BF2S Forums How Socialism Works in the Real World: A lesson in Barstool Economics

usmarine wrote:

Braddock wrote:

usmarine wrote:

fox news is more popular because they are entertaining.  its entertainment at night.  they dont have empty suites like larry king or boring metros like anderson cooper.  but, you know the real reason so.....

That's the sad reality of modern media... the notion that news should be entertaining.

the news during the day is not what makes them #1 brad.  you guys need to wrap your heads around this, because a lot of you do not get it.  news is the news.  all of them do a good job with it for the most part.  its the opinion shows during primetime that make the money.

The news has been evolving steadily over the last quarter of a century usmarine; it has went from traditional, straight-up presentation of the facts with little or no graphic razzmatazz to sensationalist "info-tainment" with all the bells and whistles that modern CGI can muster. FOX News are not alone in this trend, but for many they are the touchstone of all that has gone wrong in modern news media. 24 hour blanket news coverage has ironically made the world a more confusing and false place in terms of news because networks find themselves having to fill several hours and construct stories out of stuff that would probably never even have made the news back in the day. Add to this the lust for ratings and advertising revenue and journalistic integrity quickly goes out the window, what you're left with is a fast-food version of the news where the ratings are all that matter and where Britney Spears getting her head shaved is deemed more important than a civil war in East Timor.

Networks like FOX et al. are dumbing down society because by providing a platform for ill-informed, reactionary opinion they validate these ill-informed opinions in the minds of many viewers... "yer man on the news said it so it must be true, I knew I was right all along".

Braddock wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Braddock wrote:

That's the sad reality of modern media... the notion that news should be entertaining.

the news during the day is not what makes them #1 brad.  you guys need to wrap your heads around this, because a lot of you do not get it.  news is the news.  all of them do a good job with it for the most part.  its the opinion shows during primetime that make the money.

The news has been evolving steadily over the last quarter of a century usmarine; it has went from traditional, straight-up presentation of the facts with little or no graphic razzmatazz to sensationalist "info-tainment" with all the bells and whistles that modern CGI can muster. FOX News are not alone in this trend, but for many they are the touchstone of all that has gone wrong in modern news media. 24 hour blanket news coverage has ironically made the world a more confusing and false place in terms of news because networks find themselves having to fill several hours and construct stories out of stuff that would probably never even have made the news back in the day. Add to this the lust for ratings and advertising revenue and journalistic integrity quickly goes out the window, what you're left with is a fast-food version of the news where the ratings are all that matter and where Britney Spears getting her head shaved is deemed more important than a civil war in East Timor.

Networks like FOX et al. are dumbing down society because by providing a platform for ill-informed, reactionary opinion they validate these ill-informed opinions in the minds of many viewers... "yer man on the news said it so it must be true, I knew I was right all along".

you put too much stock in to that kind of stuff.  i dont know anyone who thinks like that on either side of the coin.

Braddock wrote:

Are you denying that news has been getting increasingly trashy and entertainment oriented in the last 10 to the 20 years? I can't stand the news these days... the only truly decent news source out there these days is probably Euronews and I'll admit it can be as dull as dishwater sometimes but imo that's way more preferable than the sensationalist tripe we get fed nowadays.

trashy?  we have the news on all day at work on the tv's.  cnn, fox, msnbc.  they all do a good job of reporting the news.  what do you want man?

well, since we really cant have sound on (at least during the day), i appreciate all the scrolls and stuff since i cant hear what they are saying.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Yes, either could work on a small scale.  300 million plus, no.

At least for capitalism, education and patriotism is key. Frankly our education and indoctrination systems are pitiful. If we were to revolutionize both with the full intention of making a shift in government I feel that we could be successful.

What does patriotism have to do with capitalism?

With education you've highlighted an obvious problem with full on capitalism. Under a true capitalist system there would be no free education, free education is a socialist concept. Therefore only the rich would be educated, which limits growth by not allowing many people within a state to realise their potential.

It is little things like this which mean a combined model is better.

Dilbert_X wrote:

They also need to be drilled from an early age to get used to turning up on time, obeying instructions

oh wow what a bad thing....

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm not saying its a good or bad thing - especially when training up either workers or cannon fodder - it is a key part of the current capitalist industrial system though.

being on time should be an important part of any life no matter what label you fall under.

The first 4 people (the poorest) pay nothing.  They get to drink for free. They continue to go to the bar
The fifth pays $1, he stops going to the bar because his hours got cut at work, he had to get a second job and can't afford it anymore.
The sixth pays $3, he defaults on his credit cards and needs the money to buy food so he stops going to the bar
The seventh pays $7, he's lost alot as well but keeps going to the bar cause hey it's going to recover, RIGHT< RIGHT
The eighth pays $12, His bills go down because two people stopped going so now the bills 60 dollars a week
The ninth pays $18,  His bill goes up cause he's starting to drink more because he's got no job security
The tenth person (the richest) pays $59.  His bill goes up cause the bar isn't selling as many drinks any more and needs to keep the doors open..

