What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[bripat9643]

Wealthy people are expected to contribute to the society from which they benefit so much. We have slashed the upper tax brackets from 90% down to 38%. It was promised that these cuts would add to the prosperity of the nation as a whole and add jobs

That promise never materialized

Society benefited far more from what Microsoft created than Bill Gates. MS Windows, MS office and the desktop computer probably quadrupled the efficiency of the typical American office worker. The value to the economy is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions. Yet all Bill Gates got out of it was a measly $100 billion.

The same goes for Henry Ford and the Model T. Ford provided cheap transportation to over 20 million people. He also invented the assembly line and revolutionized American Industry. What did he get out of it? A paltry few billion dollars.

Furthermore, taxes go to government, not society. They are two separate things. Government has done nothing that entitles it to one cent of Bill Gate's fortune. Neither have you.

Yes, and IF those VERY WEALTHY guys had to pay a little more taxes, those things wouldn't had been invented right? lol

What did they invent during the 1930s when marginal rates were 90%?

 

[The Rabbi]

Increasing taxes wont affect the economy, but decreasing them destroys it.
High income earners will continue to work hard even when government takes 90% of what they make
Low income earners pay their fair share in taxes even though they get back more in refunds than they pay in.
Consumer spending drives the economy
Government creates prosperity
A minimum wage increase means everyone will earn more money
Food stamps are a stimulus to the economy
Higher energy prices are good because people will spend less on energy due to conservation.
We could go on. Because the universe is expanding to accomodate all the new idiots.

If only there were no income gap at all, the populace would be ecstatic.

(Never mind that's what the Soviet Union was....and it crashed and burned in a spectacular way.)

eventually the/a large gap in income will slow the economy.

How many stories can you keep adding to a house
how many cars will high income earners buy
how many televisions
big ticket item saturation takes place and buying power goes elsewhere to quench its thurst ... trips, homes, domestic services, jobs and revenue go to other countries, the lower end of the spending gap can't and won't spend enough to keep the economy stimulated. Italy can spend tax money American greed refuses to give to Americans.

A fallacious belief that eventually 10 people in the country will control all tjhe money while everyone else will be digging through garbage cans for dinner.
Its a total fantasy with no basis but leftists run on fantasy.

 

[Listening]

If only there were no income gap at all, the populace would be ecstatic.

(Never mind that's what the Soviet Union was....and it crashed and burned in a spectacular way.)

The Soviet Union is not useful as an economic comparison with the U.S. because of its severely depressed economic history. In fact every nation which has adopted a communist form of government has a long history of abject poverty. This is why of all the world's nations the U.S. has least potential for adopting communism.

China adopted communism because of its totally ruined imperial government and utterly failed economy. But China is now rising as an economic power and its communist status will gradually evaporate.

The United States is at serious risk of becoming a de facto plutocracy, which harbors far worse prospects for the common citizen than does communism.

Give that some thought.

And, as near as I can tell, neither side is doing anything to avert that at the Federal Level.

JakeTheFake keeps pissing on his keyboard about the TP. It seems that for all their radical social agendas, they might have the right idea when it comes to fiscal matters.

 

[The Rabbi]

Society benefited far more from what Microsoft created than Bill Gates. MS Windows, MS office and the desktop computer probably quadrupled the efficiency of the typical American office worker. The value to the economy is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions. Yet all Bill Gates got out of it was a measly $100 billion.

The same goes for Henry Ford and the Model T. Ford provided cheap transportation to over 20 million people. He also invented the assembly line and revolutionized American Industry. What did he get out of it? A paltry few billion dollars.

Furthermore, taxes go to government, not society. They are two separate things. Government has done nothing that entitles it to one cent of Bill Gate's fortune. Neither have you.

Yes, and IF those VERY WEALTHY guys had to pay a little more taxes, those things wouldn't had been invented right? lol

What did they invent during the 1930s when marginal rates were 90%?

Bingo! I post that libs believe the raising rates wont have any effect but lowering them will be disaster. And here's Dad Crack addict posting exactly that.

 

[Listening]

If only there were no income gap at all, the populace would be ecstatic.

(Never mind that's what the Soviet Union was....and it crashed and burned in a spectacular way.)

eventually the/a large gap in income will slow the economy.

