Archive for the Economics Category

Davos & The Green Swan 2020

Posted in Climate Change, Commercial Corporations, Economics, news, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 22, 2020 by Drogo

2020 Summary of a ‘Yahoo Finance’ article about the next crash

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) central bank said in a paper titled “The Green Swan” that climate-related events could be the source of the next financial crisis. The increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events could trigger non-linear and irreversible financial losses. In turn, the immediate and system-wide transition required to fight climate change could have far-reaching effects potentially affecting every single agent in the economy and every single asset price.

In last week’s run-up to Davos, at least two Wall Street banks chimed in on how climate change alters the conversation around what economic growth can be and how policymakers should pursue this end. “Debt, inequality and environmental damage are major issues for growth sustainability,” said economists at Deutsche Bank in a note last week. “However, one could argue that the first two are cyclical whereas the third is potentially structural.” Deutsche Bank adds that, “The problem for the environmental lobby is that a world without economic growth may create a damaging backlash against such climate policies. Nevertheless, the problem with the status quo is that the irreversible damage to our planet will increase.”

On the one hand, modern civilization is screwed. On the other hand, modern civilization is screwed.

See ‘Why Economists Worry’ By Myles Udland, reporter and co-anchor of The Final Round. January 22, 2020

May we declare Peace more than War

Posted in Cooperative collaboration, Ethics & Morals, Military, news, relationships, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 9, 2020 by Drogo

May we declare Peace more than War.

This is our SCOD prayer for 2020.

Most times any first world government declares war, it is MIC propaganda based to benefit war profiteers not the people of the country. People don’t learn from history enough to fix the cultural instincts that allow leaders to lead us into wars. It is not brave to constantly threaten others; bad neighbors do that all the time when they do not take time to communicate in good ways. We would have more peace if we were not so quick to be fooled by greedy rich people who profit from war. We do not have more peace or freedom declaring constant war against natives in other countries, as more of our poor are forced to live under martial law to pay their debts. We can barely sustain the peace and freedom we have by selling out ethically and economically to the MIC, because they want our money for health care and infrastructure and arts to pay for their military industrial products. We need to fix our own countries from within, not try to change everyone else’s country for us.

Fuck war hawks 007-style, no more lies for war. Take some time to think about what peace is everyday, and if you can’t then fuck yourself. It is easy to be stupid about things we do not study, in both war and peace.

Trump killing the Iran general was stupid because 1. We need to declare peace and get our military out of the middle east, which that general was helping to do. 2. We need to let Iran continue to fight ISIL, as that general was best known for fighting terrorists. 3. Declaring war based on lies will be added to all the other times our MIC lied us into endless wars. 4. The Iraq leaders we put in power are pissed at us now, and that general never attacked our military or civilians (maybe a mercenary was killed is the most i have heard). 5. This may force Iran to pursue a nuclear program like North Korea to deter our aggression in their area (Wilkerson’s main concern).

Imagine if Russia just bombed a Mexican airport to kill one of our generals who was trying to solve the immigration crisis. How would we take it? Is that behavior acceptable? The “quagmire” of our involvement in endless war in the middle east has a long and twisted history. Our CIA and Pentagon have been working against both Iran and Iraq for years. In modern history our CIA overthrew the Iranian government and supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war; then we went to war with Iraq twice. 

“The 1953 Iranian ’28 Mordad’ coup d’état was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi; orchestrated by the US (Operation Ajax) and the UK (Operation Boot). After the 1968 Ba’athist coup Iraq fell into the Soviet sphere of influence, so the CIA colluded with Iran to destabilize Iraq by arming Kurdish rebels. Beginning in 1982, the CIA began providing Iraq intelligence during the Iran–Iraq War. Donald Rumsfeld met Saddām in 1983 and 1984, when the UN reported that Iraq had used chemical attacks against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported that “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name. In 1984, the CIA “established a formal intelligence liaison” with the Mukhabarat, which provided the CIA with information on terrorist groups including the Abu Nidal Organization. However, there was a delay between the CIA’s provision of intelligence to the Mukhabarat and that intelligence being received and analyzed by the Iraqi military, which resulted in much of it not being actionable. Therefore, the CIA eventually began working directly with Iraqi military intelligence, thereby negating its leverage on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism. In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the US learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. US intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. The CIA was also involved in the failed 1996 coup against Saddam Hussein.” – Wikipedia

“It’s a pity both sides can’t lose (commenting on Iran-Iraq war, 1980 – 1988)” ― Henry Kissinger

It is not isolationist to declare peace and work both internally and together, it is humanist.


