Censorship in America

[Politico]

If you think there's censorship here you've never experienced it.

 

[FA_Q2]

To the censorship point: this is not an example of censorship. It is an example of a private institution deciding on what it is going to publish. Does anyone really need to explain what the basic difference is in a public entity declaring that something cannot be printed/shared over a private entity choosing what it is going to publish?

By your standard expressed in the OP, I can demand that my favorite show being cancelled is censorship. Such a concept is absurd.

As far as the concept that you are trying to declare censored:
The idea that simple demand creates jobs (by forcing the creation of supply) is equally absurd. Twenty years ago there was zero demand for iPads yet today there is quite a demand there. Was that because poor people suddenly realized that they wanted tablets? No, of course not. It was because some rich people created a product through investment and research that people would want. Then there is demand for all kinds of products that simply do not exist but no one has invented them or created the supply yet. Simply put, to state that the rich creates jobs ignores the basic fact that you need buyers to make money yet to demand that the poor creates jobs ignores the fact that there needs to be a rich man or woman behind them financing the creation of that business or product. In essence, both are wrong. The entire system stands as one and all levels are required in it. Both capital is required for the creation of the product and the consumers are required for the consumption of that product. Products do not simply magically appear because the poor want them and customers do not magically appear because the rich have money. The system must be taken as a whole or you end up with these worthless arguments that try and ignore massive parts of the process that crates products and jobs.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

How many homeless poor people have ever given you a job?

That questions like that sometimes are accepted and are frequently unchallenged is a mystery, given that in ...

...

Still, the question quoted above has no foundation in any context of the world of work. Period.

The facts prove that DEMAND creates OPPORTUNITIES which create jobs. Pretending supply creates jobs is like believing in Santa Claus - more embarrassing with age.

One side of the problem is that the statement is made from double ignorance. [snip supporting anecdote]

I personally know a person that was homeless and created a number of jobs. *He started by hand washing cars, eventually renting an unused car wash. *He managed to grow the business to the point of employing a number of people.

It is extremely difficult. *During an down economy, profit and credit are zero at the bottom of the economy. *Growth requires the smallest level of investment just to pay this months rent to keep the business open for the month. *Accumulating enough to cover seasonal variations is extremely hard.

This is exactly why economic growth requires a smooth variation across income levels without to large of a range. *A reasonable level of economic growth is highly dependent upon there being extra resources available across the population.

Two things...

While my ignorance knows few bounds, it stops short of believing that your anecdotal carwash king was homeless by the time they were filing all the forms the government requires of fully legal businesses. Great story of success, though.

Your last sentence proves the idiocy of supply side voodooness whether through corporate welfare through a bobbleheaded old B actor and New Dealer fooling halfwits into believing he was cutting spending or a proudly big spending liberal pissing a trillion or so down the state and local government drain. Tax receipts or public debt being paid into the top is Keynesian whether halfwits call it supply side or admit it is welfare by another name.

Without resources on Main Street, there isn't going to be a recovery of the kind most Americans above about forty are thinking might happen. It can't happen because ALL of the money paid out of the US Treasury to corporations and to state and local government went to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. If Reagan or Obama had enough sense to fight for tax reform, say, making the first $40k or so (in 2012 dollars) income tax free, the recession of 1981 would have ended in six months instead of eighteen and the current mess would already be over as a middle-class destroyer. The mess would still be there, but it wouldn't be as catastrophic to the bottom 33% of wage earners in the US.

To recap: every MAJOR economy in history was based on demand. Demand is to economies what location is to real estate. That is how it has always been. That is how it shall always be. Whether it is diamonds or pet rocks or health care, without demand supply is no guarantee of anything.

Next.

 

[editec]

Interesting thread.

I note that there are partisans posting the usual crap and right along side of them are people who are truly TRYING to explain how REAL economics works.

To those of you here now trying to engage in REAL discussions about the highly complex issue of job creation?



Well done.

While I do not expect our resident TROLLS to ever acknowledge that they are trying to simplify an issue that is VERY subtle and complex, I still appreciate that some of us here are REALLY trying to discuss these vry complex issues rationally.

 

[midcan5]

Define rich - is this censorship - add propaganda

Defining the rich, those who because of the American system of democracy and free enterprise earn over 300 thousand or have assets exceeding several million including lots of liquid assets. That would be my definition. Three homes and two Bentleys may help too. Most people reading this would be happy earning 80 to 120 thousand but I would not define them as rich. Upper middle maybe.

But the rich or wealthy who manage the message of corporations, or simply own assets that provide millions in earning, are the people who often try to control the message, aka censorship. I think the limitation of censorship to only an enforcing entity, government for instance, misses the point. Censorship takes many forms.

A personal observation: if you are watching TV and President Obama is making a speech of some importance, or addressing some timely issue turn to Fox. If you were watching Fox you would not even know he was speaking. I counted several times these past couple of years when this was the case. Now of course someone will say this is not censorship, I would disagree. Now watch Fox when some story or presumed scandal is unfolding. Weird how the slant changes. Of course this is America and Fox is free to bash our President, I just wish they were just a bit more honest about it. They pretend BS is truth and then engage in a circle jerk of sorrowful loss. One wonders how they get through each day.