How many stories can you keep adding to a house
how many cars will high income earners buy
how many televisions
big ticket item saturation takes place and buying power goes elsewhere to quench its thurst ... trips, homes, domestic services, jobs and revenue go to other countries, the lower end of the spending gap can't and won't spend enough to keep the economy stimulated. Italy can spend tax money American greed refuses to give to Americans.

A fallacious belief that eventually 10 people in the country will control all tjhe money while everyone else will be digging through garbage cans for dinner.
Its a total fantasy with no basis but leftists run on fantasy.

On that point I would disagree.

The overall pie is expanding and I appreciate the value of capitalism.

But economics teaches about barriers to entry and big corporations are putting them up with the help of morons like Obama.

 

[The Rabbi]

eventually the/a large gap in income will slow the economy.

How many stories can you keep adding to a house
how many cars will high income earners buy
how many televisions
big ticket item saturation takes place and buying power goes elsewhere to quench its thurst ... trips, homes, domestic services, jobs and revenue go to other countries, the lower end of the spending gap can't and won't spend enough to keep the economy stimulated. Italy can spend tax money American greed refuses to give to Americans.

A fallacious belief that eventually 10 people in the country will control all tjhe money while everyone else will be digging through garbage cans for dinner.
Its a total fantasy with no basis but leftists run on fantasy.

On that point I would disagree.

The overall pie is expanding and I appreciate the value of capitalism.

But economics teaches about barriers to entry and big corporations are putting them up with the help of morons like Obama.

Big corporations always try to put up barriers. That's why every computer sold in America is an IBM. Oh wait. Yeah, it used to be you had a choice between Apple and IBM. Then there was IBM compatible. Now IBM doesnt make desk top computers.
Or every browser is Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Microsoft was actually sued for anti trust over it. Today there are numerous browsers out there.
There are no monopolies without government decree.

 

[Listening]

A fallacious belief that eventually 10 people in the country will control all tjhe money while everyone else will be digging through garbage cans for dinner.
Its a total fantasy with no basis but leftists run on fantasy.

On that point I would disagree.

The overall pie is expanding and I appreciate the value of capitalism.

But economics teaches about barriers to entry and big corporations are putting them up with the help of morons like Obama.

Big corporations always try to put up barriers. That's why every computer sold in America is an IBM. Oh wait. Yeah, it used to be you had a choice between Apple and IBM. Then there was IBM compatible. Now IBM doesnt make desk top computers.
Or every browser is Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Microsoft was actually sued for anti trust over it. Today there are numerous browsers out there.
There are no monopolies without government decree.

I take this to mean you agree that government helps to screw us when it comes to a free market.

This is the joke in health care. There never was a free market as insurance and health care are two heavily regulated industries.

I'd be more than willing to allow myself a visit to someone besides a doctor. Who else's business is it other than mine ?

 

[The Rabbi]

On that point I would disagree.

The overall pie is expanding and I appreciate the value of capitalism.

But economics teaches about barriers to entry and big corporations are putting them up with the help of morons like Obama.

Big corporations always try to put up barriers. That's why every computer sold in America is an IBM. Oh wait. Yeah, it used to be you had a choice between Apple and IBM. Then there was IBM compatible. Now IBM doesnt make desk top computers.
Or every browser is Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Microsoft was actually sued for anti trust over it. Today there are numerous browsers out there.
There are no monopolies without government decree.

I take this to mean you agree that government helps to screw us when it comes to a free market.

This is the joke in health care. There never was a free market as insurance and health care are two heavily regulated industries.

I'd be more than willing to allow myself a visit to someone besides a doctor. Who else's business is it other than mine ?

Dont put words in my mouth unless you want to add a "Support Obama" signature.

Government puts up barriers of various kinds. Some are helpful. A lot are merely rent seeking in the guise of "protecting the public." Most of that goes on on the local level, like licensing barbers and hair stylists.
But generally unless government simply awards a monopoly like water or power there are no monopolies in America. Size of the company can make for a barrier to entry. So can technical or capital requirements. How many start up paper mills have you seen? But monopoly is grossly overused.

 

[RKMBrown]

Big corporations always try to put up barriers. That's why every computer sold in America is an IBM. Oh wait. Yeah, it used to be you had a choice between Apple and IBM. Then there was IBM compatible. Now IBM doesnt make desk top computers.
Or every browser is Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Microsoft was actually sued for anti trust over it. Today there are numerous browsers out there.
There are no monopolies without government decree.