Response to ‘May we Declare peace more than war” –

“But… in order to “declare peace” don’t you first have to have war? #pedantic (beamer)

In the most common black or white sense, yes. But others can declare war, while others sue for peace. so for example 2 sides declare mutual war, and a third mediator like Picard or Druids can declare Peace, and in fact must to force negotiations. but yes the war declarations still exist previously in the standard definition types.

However the issue of having to declare war seems to take for granted that we are always in peace, like during long cold wars where tensions are called war, one side could declare peace with signs and gifts of good will more often than is currently standard practice perhaps. whether we need to have the other to declare the other, depends on the “state” condition perspective.

To me the role reversal that questions the nature of war and peace, is “peace has broken out”! Qhile ceasefires and treaties have been celebrated as declarations of peace, we rarely hear that peace has broken out, only war breaks out, so peace is more like a purgatory reality (war being hell) instead of a paradise reality.

The monty python use of “peace has broken out” got me questioning the use of the term peace more as a news announcement. Since i began studying Roman history i always wondered about the Pax Romana architecture celebrations after military victories, as really being celebrations of aggressive authority peace keeping by violent wars.

Peace being used as a default ignores the threat and actions of violence by authority who are the ‘peace keepers’ and can initiate violence which can be blamed on the rebels or poor who are homeless and loitering. so to me peace could break out on a calm street in nazi germany for example; where it was business as usual with no immediate violence, but suddenly people were nicer and giving flowers and the police threw away their weapons. this ridiculous example would be ‘peace breaking out on an otherwise mundane busy day’; now whether peace is more calm or active is another question too.


“Battles are being fought today in the shadow of impending peace looming over the battle fields like some grim specter of gentleness and caring.” – Beamer

Trumpian Economic Report 2020

Posted in Book Reports, Cartoon Comics, Commercial Corporations, Cooperative collaboration, Crafts, Critical Commentary of Civilization, jobs, Legal / Laws, Multimedia Communication, news, Organic Development, portraits, relationships, Services, Sales or Trade, Society Clubs or Social Groups, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on December 31, 2019 by Drogo

Artisan Vs. Commercial Market Selling

By Drogo Empedocles – January 2020

In a Trumpian economy most of us are forced to be beggars even when we offer work in return for money, due to an excess of labor not needed or desired by the rich. Trickle-down Reaganomics has failed us, and is still being pushed on us by Trump and all corporate politicians who sold out. We must resist falling to the attacks causing the destruction of our lives and plan to not just survive but rebuild a better world for our children.

Trump’s tax plan benefits the rich, and diminishes the middle class. The estate tax is gone now so that rich children can inherit all their parent’s wealth freely without earning it, while poor children suffer without deserving it. Personal exemptions have been removed. You can still itemize donations, but the standard deduction bar was raised with an overall .5% tax rate reduction. Those basic changes might negligibly benefit lower incomes, but average to upper middle class households are losing thousands on whole due to other changes in the tax plan.

I lost some financial support despite my working through the holidays on several projects. I won’t be able to do as much free or low-budget work with others, until i can secure more income to cover my own expenses at least. my income is only $700 a year recently, so i feel like i get by with quite a little actually. I only currently use one sound program most weeks, and focus on word (writing) programs, which have glitches between formats, but i am able to publish that way. So for over a year i have only been using two editing programs.

