not about silencing a single opinion but curbing discourse and dictating the broader narrative. When voices advocating for systemic change or critiquing the overwhelming power of federal government and corporates are suppressed, we're not just dealing with the loss of freedom of speech. We're witnessing an erosion of our democratic agency. It's not just about muzzling voices; it's coercing narratives, ensuring that certain stories, certain truths, don't see the light of day. And when the line between corporation and state starts to blur, this coercion is amplified, eroding the very essence of free discourse. That's not freedom.
Suppression of American wealth generation: Owning a home is more than a piece of the American Dream; it's a ticket to economic stability and a crucial vehicle for wealth transfer across generations. But, with big firms making their mark on the housing market, homeownership rates have suffered, as highlighted by the U.S Census Bureau: from nearly 70% in the early 2000s to around 65% in 2020. It's gotten even worse these last couple years, but it's hard to delineate true homeownership from investors. Nearly 1 in 5 are bought by investors. It's not just about owning a property; it's about the economic foundation of future generations. That's just one example. I could say the same thing about several other industries: restaurants, banking, small business, etc. When corporations monopolize the housing market or when jobs are shipped overseas or run under by the power of big business and federal government, they indirectly necessitate certain economic choices. Suddenly, we're choosing not out of aspiration but out of need, navigating a landscape rigged against us. That reduced generational freedom.
Skewed and Biased News Consumption: In today's digital age, the interplay between businesses and news coverage has reached an unprecedented scale. Large corporations, especially those in the tech sector, have gained significant control over the dissemination of news, largely due to the monopolistic grasp of platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter on the flow of information. Furthermore, as traditional news outlets face financial hardships, they're increasingly reliant on ad revenue from these tech giants, making them susceptible to self-censorship or skewed coverage to appease platform guidelines and advertiser preferences. Additionally, media conglomerates with various business interests can exert influence over editorial decisions, either subtly or overtly, leading to potential conflicts of interest. Not to mention the role the WEF and the WFA play in crafting the rules platforms need to follow to earn their dollars. These platforms utilize algorithms to curate and prioritize content, and these algorithms often favor sensationalism, engagement, or advertiser-friendly content over impartial and in-depth journalism. In essence, the commercial imperatives of businesses, combined with centralized technological control, have introduced biases and filters that impact the integrity and diversity of news available to the public. How does that not create constraints on the American public? How does the working man have time to stay abreast of this? If his news is biased, he's certainly constrained.
Speaking of the World Economic Forum (WEF), its advocacy for stakeholder capitalism is emblematic of this government/corporate merger. On paper, stakeholder capitalism sounds utopian: businesses should benefit all stakeholders, not just shareholders. But in practice? There's a gaping void. These stakeholders aren't elected representatives; they're elites or appointed by elites to execute their vision. The notion of a corporate global governance, one that operates without the checks and balances of elected representatives, is a far cry from our democratic ideals.
So, what's different since 1996? What freedoms have we lost? How can you not see it? Why do I have to waste my time explain this? The gears of necessity, coercion, and constraint have been turning, gradually eroding the bedrock of American freedom. It's not just about rights on paper; it's about the lived experience of freedom in its truest sense. It's about the deconstruction of what's quintessentially American. The intertwined might of corporations and governments, the muzzling of dissent (not by peons like me or you, but those who actually ability contest the establishment), combined with the fading dream of homeownership, the barriers to entry for small businesses, and the inability to craft laws that favor the people... they all create a weight felt by many people in this country. I'm glad you don't feel it. It doesn't mean it's not there. It's not about left or right, but about safeguarding foundational American opportunity. That's freedom.
PS Marty. [BLEEP] you. Read my book, [BLEEP].
William Wallace was a little more to the point. Whatever.
(08-11-2023, 08:25 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ](08-11-2023, 08:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Those are not six individual points. Those are six interconnected points. Each one amplifies the other. Any of them, by themselves, do not necessarily undermine our freedom. On the one point, you said "it's always been like that." On the next, you said, "It was always going to be like that." Well, if you take them together instead of individually, you should be able to understand my broader argument. The changes to NAFTA took National corporations and made them global, which changed their goals, which changed how they used the powers of our federal government, which changed the way our tax dollars work for us. How much of our money goes overseas? Not only that, there is an important point I forgot to mention.