I take this to mean you agree that government helps to screw us when it comes to a free market.

This is the joke in health care. There never was a free market as insurance and health care are two heavily regulated industries.

I'd be more than willing to allow myself a visit to someone besides a doctor. Who else's business is it other than mine ?

Dont put words in my mouth unless you want to add a "Support Obama" signature.

Government puts up barriers of various kinds. Some are helpful. A lot are merely rent seeking in the guise of "protecting the public." Most of that goes on on the local level, like licensing barbers and hair stylists.
But generally unless government simply awards a monopoly like water or power there are no monopolies in America. Size of the company can make for a barrier to entry. So can technical or capital requirements. How many start up paper mills have you seen? But monopoly is grossly overused.

It's been a while since the monopolies and oligopolies have been torn down. The term is not grossly overused. Yes government does allow some monopolies and it does ignore some that pay them to look the other way. For example, the oligopoly on executive pay at US corporations. Why do they get to set their pay rates over the head of the owners, aka stock holders? It's extortion, and our government is looking the other way.

 

[Listening]

Big corporations always try to put up barriers. That's why every computer sold in America is an IBM. Oh wait. Yeah, it used to be you had a choice between Apple and IBM. Then there was IBM compatible. Now IBM doesnt make desk top computers.
Or every browser is Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Microsoft was actually sued for anti trust over it. Today there are numerous browsers out there.
There are no monopolies without government decree.

I take this to mean you agree that government helps to screw us when it comes to a free market.

This is the joke in health care. There never was a free market as insurance and health care are two heavily regulated industries.

I'd be more than willing to allow myself a visit to someone besides a doctor. Who else's business is it other than mine ?

Dont put words in my mouth unless you want to add a "Support Obama" signature.

Government puts up barriers of various kinds. Some are helpful. A lot are merely rent seeking in the guise of "protecting the public." Most of that goes on on the local level, like licensing barbers and hair stylists.
But generally unless government simply awards a monopoly like water or power there are no monopolies in America. Size of the company can make for a barrier to entry. So can technical or capital requirements. How many start up paper mills have you seen? But monopoly is grossly overused.

I am not sue I understand your post.

I detest government regulation.

I have worked for large corporations that help write regulations...in such a way that the regs discourage others from trying to get into the business.

It may not be monopolies....but it does limit competition to a large extent.

I know people who have looked into starting insurance companies (not just sales) and have found that it would take 1 to 5 million dollars in legal fees just to do the paperwork and registrations.

 

[The Rabbi]

I take this to mean you agree that government helps to screw us when it comes to a free market.

This is the joke in health care. There never was a free market as insurance and health care are two heavily regulated industries.

I'd be more than willing to allow myself a visit to someone besides a doctor. Who else's business is it other than mine ?

Dont put words in my mouth unless you want to add a "Support Obama" signature.

Government puts up barriers of various kinds. Some are helpful. A lot are merely rent seeking in the guise of "protecting the public." Most of that goes on on the local level, like licensing barbers and hair stylists.
But generally unless government simply awards a monopoly like water or power there are no monopolies in America. Size of the company can make for a barrier to entry. So can technical or capital requirements. How many start up paper mills have you seen? But monopoly is grossly overused.

It's been a while since the monopolies and oligopolies have been torn down. The term is not grossly overused. Yes government does allow some monopolies and it does ignore some that pay them to look the other way. For example, the oligopoly on executive pay at US corporations. Why do they get to set their pay rates over the head of the owners, aka stock holders? It's extortion, and our government is looking the other way.

There is no oligopoly in executive pay. Thats nonsense. Executive recruiting is a highly competitive business. The number of people qualified to run a very large international company is relatively small. Whether they succeed or fail will have enormous consequences for the entire company. Thus the high price they command. IT is like hiring the leading role for a movie.

 

[Mustang]

If only there were no income gap at all, the populace would be ecstatic.

(Never mind that's what the Soviet Union was....and it crashed and burned in a spectacular way.)

eventually the/a large gap in income will slow the economy.

How many stories can you keep adding to a house
how many cars will high income earners buy
how many televisions
big ticket item saturation takes place and buying power goes elsewhere to quench its thurst ... trips, homes, domestic services, jobs and revenue go to other countries, the lower end of the spending gap can't and won't spend enough to keep the economy stimulated. Italy can spend tax money American greed refuses to give to Americans.