Most people should know that any work has a price; and so my work is for sale, as with any artist; we need means to live so we try to sell prints and originals if we can. If people do not know how to want to share money with others, i am not sure how i can help them except to remind them by bringing it up sometimes. I focus on my work more than sales, because i do it for the work not the sales. If i am asked to be more of a sales person i would not do it. i dont know if stating that i will keep doing my own work the way i want no matter what will reduce interest in investing in me or increase it long term; but i really do not see many options to sustain my career legacy. I may get some temporary side jobs like working for Census, but even if i got a huge increase in income what matters to me is what is created with what i have ultimately.

SCOD social capital has increased overall i believe, which is hard to define since it is not income based. I am close to founding a tristate network for hosting art, music, and writing events; but the design is mostly socially dependent, using properties in WV, MD, and VA. The financial components like ticket sales and payments are totally based on how many people i can get to coordinate together. we currently have several proposals still being formed, for multimedia broadcasting and sharing local events, i can pursue these negotiations without financial losses. ive felt on the verge of something big over the years, but i never know when the tipping point will come because … and this is the hard part to talk about, the complex dynamics of partnerships.

I am proud to ‘beg’ with something of quality to offer in return. When you buy my work, you support many other people; because I collaborate with and buy from other artists and friends. To anyone that thinks I am begging by being honest that I do not earn much, I argue that bragging about how good your work is and saying you have been ‘financially successful’ by taking more than you need is worse than begging because to me that could be considered just as unworthy of support. Getting money from other people is not proof of deserving money, it is simply how people pay their bills. Also I am not just begging because I offer plenty of services and products in various fields. I am simply saying why I could use more income, as opposed to those who do not need more for basic living. I have many jobs, and i do them. I tend to give things away for free and make reasonable deals to work with lower income people.  I apply to better paying jobs, but I do not get them, and when i have had them before i cannot keep them for psychological reasons, one being i cannot stand authoritarian control because i desire to fight back against bosses the same as I would with any willful cruel or ignorant jackass; but when we trade self-respect for money we suppress our resentment which can fester and build to a break-down or illness.

I will not spend time defending myself by arguing against assholes, they are not worth my time. I am too expensive for them because they cannot pay me enough to work for them, and it is easy enough to block them and delete their petty comments. Their attempts to troll me are pathetic when i can shut them down easily. It is amazing that people will ‘friend’ me only to wait for chances to attack, without ever once being kind.  These are the type of people that would tell homeless street musicians to “get a job” too.

If fees are low enough with time i can advertise more without major losses on more websites; in hopes to get at least a few sales. Social reception is usually less than enthusiastic on a whole from audiences on platforms. Amazon is the best example ive had because ive been using it for years, i struggle to get a few sales a year even when i post the links and talk about them etc. I know it is not because my books are not as good as ‘Diary of a Whimpy Kid’ or ‘Captain Underpants’ which are best sellers, it has to do with commercial control of the market at the high levels. I mean sure we could argue whose art or story sucks more, but with enough exposure anti-authoritarian subversive books like ours do well with children and ne’er-do-wellz, which are a large portion of the population.

Ironically most of the people who buy my books are part of the vanishing middle class; not the lowest or the highest earning. There are more lower middle class people so they do buy more books, compared to the few upper middle class people who are interested in my books. I have had people with large incomes talk with me for hours, and i gave them books and they still did not buy any, so spending money has more to do with personalities than wealth; which is why those with less wealth will spend more if they have an income, which creates financial flow and opportunities in an economy.

All of these opinions of observations are reasons why many of us are not satisfied with status-quo commercial politics. We want more leaders like Bernie Sanders and progressives on the right or left who can be held to account by their voters who are also the majority of their campaign financing. We cannot afford allowing corporate sell-outs to further rig our own economy, environment, and country against us.