Consolidation of Power: The digital age catapulted tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon into overwhelming dominance, reshaping our roles as both consumers and products. This completely changed the way businesses gathered information and increased their ability to actualize profits. Following the 1996 Telecommunications Act, we witnessed a fusion in media industries and a surge in banking sector power, particularly after the 2008 crisis. All this resulted in mega-corporations that are able to enact their vision for the world at an unprecedented level.
Collectively, they are taking the toll on American liberty and opportunity in an unprecedented way. The shifting landscape post-NAFTA led to increased outsourcing, with businesses prioritizing international profits over domestic prosperity. This period also marked the rise of titans like Microsoft, Walmart, and Disney, who dwarfed their competition in a winner-takes-all market. Coupled with the decline of independent journalism and the rise of corporate media, the narrative surrounding public issues became increasingly homogenized. All the while, as stock markets soared, wage stagnation persisted for many Americans, further widening socio-economic disparities.
Global businesses have captured American government and make policies that do not favor Americans. They pick our politicians, amplify and suppress desire messaging, and they make policy that favors their ambitions. We have no say in what they do, and people who get a voice large enough can have that voice completely removed from the public sphere. This all results in less actual opportunity for the average American to generate wealth or compete in a fair arena.
I'm glad you don't feel it. That's a bit of an arrogant defense, don't you think?
I'm not defending anything.
I don't need to.
Not sure what you are getting at there.
What is it you think I am defending exactly?
(08-11-2023, 09:02 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ](08-11-2023, 08:25 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not defending anything.
I don't need to.
Not sure what you are getting at there.
What is it you think I am defending exactly?
That was a response to this line in your previous post: I feel I'm just as free as I was under those presidencies I've listed.
I apologize if that was more of a throw away comment, but it came across as a defense of the status quo. I know you acknowledged some of what I posted, and I appreciate that, but that line you uttered is the crux of what I've been getting at lately. I believe the moderates are too comfortable to stand up to the real abuse of power that is happening in our government. I feel like they keep saying everything is fine while companies continue to consolidate their power, refine their messaging, and steal wealth and political capital from the American people.
The balance has skewed completely in favor of mega-corporations, resulting in less opportunity (which is the heart of independence). While I agree that many people are still comfortable, I don't believe this will be sustainable. Something will break, and it will disproportionately affect the poor and middle class. I think you can already see signs of it cracking.
![[Image: 20230811-113609.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxFpNMRy/20230811-113609.jpg)
(08-11-2023, 09:30 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]NYC4jags
(08-11-2023, 09:02 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]That was a response to this line in your previous post: I feel I'm just as free as I was under those presidencies I've listed.
I apologize if that was more of a throw away comment, but it came across as a defense of the status quo. I know you acknowledged some of what I posted, and I appreciate that, but that line you uttered is the crux of what I've been getting at lately. I believe the moderates are too comfortable to stand up to the real abuse of power that is happening in our government. I feel like they keep saying everything is fine while companies continue to consolidate their power, refine their messaging, and steal wealth and political capital from the American people.
The balance has skewed completely in favor of mega-corporations, resulting in less opportunity (which is the heart of independence). While I agree that many people are still comfortable, I don't believe this will be sustainable. Something will break, and it will disproportionately affect the poor and middle class. I think you can already see signs of it cracking.
I personally AM just as free as I was under those presidencies.
I am.
I'm not defending it - because there is zero debate.
Now, whether or not we, as a people are losing ground to big money influence and the various shadow entities you attribute to steering laws and regulations, well, that still remains to be seen.
Like so many of our dialogue it ends with you being certain about things which you cannot prove.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you you are definitely wrong.
I'm an arrogant prick, but I draw the line somewhere. LOL
But as of now, several of your assertions about these powers influencing gov and taking our freedoms are not verifiable.
BTW - "you guys are blind" and "how can you not see it" and "why am I wasting my time" don't make the case any stronger.
