(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.

I addressed this, Marty. Those aren't individual points. They are points that build on one another. I know these things have occurred in the past, but not with the same scale, power, and focus.

Big Businesses had political power. Sure. We're not talking about the same scale, though. Fewer firms hold more market share than ever before. With the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, merger and acquisition activity has increased considerably. The practice of buying up competitors has increased. In recent years, there's been a stealthy trend where large corporations acquire smaller, often family-owned, businesses, yet maintain their original branding and façade. To the average consumer, it appears as if they're supporting a local "mom and pop" establishment, when in reality, they're funneling money into the coffers of a major conglomerate. Just more illusion of choice that enables the monopolistic hold of big businesses. Such practices not only stifle true competition but also erode the genuine benefits mom and pops offer to their local communities without the concern and care for the welfare of their employees.

Bias has been in the news. Sure. C'mon dude. You think bias is the same when news was decentralized? Over the past few decades, the U.S. media landscape has experienced marked consolidation, with a dwindling number of corporations gaining increased control over media outlets. Sparked by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which aimed for more competition but led to media mergers, by 2012, just six corporations controlled 90% of the media, down from 50 in 1983. This concentration means entities like Comcast, AT&T, Disney, ViacomCBS, and Fox now dominate most of what Americans consume. Bias is not regionalized. It's federalized and MUCH easier to control.

Globalization? Glad it benefits you, Marty. Way to see the big picture. It definitely made products cheaper. It's also almost single-handedly responsible for our new cold war with China. It also means that global corporations don't care about Americans. Driven by profit motives, many outsourced jobs to countries with cheaper labor, causing domestic job losses especially in manufacturing sectors. Communities once thriving on local industries found themselves economically devastated. Moreover, as global corporations increasingly influence narratives and market dynamics, there's a tangible shift away from catering to American middle-class interests towards global elite interests. We could literally have a civil war in this country, and these businesses would just move to the next best economic sectors and set up shop. Oh, they'd sell us weapons on the cheap, and they'd be there to help us "rebuild," so long as they can milk our government for cash. These are not the types of businesses you want running our country. There's no investment.

---