A fallacious belief that eventually 10 people in the country will control all tjhe money while everyone else will be digging through garbage cans for dinner.
Its a total fantasy with no basis but leftists run on fantasy.

The trend is unmistakable. There has been a consolidation of media companies in this country taking place for years. Deregulation allowed companies to gobble up media outlets within markets. Today, fewer companies than ever control all the radio stations, TV outlets, and newspapers. The same has been happening with oil companies like Exxon-Mobile, and Chevron Texaco.

The corporate ascendancy started in earnest in the Reagan years when corporate tax cuts were passed supposedly to help American companies retool and invest in new plants and equipment to lower cost in order to hopefully lower production costs and thereby hire more workers to meet growing foreign competition. Instead, what corporations did was go on a buying spree. These were the years that saw R J Reynolds buy Nabisco and network television companies got bought up by Westinghouse, Disney, and General Electric. The trend has continued as multinational corporations have only gotten larger and more economically powerful vis-a-vis small countries and gov'ts all around the world. With this new-found leverage, corporations often dictate the tune that others have little choice but to dance to. They can also either crush competition and/or just buy them out which is quite common if you ever bother to read the financial news.

If there's one thing this trend has made abundantly clear over the years it's that the so-called "little guy" has little hope of being able to stand up to a corporate behemoth. Consequently, gov't is more necessary than ever to act as an arm of the public interest and keep corporations from running over all of us in the process.

 

[RKMBrown]

Dont put words in my mouth unless you want to add a "Support Obama" signature.

Government puts up barriers of various kinds. Some are helpful. A lot are merely rent seeking in the guise of "protecting the public." Most of that goes on on the local level, like licensing barbers and hair stylists.
But generally unless government simply awards a monopoly like water or power there are no monopolies in America. Size of the company can make for a barrier to entry. So can technical or capital requirements. How many start up paper mills have you seen? But monopoly is grossly overused.

It's been a while since the monopolies and oligopolies have been torn down. The term is not grossly overused. Yes government does allow some monopolies and it does ignore some that pay them to look the other way. For example, the oligopoly on executive pay at US corporations. Why do they get to set their pay rates over the head of the owners, aka stock holders? It's extortion, and our government is looking the other way.

There is no oligopoly in executive pay. Thats nonsense. Executive recruiting is a highly competitive business. The number of people qualified to run a very large international company is relatively small. Whether they succeed or fail will have enormous consequences for the entire company. Thus the high price they command. IT is like hiring the leading role for a movie.

Do you or do you not know what an Executive is? You appear to be intimidating that the CEO of a company is the only executive. lol And no it's not nonsense. Executive pay is set by committees of executives, almost always in cahoots with other executives of other companies. A typical large corporation will have quite literally hundreds of executives.

Since we're picking on IBM today.. here's a link to the "published" way they collude with other committees http://www.ibm.com/investor/services/proxy-compensation-discussion-and-analysis.html

IOW they justify getting paid in the millions based on the upper end of the average being overpaid to other executive groups. If every group gives themselves the same MASSIVE MULTI MILLION DOLLAR BONUSES it's justified because everyone in the oligopoly is doing it.

 

[The Rabbi]

eventually the/a large gap in income will slow the economy.

How many stories can you keep adding to a house
how many cars will high income earners buy
how many televisions
big ticket item saturation takes place and buying power goes elsewhere to quench its thurst ... trips, homes, domestic services, jobs and revenue go to other countries, the lower end of the spending gap can't and won't spend enough to keep the economy stimulated. Italy can spend tax money American greed refuses to give to Americans.

A fallacious belief that eventually 10 people in the country will control all tjhe money while everyone else will be digging through garbage cans for dinner.
Its a total fantasy with no basis but leftists run on fantasy.

The trend is unmistakable. There has been a consolidation of media companies in this country taking place for years. Deregulation allowed companies to gobble up media outlets within markets. Today, fewer companies than ever control all the radio stations, TV outlets, and newspapers. The same has been happening with oil companies like Exxon-Mobile, and Chevron Texaco.