(08-11-2023, 09:00 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ](08-10-2023, 08:54 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I met you in person, and you admitted that the size and scope of the federal government was increasing and there was a power transfer to the corporate sector, but you had "hope" that it would make something better. I don't share your naivety.
I am on this crusade because you guys are asleep at the wheel. You're not a Scottish army that knows you're in a fight. You're a bunch of lemmings that a following a narrative right to the edge of a cliff while chanting, "We have free agency!" I really shouldn't have to waste my time to lay out how we are losing our freedoms because it's obvious. The most frustrating part is that I know, even as I'm typing it, you are probably not going to acknowledge the truth of what follows, not because it's untrue, but because you want to believe that it's going to form something better. Just like our conversation we had that night. I hope you're right. Until then, let me oblige Marty and make this short.
I asked to define freedom so I could we could have a common frame of reference as I move forward. Grasping the essence of freedom as the 'absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action' is pivotal because it lays the foundation for assessing the subtle and overt ways in which our autonomy and agency are continually challenged in the modern era. It's going to seem like I am focusing on corporations, but the truth is that they have become inseparable from our federal government. I'll start there.
Federal Power and Regulatory Capture: The divide between corporate interests and state policy is rapidly blurring. Corporations, in many instances, are not just influencing but drafting the very policies intended to oversee them. When corporate interests define state policy, the American democratic framework is at risk. A 2014 Princeton study provided a bleak picture: policies favored by economic elites stand a solid chance of becoming law, while those representing the interests of the middle and lower classes? Almost none. The core finding was that when the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. Think about that for a second. This essentially suggests that if a policy is favored by the wealthy or by well-organized interest groups, you are likely going to get your way. Us? Near Zero. Your freedom of choice is an illusion.
Globalization of American Corporations: To make the above point worse, we need to look at how corporate values have changed. NAFTA opened the door to a global marketplace, and corporations walked through it. Brands like Apple, once viewed as American icons, have outsourced jobs for a global bottom line. The Economic Policy Institute's findings are damning: from 2001 to 2011, the U.S lost or displaced 3.4 million jobs to China. This isn't merely about lost jobs; it's about stagnating American advancement and a system that increasingly disenfranchises its own people. Furthermore, businesses are no longer bound to American values, but global ones. When you consider the capture of the American political system by global corporations who are writing their own policies, how can you not question how this affects American choice and opportunity? While you might say it's their right to do so, you can't also then argue that it's not limiting American growth.
Erosion of Political Capital: The lifeblood of a democracy is the vote of its people. However, the loud echo of big money is overshadowing this heartbeat. Take a look at the figures: campaign costs in 2020 exceeded $14 billion, a number the Center for Responsive Politics unearthed. This isn't a party issue; it's a challenge to the very bedrock of our democratic system. If your voice, your vote, is stifled by a surge of corporate cash, where does that leave the average American? Constraint comes alive in the dwindling power of individual votes. Political decisions increasingly veer toward the tunes of corporate songbirds. It's not just policy capture; it's a capture of democratic ethos. When the common American's voice is pushed to the background, what we're left with is a constrained choice, a puppetry democracy.
Corporate Censorship: On the surface, it appears as a free speech issue. But the crux runs much deeper. Big tech platforms aren't just corporate entities; they're interwoven with government mechanisms. I could give example after example of this collusion, but this is already long enough. If you can't google it, I will provide evidence at your behest. This ability to shape narratives has profound implications. It's not about silencing a single opinion but curbing discourse and dictating the broader narrative. When voices advocating for systemic change or critiquing the overwhelming power of federal government and corporates are suppressed, we're not just dealing with the loss of freedom of speech. We're witnessing an erosion of our democratic agency. It's not just about muzzling voices; it's coercing narratives, ensuring that certain stories, certain truths, don't see the light of day. And when the line between corporation and state starts to blur, this coercion is amplified, eroding the very essence of free discourse. That's not freedom.