[ see also Lucas Chancel, World Inequality Lab ]


Online Musical Appreciation

Posted in Cooperative collaboration, Crafts, Creativity / Imagination, Critical Commentary of Civilization, Ethics & Morals, Multimedia Communication, POB Audio, Recommendations & Tributes, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 27, 2019 by Drogo

I do not know why comments on my Soundcloud account are supportive, and comments on Audiomack tend to be lame, but that is the difference in the platform community i guess. Hopefully more creative and kind collaborators will join Audiomack, so competitive jerks can get pushed off. Most serious good musicians know how to treat other players regardless of talent, but like any other genre extreme fans (or those without fans of their own) get nasty because as consumers they want to be expert judges on ‘what is good and what is bad’. When people call your original creation (which is always a collage blend of influences to various degrees) bad, let us hope for the sake of humanity that someone else finds something good about you; because art is personal expression.

I am not a professional musician because i do not get paid, although i frequently practice aka play. That being said I think we can cheer on our favorites, without being terrible people to those who we do not like as much. Maturity takes time, and not everyone will be able to respect the feelings of others as much as we might like; but know I have improved from the days when I attacked everything I did not like by insulting people who did like those things. Now I try to limit my aggression to the most important issues, and only occasionally give my opinions about silly stuff like pop music.

As Kyle Kulinski says uncensored comments can be as democratic as a bathroom wall. I encourage anyone who likes things to please rate and comment, because the assholes seem more motivated sometimes. Part of the problem seems to be with consumers not realizing that they have been conditioned by commercials to only consider popular brand names to be “quality”. We need to retrain society to invest in itself more.

Online appreciation of music is of course related to other arts and digital media. We have similar cultural problems regarding the support of authors and artists. Many of us desire to value human lives more than we have; and one way is through online appreciation and support for others in whatever ways we can.



Middle Class Destroyed by Elites

Posted in Ethics & Morals, jobs, Legal / Laws, news, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 18, 2019 by Drogo

Wealth Inequality Dividing USA, as Plutocrats Create New Civil War

The Rich are draining the middle class in two ways. While billionaire plutocrats bribe some upper class cronies making them millionaires, most middle class are becoming lower class. Less than 20,000,000 overlords are already ruling over more than 300,000,000 impoverished masses [population estimate 330,000,000 in 2020].

As income inequality grows we are pulled in two directions; but most of us are getting dragged towards the bottom of the economy into low income poverty, as the lower class masses expand more than the upper fractions of 1% of the upper class population. The most economic critical problem for democracy is that the middle class is being pulled apart, and thus only plutocrats will rule the poor masses.

Trying to interpret USA stats today – We have 18,614,000 millionaires plus 609 billionaires expanding their wealth, while apx 312,000,000 people have less savings because they are in debt as most of the middle-class drops into the lower class, as poverty expands overall for most people. While incomes rose some, cost of living and debts rose more with less common investment returns; as high earners are bribed by richer owners to strip wealth from workers and rivals, and middle income earners go deeper into debt trying to maintain and employ both middle and lower class owned independent businesses.

I had to look at the numbers to understand why there are more and more millionaires and billionaires; despite most people getting poorer with expanding the debt, cost of living, mortgage, and homeless crises. From 2018 to 2019 we went from 4,900,000 to 18,614,000 millionaires. American millionaires increased by 13,714,000; which means they had to come from the upper middle class, rather than from billionaires (because they grew also). If millions of upper middle class people became millionaires, then why is most of the middle class shrinking, and the lower class expanding? Why is the middle class disappearing and not expanding in proportion to the upper class increases? One reason billionaires grew by 6.4% to 2,473 in 2015; is that inheritances bring in new blood [Wall Street Journal]. Also billionaires increased because millionaires helped to drain wealth from the middle-class, as many more middle-class people dropped into poverty, a few became rich, and the remaining middle class hangs on desperately while the inequality divide pulls harder.

Billionaires increased their combined global wealth to a record $6 trillion; more than twice the GDP of the UK. There are now 1,542 billionaires across the world, after 145 multi-millionaires saw their wealth tick over into nine-zero fortunes last year. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently said western governments should force the top 1% of earners to pay more tax to try to reduce dangerous levels of inequality [Guardian]. There are now 2,101 billionaires globally [UBS’ 2019 Billionaire Insights report]. That means 589 individuals have become billionaires since 2013, increasing the population over five years [Fox News].