The corporate ascendancy started in earnest in the Reagan years when corporate tax cuts were passed supposedly to help American companies retool and invest in new plants and equipment to lower cost in order to hopefully lower production costs and thereby hire more workers to meet growing foreign competition. Instead, what corporations did was go on a buying spree. These were the years that saw R J Reynolds buy Nabisco and network television companies got bought up by Westinghouse, Disney, and General Electric. The trend has continued as multinational corporations have only gotten larger and more economically powerful vis-a-vis small countries and gov'ts all around the world. With this new-found leverage, corporations often dictate the tune that others have little choice but to dance to. They can also either crush competition and/or just buy them out which is quite common if you ever bother to read the financial news.

If there's one thing this trend has made abundantly clear over the years it's that the so-called "little guy" has little hope of being able to stand up to a corporate behemoth. Consequently, gov't is more necessary than ever to act as an arm of the public interest and keep corporations from running over all of us in the process.

thats just dumb, period
First off, even as fewer compaies are in some areas, other areas grow. How many people get news from Drudge Report, or Rush Limbaugh or talk radio? You can argue those are biased or unreliable but we know the mainstream media is biased an unreliable as well.
Second, government frequently aids and abets monopolies, not the other way around. Tobacco is an excellent example. As part of the tobacco settlement government set regulations such that no new tobacco company could enter the marketplace. The trade off between the tobacco companies paying billions was that they were guaranteed a market free of competitiion.

 

[RKMBrown]

A fallacious belief that eventually 10 people in the country will control all tjhe money while everyone else will be digging through garbage cans for dinner.
Its a total fantasy with no basis but leftists run on fantasy.

The trend is unmistakable. There has been a consolidation of media companies in this country taking place for years. Deregulation allowed companies to gobble up media outlets within markets. Today, fewer companies than ever control all the radio stations, TV outlets, and newspapers. The same has been happening with oil companies like Exxon-Mobile, and Chevron Texaco.

The corporate ascendancy started in earnest in the Reagan years when corporate tax cuts were passed supposedly to help American companies retool and invest in new plants and equipment to lower cost in order to hopefully lower production costs and thereby hire more workers to meet growing foreign competition. Instead, what corporations did was go on a buying spree. These were the years that saw R J Reynolds buy Nabisco and network television companies got bought up by Westinghouse, Disney, and General Electric. The trend has continued as multinational corporations have only gotten larger and more economically powerful vis-a-vis small countries and gov'ts all around the world. With this new-found leverage, corporations often dictate the tune that others have little choice but to dance to. They can also either crush competition and/or just buy them out which is quite common if you ever bother to read the financial news.

If there's one thing this trend has made abundantly clear over the years it's that the so-called "little guy" has little hope of being able to stand up to a corporate behemoth. Consequently, gov't is more necessary than ever to act as an arm of the public interest and keep corporations from running over all of us in the process.

thats just dumb, period
First off, even as fewer compaies are in some areas, other areas grow. How many people get news from Drudge Report, or Rush Limbaugh or talk radio? You can argue those are biased or unreliable but we know the mainstream media is biased an unreliable as well.
Second, government frequently aids and abets monopolies, not the other way around. Tobacco is an excellent example. As part of the tobacco settlement government set regulations such that no new tobacco company could enter the marketplace. The trade off between the tobacco companies paying billions was that they were guaranteed a market free of competitiion.

How is the proof that government is in cahoots with monopolies and even grants some monopolies proof that there are no monopolies or oligopolies?

 

[The Rabbi]

The trend is unmistakable. There has been a consolidation of media companies in this country taking place for years. Deregulation allowed companies to gobble up media outlets within markets. Today, fewer companies than ever control all the radio stations, TV outlets, and newspapers. The same has been happening with oil companies like Exxon-Mobile, and Chevron Texaco.

The corporate ascendancy started in earnest in the Reagan years when corporate tax cuts were passed supposedly to help American companies retool and invest in new plants and equipment to lower cost in order to hopefully lower production costs and thereby hire more workers to meet growing foreign competition. Instead, what corporations did was go on a buying spree. These were the years that saw R J Reynolds buy Nabisco and network television companies got bought up by Westinghouse, Disney, and General Electric. The trend has continued as multinational corporations have only gotten larger and more economically powerful vis-a-vis small countries and gov'ts all around the world. With this new-found leverage, corporations often dictate the tune that others have little choice but to dance to. They can also either crush competition and/or just buy them out which is quite common if you ever bother to read the financial news.