Suppression of American wealth generation: Owning a home is more than a piece of the American Dream; it's a ticket to economic stability and a crucial vehicle for wealth transfer across generations. But, with big firms making their mark on the housing market, homeownership rates have suffered, as highlighted by the U.S Census Bureau: from nearly 70% in the early 2000s to around 65% in 2020. It's gotten even worse these last couple years, but it's hard to delineate true homeownership from investors. Nearly 1 in 5 are bought by investors. It's not just about owning a property; it's about the economic foundation of future generations. That's just one example. I could say the same thing about several other industries: restaurants, banking, small business, etc. When corporations monopolize the housing market or when jobs are shipped overseas or run under by the power of big business and federal government, they indirectly necessitate certain economic choices. Suddenly, we're choosing not out of aspiration but out of need, navigating a landscape rigged against us. That reduced generational freedom.
Skewed and Biased News Consumption: In today's digital age, the interplay between businesses and news coverage has reached an unprecedented scale. Large corporations, especially those in the tech sector, have gained significant control over the dissemination of news, largely due to the monopolistic grasp of platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter on the flow of information. Furthermore, as traditional news outlets face financial hardships, they're increasingly reliant on ad revenue from these tech giants, making them susceptible to self-censorship or skewed coverage to appease platform guidelines and advertiser preferences. Additionally, media conglomerates with various business interests can exert influence over editorial decisions, either subtly or overtly, leading to potential conflicts of interest. Not to mention the role the WEF and the WFA play in crafting the rules platforms need to follow to earn their dollars. These platforms utilize algorithms to curate and prioritize content, and these algorithms often favor sensationalism, engagement, or advertiser-friendly content over impartial and in-depth journalism. In essence, the commercial imperatives of businesses, combined with centralized technological control, have introduced biases and filters that impact the integrity and diversity of news available to the public. How does that not create constraints on the American public? How does the working man have time to stay abreast of this? If his news is biased, he's certainly constrained.
Speaking of the World Economic Forum (WEF), its advocacy for stakeholder capitalism is emblematic of this government/corporate merger. On paper, stakeholder capitalism sounds utopian: businesses should benefit all stakeholders, not just shareholders. But in practice? There's a gaping void. These stakeholders aren't elected representatives; they're elites or appointed by elites to execute their vision. The notion of a corporate global governance, one that operates without the checks and balances of elected representatives, is a far cry from our democratic ideals.
So, what's different since 1996? What freedoms have we lost? How can you not see it? Why do I have to waste my time explain this? The gears of necessity, coercion, and constraint have been turning, gradually eroding the bedrock of American freedom. It's not just about rights on paper; it's about the lived experience of freedom in its truest sense. It's about the deconstruction of what's quintessentially American. The intertwined might of corporations and governments, the muzzling of dissent (not by peons like me or you, but those who actually ability contest the establishment), combined with the fading dream of homeownership, the barriers to entry for small businesses, and the inability to craft laws that favor the people... they all create a weight felt by many people in this country. I'm glad you don't feel it. It doesn't mean it's not there. It's not about left or right, but about safeguarding foundational American opportunity. That's freedom.
PS Marty. [BLEEP] you. Read my book, [BLEEP].
William Wallace was a little more to the point. Whatever.
You say I'm asleep at the wheel, but I'm not. I know about all of this. Most of what you cite has been going on for a very long time, hundreds of years, thousands of years. You act like this is all new, something you've discovered, but it's not new. Rich people have always had more power than poorer people. ALWAYS. Big businesses have always had political power. ALWAYS. Biased news consumption? We have ALWAYS had that. Look at the 1800 Presidential election, or the yellow journalism that led us into the Spanish-American War. We have ALWAYS had biased news. As for globalization, I am FOR it. It's BENEFITS me. And I would submit, it benefits most of us. The WEF? Organizations like that have been spouting hot air for a thousand years. Suppression of wealth generation? There has never been a time when it was easier for a smart, disciplined person to generate wealth.
I haven't seen my personal freedom eroded one iota. I am better off now, and freer now, than ever. No one is stopping me from saying what I want to say, no one is stopping me from doing what I want to do. And there are more ways for me to say what I want to say, and do what I want to do, than ever.
(08-11-2023, 12:05 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ](08-11-2023, 09:30 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]NYC4jags
I personally AM just as free as I was under those presidencies.
I am.
I'm not defending it - because there is zero debate.
Now, whether or not we, as a people are losing ground to big money influence and the various shadow entities you attribute to steering laws and regulations, well, that still remains to be seen.