Middle class is defined here for the US as those adults with a net wealth of between $50,000 and $500,000 in mid 2015. Tracking the numbers of the disappearing middle class, shows the polarity of inequality. In February 2009, The Economist asserted that over half the world’s population now belongs to the middle class, as a result of rapid growth in emerging countries. It characterized the middle class as having a reasonable amount of discretionary income, so that they do not live from hand-to-mouth as the poor do; where people start to have a third of their income left for discretionary spending after paying for basic food and shelter. This allows people to buy consumer goods, improve their health care, and provide for their children’s education.

Most of the emerging middle class consists of people who are middle class by the standards of the developing world but not the developed one, since their money incomes do not match developed country levels, but the percentage of it which is discretionary does. By this definition, the number of middle-class people in Asia exceeded that in the West sometime around 2007 or 2008. The American middle class is estimated by some researchers to comprise approximately 45% of the population. The Economist’s article would put the size of the American middle class below the world average. This difference is due to the extreme difference in definitions.

In 2015 there were 564,708 homeless people in the USA. These figures are likely underestimates as surveillance for the homeless population is challenging. Over 20,000,000 US adult citizens earn less than $5,000 a year. [2016 Personal Income stats] There was a $2,000 decline in nominal income overall for most adults from 2000-2016; it is suspected that the 2020 Census will show that reduction trend to have continued. Oddly the poverty and income charts mimic each-other; why their curves are similar is unclear. 

At the Strategic Investment Conference 2018, Karen Harris from Bain & Company gave a thought-provoking keynote titled, “Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation, and Inequality.” Karen Harris sees a big economic shift that began in the 1980s. Driven by demographics and automation, the world is gradually moving from a supply-constrained to a demand-constrained economy. Harris said the combination of a demographically shrinking workforce and increasingly cost-effective automation will aggravate inequality, curb demand, and put a cap on economic growth.

High-wage workers will reap most of the gains and low-wage workers will bear most of the cost, at least in the short run. Someone has to buy the goods robots produce. As the middle and lower classes suffer, spending will decline. The result will be “demand-constrained growth.” It will get much worse and not just in the U.S. Many won’t initially notice because rising productivity will mask some of the job losses. But eventually, job losses will overwhelm productivity. Harris called this the “Wile E. Coyote” moment. It’s hard to pinpoint, but probably coming in the next decade.

The growth of spending by Baby Boomers will begin to decline in the 2020s. Now add in the growing inequality with up to 25% of the workforce displaced by automation, and the middle-class markets seem to disappear. Investors and businesses should be asking, “Who will be my customers a decade from now?” [Patrick Watson, Forbes 2018]

[GREG DAUGHERTY, Investopedia 2019]

The American middle class, once the envy of the world (and occasional object of its derision) is shrinking, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. The report, which looked at the U.S. and 11 Western European countries, found that in the nearly 20 years from 1991 to 2010, the portion of American adults living in middle-class households fell from 62% to 59%. The Pew report defined middle-class households as those with incomes of anywhere between two-thirds and twice that of their country’s median disposable household income. In the case of the U.S., that meant a range of roughly $35,000 to $106,000 a year for a household of three. 

In the USA: 26% are lower income, 59% are middle income, and 15% are upper income. 

In Denmark: 14% are lower income, 80% are middle income, and 7% are upper income.

The middle class in the U.S., as defined by median household income, is shrinking, with some Americans moving up and most others down. Compared with 11 Western European nations, the U.S. has the smallest percentage of population considered middle income and the largest percentages in both the lower and upper income categories. (See also – ‘Why the American Middle Class Is Shrinking’)

Economists have debated the reasons why the American middle class is shrinking for years now, and a new study highlights one key reason: The jobs that pay enough to support a middle-class lifestyle are disappearing. Although the total number of American jobs is projected to increase by around 7.2 million over the next five years, this growth largely leaves behind the middle of the income spectrum. More than 60 percent of 173 occupations projected to decline are middle-class jobs [Career-Builder’s Economic Modeling Specialists International]. Between now and 2021, the number of low-wage jobs will increase by 5 percent, but middle-income jobs (those that pay between roughly $14 and $21 an hour) will only grow by 3 percent. 

