Revolution in Colorado

Originally posted by normbenign

I've worked in union shops as a temp, and in a day or two was outproducing the union drones. That made me a pariah, but impressing jerks has never been high on my priority list.

What is the value of these anecdotes? How well are they founded in evidence and how typical are they of the wider picture? They are meaningless.

Between 1947 and 1979 productivity in the US rose by 119% and the income of the bottom fifth of the population rose by 122%. Between 1979 and 2009 productivity rose 80% but the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly that period the income of the top 1% rose by 270%. [In the UK the income of the poorest tenth fell by 12% between 1979 and 2009, while the money ade by the richest tenth rose by 37%.]

Originally posted by normbenign
If Fox News and MSNBC are biased, both get an equal chance to promote their ideas. The trouble with well funded public broadcasters is that they aren't necessarily more even handed than either of those others mentioned.

The Soviets had State funded media, but who would argue that gave Soviet citizens fair and balanced coverage? A State funded media has a problem remaining independent.

Okay. Give me a clear example of the BBC supporting Tory policies.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Corporate profits are at an all time high, so your theory is at odds with reality. In addition, the work force is more educated now then it has ever been. Yet you keep blaming the victims of a failed system rather than the system itself.

Unemployment is endemic in this system, blaming that on the unemployed is insane.

"Corporate profits are at an all time high, so your theory is at odds with reality. In addition, the work force is more educated now then it has ever been."

Market volatility, and a government with expressed unfriendliness to corporate business, in fact business in general, makes business cautious. Perhaps government will not be so quick to bail out non union businesses as they were those in the recent past. As to education, a great many college educated people are not qualified to do any kind of productive work. Look over any university menu, and you'll find a host of "fluff" coursework not only for the football and basketball team, but for anyone who wants to graduate easily, party hearty with passing grades.

Unemployment was not endemic to the system during most of the Bush, Clinton and Bush administrations.

By the way did you have trouble answering my question which I will repeat here?
"What do you suppose the single most influential factor in cultural and industrial development is?"

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I listen to NPR every morning and I have found it to be very fair and ballanced. In fact they throw out all of the garbage that makes cable news garbage. That perpetual state of trying to drum up soap opera style drama instead of just reporting the facts.

There's a distinct difference between publicly funded broadcasting and state run media outlets in dictatorial countries who control the content by force.

Somehow I think fair and balanced to you equals favorable to your views.

"There's a distinct difference between publicly funded broadcasting and state run media outlets in dictatorial countries who control the content by force."

As long as there are private sources of news, the public one is disciplined to be objective to some extent. If alone, it becomes Pravda.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If your work output is as worthless as your posts here, I can't imagine you ever had to worry about impressing anyone.

That's all you've got. Ran out of steam. A libertarian who favors statist controls and central planning. An advocate of natural rights who is obsessed with collectivism. You are a confused person, and one day if you recover you may thank me.

Originally posted by finnegan
Last year's US Supreme Court ruling allows companies to give unlimited sums to their chosen candidates without disclosure.

Charles Koch has already described next year's presidential contest as "The Mother of All Wars."

Great , so David and Charles Koch, worth $25bn each, have now given more than $100m to Rightwing causes from think groups through t ...[text shortened]... d they have the money and the resources to drown out rational debate or critical thinking.

The wealthy are on both sides of the political spectrum.

Originally posted by finnegan
What is the value of these anecdotes? How well are they founded in evidence and how typical are they of the wider picture? They are meaningless.

Between 1947 and 1979 productivity in the US rose by 119% and the income of the bottom fifth of the population rose by 122%. Between 1979 and 2009 productivity rose 80% but the income of the bottom fifth fell b ...[text shortened]... tenth fell by 12% between 1979 and 2009, while the money ade by the richest tenth rose by 37%.]

Is that supposed to indicate that the top's increase was at the expense of or connected directly to the bottom's failure?

You know that is about as scientific as my anecdotes.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Okay. Give me a clear example of the BBC supporting Tory policies.

I don't get much BBC where I live, but most of their video productions are supportive of leftist issues.