Like so many of our dialogue it ends with you being certain about things which you cannot prove.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you you are definitely wrong.
I'm an arrogant prick, but I draw the line somewhere. LOL
But as of now, several of your assertions about these powers influencing gov and taking our freedoms are not verifiable.
BTW - "you guys are blind" and "how can you not see it" and "why am I wasting my time" don't make the case any stronger.
Fair enough. I have a strong background in this stuff. I've been around it. It's an enjoyable hobby. I've had lots of free time to pursue it when I was a stay-at-home dad. I spent more time than I care to admit reading about progressive philosophy particularly. I care about the literature, both scientific and philosophical. The light started going on for me a few years back, and it all seems so obvious now. It's borderline maddening that other people can't see it... like one of those little pictures we used to stare at at the mall until something started to show up. I probably am too quick to get frustrated at times.
I'm just saying this to give you insight to an outside perspective, no to be a jerk, but the bolded (to a guy like me) just reads like you went down the rabbit hole and developed a paranoia while you were down there. I get that you learned a lot in the process. You're obviously well read on the topic. Not trying to diminish that.
It gets frustrating to argue in good faith and have people skim past the most important parts in pursuit of a talking point. It creates more work for me, and, quite frankly, it's often easier or more fulfilling just to be condescending to the people who aren't getting it. What good is it to argue in good faith if people genuinely don't try to understand the argument? Sometimes it's easier just to tell them they are blind. My bad.
All good. FWIW - I'm usually not skimming past anything. Often - the bits I refute often correlate to some of the bits you may assume I've skimmed - and in my mind don't require the attention as refuting one negates the other.
Sometimes I don't address points you may have considered integral because I sometimes they seem ridiculous, or I have already addressed it in a prior thread or convo, or finally - just don't have the time to open the can of worms (as we touched on yesterday I think) I'm not trying to rob your counterpoint of its thunder or anything.
Honestly, I am not immune from that type of ignorance. I can list several of my previous beliefs that have shattered one by one, but I wouldn't have been able to admit that at the time. Occupy Wall Street was right, kind of. No blood for oil was right. Kind of. Republicans (generally speaking) do not care about creating opportunities for the individual. Kind of. In the moment when we were having these arguments (the left and the right), could anyone indisputably prove they were right? History verified it, but, imo, the left was appropriately making the right calls and I couldn't see it. I'm glad you've decided to vote for Bernie Sanders.
Well-meaning people, like me or you or Marty, have a difficult time adapting our worldview in real time. It's like we get stuck in a paradigm that is incapable of being shifted without some kind of radical event that shatters the previous worldview (I mean, this is basic psychology, but it's still weird to see). This can only be done by constantly questioning your belief system or waiting long enough until something shatters your paradigm.
(09-02-2023, 12:40 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/stat...eGPqg&s=19
Interesting..
(09-02-2023, 12:59 PM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ](09-02-2023, 12:40 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/stat...eGPqg&s=19
Interesting..
What does “dressed like a federal agent” even mean? Seems like that’s pretty presumptuous. I suppose he must have been dressed like the guy on the grassy knoll.
(09-02-2023, 04:51 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ](09-02-2023, 12:59 PM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ]What does “dressed like a federal agent” even mean? Seems like that’s pretty presumptuous. I suppose he must have been dressed like the guy on the grassy knoll.
Except, it didn't say "dressed like a federal agent" in the initial part of the tweet, it said "a man wearing an earpiece". Later it said "a man dressed like a government agent". It's probably assumed that a man wearing black with an earpiece was most likely a government agent.
In the video, people are heard saying "do not go in there", yet this guy seems to encourage it.
To me it looks like a case of entrapment.
![[Image: _128245668_pb2.jpg]](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1527E/production/_128245668_pb2.jpg)
(09-09-2023, 10:30 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... look at all those white ear pieces. Also, there were lots of informants embedded in those groups. That's from the trials. I know the MSM doesn't talk about it, but facts is facts.
(09-09-2023, 10:30 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... look at all those white ear pieces. Also, there were lots of informants embedded in those groups. That's from the trials. I know the MSM doesn't talk about it, but facts is facts.