“Jobs that have a lot of routine aspects are easy to automate and those are going away,” said chief economist Andrew Chamberlain. “Those jobs are just disappearing, and that’s the hollowing-out we’re seeing,” he said. For middle-income workers, a combination of automation and wage erosion (from weak worker unions) erodes the economic stability of the middle class. “Middle-wage workers will become increasingly susceptible to unemployment or will have to move into lower-paying roles that may not support them and their families,” CareerBuilder CEO Matt Ferguson warned in a statement. This isn’t just bad news for middle-class families, he said; it also can weaken consumer spending, the housing market and Americans’ ability to invest in the stock market and save for retirement.

Income inequality in the United States is the extent to which income is distributed in an uneven manner among the American population. It has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950–1980. A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current US wealth inequality and would prefer a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth (Ariely – ‘Perspectives on Psychological Science’). The top 1% controlled 38.6% of the country’s wealth in 2016. In September 2019, the Census Bureau reported that income inequality in the United States had reached its highest level in 50 years. [Wikipedia]

If there must be a new Civil War, it should not be poor against poor; we have done that. Perhaps we need a real Class War, to stop World War 3 from happening. We are aware that terrible leaders caused the last ones, so having actual democratic power is one way to stop pollution and war. Plutocrats have been using corporate politics and media to smear and ignore all opposition to them; they will create distractions like war rather than risk cutting any profits.












PBS & NPR Corporate Funding

Posted in Commercial Corporations, Crafts, Creativity / Imagination, Ethics & Morals, Multimedia Communication, news, POB Audio, POB Video, Politics, Services, Sales or Trade, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 16, 2019 by Drogo

Corporate Propaganda Influence on ‘PUBLIC’ Broadcasting

PBS is routinely threatened with significant budget cuts by Republican U.S. Congress attacks. Republicans oppose government public funding for broadcasting in favor of capitalist commercial corporate crony ownership over content. The right-wing war against journalism and documentaries labels them as ‘left-wing’ is because of their fear of public opinion. Most people (see the history of unions) have concerns that go against the grain of corporate power and pollution, so it is in corporate ownership’s interest to reduce democracy in favor of plutocracy. Environmental and peace programs threaten corporate profits, and both corporate-run neo-lib-con parties of our 2-party system will not tolerate sharing their national wealth hoarding in favor of resource desecration. [See Climate Change & Current Extinction Rate

Some members of PBS self-audit and comment on the problem of increasing corporate influence. PBS ombudsman Michael Getler reported “on what seems to be ethical compromises in funding arrangements, and lack of real transparency for viewers caused, in part, by the complicated funding demands needed to support public broadcasting.”

The LA Times reported on the billionaire John D. Arnold production of ‘Pension Peril’, which blamed pensions for California state economic losses. “In another such case, a PBS unit that funded independent documentaries canceled a film about the Koch Brothers last year, fearing the reaction of one of its major donors, David Koch. That underscores the cynicism of the steady withdrawal of public funding from PBS since the Reagan administration. It’s another example of the old story of big government getting off the horse, so big business and the wealthy can saddle up.”

Salon article headlines by David Sirota read “When did PBS become the Plutocratic Broadcasting Service? Proof our public media is doomed: Former Enron trader John Arnold is using the network to wage his war on pensions. Our most prominent public media outlets are becoming instruments for special interests to launder their ideological agenda through a seemingly objective brand. Starved for public resources, these outlets are increasingly trying to get their programming funded with money from corporations and wealthy political activists – and that kind of cash comes with ideological expectations. It doesn’t have to be this way. To preserve some modicum of independent journalism, Congress could simply provide the same amount of resources for public media as other advanced democracies do. Congress could then bar PBS from accepting corporate and special interest funding.”