If there's one thing this trend has made abundantly clear over the years it's that the so-called "little guy" has little hope of being able to stand up to a corporate behemoth. Consequently, gov't is more necessary than ever to act as an arm of the public interest and keep corporations from running over all of us in the process.

thats just dumb, period
First off, even as fewer compaies are in some areas, other areas grow. How many people get news from Drudge Report, or Rush Limbaugh or talk radio? You can argue those are biased or unreliable but we know the mainstream media is biased an unreliable as well.
Second, government frequently aids and abets monopolies, not the other way around. Tobacco is an excellent example. As part of the tobacco settlement government set regulations such that no new tobacco company could enter the marketplace. The trade off between the tobacco companies paying billions was that they were guaranteed a market free of competitiion.

How is the proof that government is in cahoots with monopolies and even grants some monopolies proof that there are no monopolies or oligopolies?

There is no proof tht government is in cahoots with monopolies or grants monopolies.
There is proof that government often attempts to limit competition in some areas. Which is not the same thing remotely.

 

[RKMBrown]

thats just dumb, period
First off, even as fewer compaies are in some areas, other areas grow. How many people get news from Drudge Report, or Rush Limbaugh or talk radio? You can argue those are biased or unreliable but we know the mainstream media is biased an unreliable as well.
Second, government frequently aids and abets monopolies, not the other way around. Tobacco is an excellent example. As part of the tobacco settlement government set regulations such that no new tobacco company could enter the marketplace. The trade off between the tobacco companies paying billions was that they were guaranteed a market free of competitiion.

How is the proof that government is in cahoots with monopolies and even grants some monopolies proof that there are no monopolies or oligopolies?

There is no proof tht government is in cahoots with monopolies or grants monopolies.
There is proof that government often attempts to limit competition in some areas. Which is not the same thing remotely.

Oh I see. Granting exclusive rights to a market isn't the same as granting a monopoly on the market. ROFL

Dude you are out of your depth on this one.

 

[The Rabbi]

How is the proof that government is in cahoots with monopolies and even grants some monopolies proof that there are no monopolies or oligopolies?

There is no proof tht government is in cahoots with monopolies or grants monopolies.
There is proof that government often attempts to limit competition in some areas. Which is not the same thing remotely.

Oh I see. Granting exclusive rights to a market isn't the same as granting a monopoly on the market. ROFL

Dude you are out of your depth on this one.

Please show me where government granted exclusive rights to any market.
Dont even try to think you can compete with me on facts or logic. Not gonna happen.

 

[Mustang]

A fallacious belief that eventually 10 people in the country will control all tjhe money while everyone else will be digging through garbage cans for dinner.
Its a total fantasy with no basis but leftists run on fantasy.

The trend is unmistakable. There has been a consolidation of media companies in this country taking place for years. Deregulation allowed companies to gobble up media outlets within markets. Today, fewer companies than ever control all the radio stations, TV outlets, and newspapers. The same has been happening with oil companies like Exxon-Mobile, and Chevron Texaco.

The corporate ascendancy started in earnest in the Reagan years when corporate tax cuts were passed supposedly to help American companies retool and invest in new plants and equipment to lower cost in order to hopefully lower production costs and thereby hire more workers to meet growing foreign competition. Instead, what corporations did was go on a buying spree. These were the years that saw R J Reynolds buy Nabisco and network television companies got bought up by Westinghouse, Disney, and General Electric. The trend has continued as multinational corporations have only gotten larger and more economically powerful vis-a-vis small countries and gov'ts all around the world. With this new-found leverage, corporations often dictate the tune that others have little choice but to dance to. They can also either crush competition and/or just buy them out which is quite common if you ever bother to read the financial news.

If there's one thing this trend has made abundantly clear over the years it's that the so-called "little guy" has little hope of being able to stand up to a corporate behemoth. Consequently, gov't is more necessary than ever to act as an arm of the public interest and keep corporations from running over all of us in the process.

thats just dumb, period
First off, even as fewer compaies are in some areas, other areas grow. How many people get news from Drudge Report, or Rush Limbaugh or talk radio? You can argue those are biased or unreliable but we know the mainstream media is biased an unreliable as well.
Second, government frequently aids and abets monopolies, not the other way around. Tobacco is an excellent example. As part of the tobacco settlement government set regulations such that no new tobacco company could enter the marketplace. The trade off between the tobacco companies paying billions was that they were guaranteed a market free of competitiion.

Your first sentence is a non sequitur.