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

At least for capitalism, education and patriotism is key. Frankly our education and indoctrination systems are pitiful. If we were to revolutionize both with the full intention of making a shift in government I feel that we could be successful.

What does patriotism have to do with capitalism?

With education you've highlighted an obvious problem with full on capitalism. Under a true capitalist system there would be no free education, free education is a socialist concept. Therefore only the rich would be educated, which limits growth by not allowing many people within a state to realise their potential.

It is little things like this which mean a combined model is better.

Under a capitalist system the cost of education would be driven down immensely, with a focus on self-started education and education at the employer's expense.

By the way, it's not a free education system. It's an education system open to all. Everyone still pays for it.

Generally speaking, when something is completely capitalistic as a market, costs don't go down.  They go up as suppliers dwindle.

Once a market becomes oligopolistic, prices are considerably higher than they would be under a socialized system.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

WHY DOES NO ONE SEE THE ACTUAL LONG TERM?

Capitalism BREAKS monopolies or oligopolies. People whine bitch and moan about them to get the government to step in before prices rise enough or stay high long enough to induce some serious competition into the system, instead introducing weakness into the industry by artificially propping up weak competitors through morally corrupt laws.

Capitalism doesn't though.

If you had a pure capitalist system, with no regulation at all, a society completely run by corporations with no government...


Nothing would stop somebody who had a monopoly briefly dropping his prices to kill off the competition/buy them out, then jacking up his prices again.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

WHY DOES NO ONE SEE THE ACTUAL LONG TERM?

Capitalism BREAKS monopolies or oligopolies. People whine bitch and moan about them to get the government to step in before prices rise enough or stay high long enough to induce some serious competition into the system, instead introducing weakness into the industry by artificially propping up weak competitors through morally corrupt laws.

Propping up competitors is what breaks up the monopolies. Capitalism creates them.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

At least for capitalism, education and patriotism is key. Frankly our education and indoctrination systems are pitiful. If we were to revolutionize both with the full intention of making a shift in government I feel that we could be successful.

What does patriotism have to do with capitalism?

With education you've highlighted an obvious problem with full on capitalism. Under a true capitalist system there would be no free education, free education is a socialist concept. Therefore only the rich would be educated, which limits growth by not allowing many people within a state to realise their potential.

It is little things like this which mean a combined model is better.

Under a capitalist system the cost of education would be driven down immensely, with a focus on self-started education and education at the employer's expense.

By the way, it's not a free education system. It's an education system open to all. Everyone still pays for it.

No they don't. Most people pay for it. There is a marked difference. It is a free education system. It gets paid for through taxes, but you don't have to have paid taxes to make use of it.

Why would the cost be driven down under a capitalist system? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

None of that addresses the original point, that it is better to have universal education, free at point of use. Not having this would limit the number of people receiving a proper education dramatically, which would have a negative effect overall. Which is why NOWHERE uses a full on capitalist system - because it's impractical and could not work in practice - like communism.

Turquoise wrote:

Once a market becomes oligopolistic, prices are considerably higher than they would be under a socialized system.

Perfectly true. Look at the US healthcare system.....

usmarine wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

They also need to be drilled from an early age to get used to turning up on time, obeying instructions

oh wow what a bad thing....

It's a good thing, obviously. Which is why you want socialised, universal education. Which you don't get under a true capitalist system.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-05-30 06:35:42)

Flecco wrote:

Nothing would stop somebody who had a monopoly briefly dropping his prices to kill off the competition/buy them out, then jacking up his prices again.

If the "monopoly" has to continually drop his prices to deal with the influx of competition caused by his prices while they are high, it's not really a monopoly is it? There is competition that is keeping prices at a reasonable level. The more unreasonable the prices are raised to the stiffer the competition as a result.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Capitalism BREAKS monopolies or oligopolies.

No it doesn't, the reverse happens, look at GM - too big to fail, Microsoft - practical monopoly.
Companies get big enough to buy the govt and they do so.
Some semblance of competition is kept to fool the public (the Republican/Democrat duopoly for example) but its mostly BS.

There is no government intervention in capitalism. Capitalism mixed with politics gets you monopolies or oligopolies.

AussieReaper wrote:

Propping up competitors is what breaks up the monopolies. Capitalism creates them.

If competition has to be propped up it is not proper competition, and the market suffers as a result in the long run. Capitalism breeds slow-growing but very effective competition - government intervention tides over the old and sick or hands the reigns over to the young and inexperienced.