According to Wikipedia – The following corporations have funded PBS programs: Exxon Mobil; Liberty Mutual ; Suburu ; Canon Inc.; Chevron ; Bank of America Corp.; Intel ; Monsanto ; Toyota ; Merrill Lynch ; General Motors Corporation (GM); Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad; GlaxoSmithKline ; British Petroleum (BP); Merck ; Pfizer Inc; Siemens AG; Dow Chemical Company; McDonald’s ; Columbia Forest Products…

A Truth-Out article titled ‘The Corporate Dictatorship of PBS and NPR’ reads, “On November 7, 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Public Broadcasting Act. The act set up public broadcasting in the United States, by establishing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which led to the creation of the Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS, and National Public Radio.”

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 states – “It is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes… it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to complement, assist, and support a national policy that will most effectively make public telecommunications services available to all citizens of the United States.”

The original purpose even as stated by President Johnson was that ‘we the people’ declare that we want more than just material wealth; we want spiritual, ethical, or environmental quality of life. Reaganomic’s ‘trickle-down’ ideology slashed funding accountability since the 1980’s political deregulations for corporate oligarchy. Public broadcasting institutions now rely more and more on corporate and billionaire cash to operate, which is why PBS and NPR now filter what they play on their airwaves, so that they don’t anger their wealthy backers.

“David Koch has donated upwards of $23 million to public television. And when you donate $23 million dollars to public television, you get more than just a tote bag or a coffee mug – you get to dictate the on-air programming.” – Jane Mayer of the New Yorker

Regarding the PBS & NPR budget diagrams below, i doubt the overall budgets reflect the funding by corporations TO MAKE all the programs. They may only show the purchasing and distribution funding within PBS and NPR, not the corporate manufacturing money invested into the products they then purchase and distribute. Also “Individuals” may include plutocrats who donate large sums on behalf of their companies, as there is no evidence of a cap on individual member donations.




Bernie Sanders Populism

Posted in jobs, news, Politics, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 25, 2019 by Drogo

There are reasons why Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America, and has been supported consistently for years. There are reasons why Trump almost got as many votes as Hillary Clinton. Just like in the Bible, one of these populist prophets for change is real, and the other is false. The way to distinguish them is their record; in other words what they actually do. Sometimes when Trump actually does some good things he said he would do, it is more by accident of self-interest rather than ideology. For example when Trump started to reduce the Cold War with North Korea, it seemed more to be about how he related to another boss who he was sympathetic to; rather than actually wanting peace over profit. Regardless both Sanders and Trump are smeared when they do things that hurt corporate profit, as part of the New Red Scare.

The Sanders and Trump debate will be the best debate in a century (if corporations cannot stop the population from making it happen). Sanders and Trump are well matched verbally, and clearly it would be like ‘Good Cop vs Bad Cop’; both representing the authority of the Federal State, but one wants to give to you and the other wants to take from you. Neither will be reducing taxes on the poor, or give us a UBI, which is sad; but there are plenty of other things to talk about regarding why they are popular and what they actually do offer.

1 in 10 Bernie Sander’s primary voters, voted for Trump because they hated Hillary Clinton. 12 percent of people who voted for Bernie Sanders, in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That bi-party appeal that Bernie has, is less due to foreign interests (despite the New Red Scare) and more to do with popular working class issues. The New Cold War that Trump has declared with the revival of nuclear tensions, clearly shows how misguided New Red Scare (Russia-gate) conspiracy theorists or Trump voters were. Bernie has a better chance of winning this time, and that scares corporate centrists on both sides of the 2-party MIC.

Blue-collar working class states voted for Bernie (Michigan and every county in WV) according to the results of the 2016 presidential primary. While this shows how fickle people can be, it means 2 things regarding the election. Voters can be tricked into voting against their own self-interests, sure; but more importantly the evidence shows Republican voters will flip more for Bernie than anyone the DNC or corporate media suggests. Populism trumps party labels.