Your second sentence is hilarious since Rush is admittedly an entertainer who is no journalist by any stretch of the imagination and doesn't claim to be AND because talk radio, which is little more than an emotional wasteland of constant excessive fear-mongering, represents the complete antithesis of dispassionate news coverage which is sadly in decline mostly because too many people now choose to listen to the kind of propaganda that reinforces their previously held beliefs as opposed to news which might actually challenge their preconceived assumptions AND because news outlets seem to feel they have to compete with entertainment mediums in order to hold the attention of people. Unfortunately, that last fact is one of the reasons why we get so much fluff instead of hard facts.

But nothing you wrote addresses the issue of corporate ascendancy in terms of their power to bend other societal forces to their will and our individual and collective need to have a mitigating force which is strong enough to stand up to the economic and political juggernaut that corporate influence brings to bear on the local, state, and national stage. As for myself, I see plenty of similarities between today and the late 1890s when the trusts and the monopolies had pretty much grabbed so much power that they started to dominate most aspects of public life. Back in those days, a Republican (Teddy Roosevelt) stepped up to challenge their power and managed to thankfully knock them down a few pegs. Today, Republicans are aiding and abetting corporate power. Unfortunately, so are many of the Democrats since corporate money finances the campaigns of both political parties now.

 

[The Rabbi]

The trend is unmistakable. There has been a consolidation of media companies in this country taking place for years. Deregulation allowed companies to gobble up media outlets within markets. Today, fewer companies than ever control all the radio stations, TV outlets, and newspapers. The same has been happening with oil companies like Exxon-Mobile, and Chevron Texaco.

The corporate ascendancy started in earnest in the Reagan years when corporate tax cuts were passed supposedly to help American companies retool and invest in new plants and equipment to lower cost in order to hopefully lower production costs and thereby hire more workers to meet growing foreign competition. Instead, what corporations did was go on a buying spree. These were the years that saw R J Reynolds buy Nabisco and network television companies got bought up by Westinghouse, Disney, and General Electric. The trend has continued as multinational corporations have only gotten larger and more economically powerful vis-a-vis small countries and gov'ts all around the world. With this new-found leverage, corporations often dictate the tune that others have little choice but to dance to. They can also either crush competition and/or just buy them out which is quite common if you ever bother to read the financial news.

If there's one thing this trend has made abundantly clear over the years it's that the so-called "little guy" has little hope of being able to stand up to a corporate behemoth. Consequently, gov't is more necessary than ever to act as an arm of the public interest and keep corporations from running over all of us in the process.

thats just dumb, period
First off, even as fewer compaies are in some areas, other areas grow. How many people get news from Drudge Report, or Rush Limbaugh or talk radio? You can argue those are biased or unreliable but we know the mainstream media is biased an unreliable as well.
Second, government frequently aids and abets monopolies, not the other way around. Tobacco is an excellent example. As part of the tobacco settlement government set regulations such that no new tobacco company could enter the marketplace. The trade off between the tobacco companies paying billions was that they were guaranteed a market free of competitiion.

Your first sentence is a non sequitur.

Your second sentence is hilarious since Rush is admittedly an entertainer who is no journalist by any stretch of the imagination and doesn't claim to be AND because talk radio, which is little more than an emotional wasteland of constant excessive fear-mongering, represents the complete antithesis of dispassionate news coverage which is sadly in decline mostly because too many people now choose to listen to the kind of propaganda that reinforces their previously held beliefs as opposed to news which might actually challenge their preconceived assumptions AND because news outlets seem to feel they have to compete with entertainment mediums in order to hold the attention of people. Unfortunately, that last fact is one of the reasons why we get so much fluff instead of hard facts.

But nothing you wrote addresses the issue of corporate ascendancy in terms of their power to bend other societal forces to their will and our individual and collective need to have a mitigating force which is strong enough to stand up to the economic and political juggernaut that corporate influence brings to bear on the local, state, and national stage. As for myself, I see plenty of similarities between today and the late 1890s when the trusts and the monopolies had pretty much grabbed so much power that they started to dominate most aspects of public life. Back in those days, a Republican (Teddy Roosevelt) stepped up to challenge their power and managed to thankfully knock them down a few pegs. Today, Republicans are aiding and abetting corporate power. Unfortunately, so are many of the Democrats since corporate money finances the campaigns of both political parties now.

You're merely a tool of your corporate masters. We get it.
You're dismissed.