Originally posted by normbenign
That's all you've got. Ran out of steam. A libertarian who favors statist controls and central planning. An advocate of natural rights who is obsessed with collectivism. You are a confused person, and one day if you recover you may thank me.

I think you are the one who is obsessed.

What is natural for human beings has nothing to do with your Randian, selfish, hermit based principles. We are social creatures and the type of philosophy you espouse is anathema to any type of Natural Law I ever heard of.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think you are the one who is obsessed.

What is natural for human beings has nothing to do with your Randian, selfish, hermit based principles. We are social creatures and the type of philosophy you espouse is anathema to any type of Natural Law I ever heard of.

There is nothing hermit based in objective philosophy. Selfishness is a human trait, just as socializing is. The two are not mutually exclusive. Cooperation, voluntary association and mutually beneficial trade are both selfish and social.

Originally posted by normbenign
I don't get much BBC where I live, but most of their video productions are supportive of leftist issues.

I don't get much BBC where I live

and yet you seem very knowledgeable of its bias, were you basing your analysis on what you ignorantly assume the BBC reportage is like instead of what it actually is?

but most of their video productions are supportive of leftist issues.

The UK has been governed by a Conservative-led coalition for some time now, would you been inclined to accept that perhaps the government does not then project its own ideology onto the BBC as vigorously as you originally implied?

What specific leftist causes has the BBC been advocating?

Originally posted by normbenign
I don't get much BBC where I live, but most of their video productions are supportive of leftist issues.

I see. And you believe the Tories are "leftist". Got it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Okay. Give me a clear example of the BBC supporting Tory policies.

The BBC as such does not support any party policies and would be in breach of its charters if it were to do so. Both Labour and Tory governments have from time to time made official complaints of bias which did not stand up to scrutiny.

BBC news and current affairs is balanced and visibly ensures every argument has a voice for the other side. In particular, that the Government always gets to give a response. Sometimes they are so keen to be balanced they drive us potty - some arguments do not deserve to be given airtime.

The Tory Government gets massive airtime. For example, we hear all the time what Cameron has to say about the current Euro crisis, as though his opinions (even his voice) were of interest to anybody.

Some argue that the BBC has a broadly liberal or even Left bias in its documentaries but that I am afraid also collapses under scrutiny.

What is true is that programmes which are intended and clearly show that they present a particular point of view are aired. The alternative owuld be anodine, pallid tedious waffle.

What is also true is that the BBC sees part of its role being to question and challenge government in every area. That is called scrutiny. It has been directed again at both Labour and Tory governments.

One special problem the Tories tend to have is that their claims do not stand up to serious scrutiny in so many policy areas. For example their claim that the NHS fails to achieve acceptable standards in cancer care are found to be contrary to evidence, their claims of excessive costs are contrary to the evidence, their claims of failure to improve are contrary to the evidence. Tories talk nonsense and need scrutiny or they would take us away with the fairies.

Maybe Americans are just not use to public service broadcasting that asks serious questions and views every side of a debate instead of reaffirming stupid prejudice day after day. Certainly the biggest enemy of the BBC is the Murdoch family.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. And you believe the Tories are "leftist". Got it.

First, I don't know where the idea that I specifically had any particular evaluation of the BBC comes from. My comment was that in general, any State sponsored media would tend to be less independent than for profit private networks and newspapers. Eventually, it would tend to reflect the government in power.

You can get whatever you want, even if it isn't what I said. That doesn't get you very far. Do you really believe that government media is likely to be as independent as private media.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]I don't get much BBC where I live

and yet you seem very knowledgeable of its bias, were you basing your analysis on what you ignorantly assume the BBC reportage is like instead of what it actually is?

but most of their video productions are supportive of leftist issues.

The UK has been governed by a Conservative-led coalition for ...[text shortened]... orously as you originally implied?

What specific leftist causes has the BBC been advocating?[/b]

'Scuse me. I don't know where I claimed any knowledge of BBC, in fact the quote you make says exactly the opposite.

I've seen a number of BBC productions advocating global warming, mildly anticapitalist stuff, and animal rights.

I simply prefer a free, non governmental press.