OK where's propaganda come in? Is Propaganda censorship? That's a tough question because when you have either the money or the position of power, you can censor ideas simply by ignoring it or giving alternate ideas. I'm gonna leave this question open for now.


Propaganda regardless of truth works if it fits a worldview. From here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/103530-fact-paradox-and-random-musings.html#post4213979

"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves." Eric Hoffer

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

 

[PaulS1950]

The only kind of censorship that affectsjobs is the censorship of new ideas and/or products.
To create jobs you must invent or discover a new product or service that people want. The product or service creates a demand. The production or application of that product or service along with a high demand makes it necessary to have more employees (new jobs). As long as there is a demand for the product or service there will be jobs.
If the government censors new ideas then no jobs are created.
Our freedom to come up with new ideas for products and services is what made this country prosperous in the first place.

 

[Katzndogz]

You're right.... poor people create more jobs....

Glad you agree. It really is quite simple, the rich buy one loaf of bread, the poor, because there are many more, buy a thousand loaves of bread. The farmer succeeds, the bread company succeeds, the store succeeds, and the workers succeed. Soon with lots succeeding we have a middle class full of success. This weekend I am among the rich and while they are usually nice people, the idea they create jobs always sticks in the back of my mind. Funny how myths, while myths, gain believers and remain in place in spite of being contrary to common sense.

How do you define rich? If you define rich by President Obama's standards then your examples of the farmer (at least some farmers), the owner of the bread company and the owners of many stores are defined as rich people. They are rich people who provide jobs.

The concept really makes no sense at all. The poor can buy bread if they are first given the money to buy the bread. They do not make dough, or bake, or clean the pans. They contribute nothing to bread baking. Following this line of reasoning, is it possible for a baker to be successful if he must pay the customers to buy his product? If he gives more people money to buy his bread will that make him successful? Of course not.

No it isn't and the idea is totally absurd.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To the censorship point: this is not an example of censorship. It is an example of a private institution deciding on what it is going to publish. Does anyone really need to explain what the basic difference is in a public entity declaring that something cannot be printed/shared over a private entity choosing what it is going to publish?

By your standard expressed in the OP, I can demand that my favorite show being cancelled is censorship. Such a concept is absurd.

As far as the concept that you are trying to declare censored:
The idea that simple demand creates jobs (by creating supply) is equally absurd. Twenty years ago there was zero demand for iPads yet today there is quite a demand there. Was that because poor people suddenly realized that they wanted tablets? No, of course not. It was because some rich people created a product through investment and research that people would want. Then there is demand for all kinds of products that simply do not exist but there is no one that has invented them or created the supply yet. Simply put, to state that the right create jobs ignores the basic fact that you need buyers to make money yet to demand that the poor create jobs ignores the fact that there needs to be a rich man or woman behind them financing the creation of that business or product. In essence, both are wrong. The entire system stand and all levels are required in it. Both capital is required for the creation of the product and the consumers are required for the consumption of that product. Products do not simply magically appear because the poor want them and customers do not magically appear because the rich have money. The system must be taken as a whole or you end up with these worthless arguments that try and ignore massive parts of the process that crates products and jobs.

My guess is that the people that are complaining about TED not hosting the Hanauer talk are the same people that signed a petition to have TED not allow Papandreou to talk at all.

Responding to petition to disinvite George Papandreou from TEDGlobal | TED Blog

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That questions like that sometimes are accepted and are frequently unchallenged is a mystery, given that in ...

...

Still, the question quoted above has no foundation in any context of the world of work. Period.

The facts prove that DEMAND creates OPPORTUNITIES which create jobs. Pretending supply creates jobs is like believing in Santa Claus - more embarrassing with age.

One side of the problem is that the statement is made from double ignorance. [snip supporting anecdote]

I personally know a person that was homeless and created a number of jobs. *He started by hand washing cars, eventually renting an unused car wash. *He managed to grow the business to the point of employing a number of people.

It is extremely difficult. *During an down economy, profit and credit are zero at the bottom of the economy. *Growth requires the smallest level of investment just to pay this months rent to keep the business open for the month. *Accumulating enough to cover seasonal variations is extremely hard.

This is exactly why economic growth requires a smooth variation across income levels without to large of a range. *A reasonable level of economic growth is highly dependent upon there being extra resources available across the population.

Two things...

While my ignorance knows few bounds, it stops short of believing that your anecdotal carwash king was homeless by the time they were filing all the forms the government requires of fully legal businesses. Great story of success, though.

Your last sentence proves the idiocy of supply side voodooness whether through corporate welfare through a bobbleheaded old B actor and New Dealer fooling halfwits into believing he was cutting spending or a proudly big spending liberal pissing a trillion or so down the state and local government drain. Tax receipts or public debt being paid into the top is Keynesian whether halfwits call it supply side or admit it is welfare by another name.

Without resources on Main Street, there isn't going to be a recovery of the kind most Americans above about forty are thinking might happen. It can't happen because ALL of the money paid out of the US Treasury to corporations and to state and local government went to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. If Reagan or Obama had enough sense to fight for tax reform, say, making the first $40k or so (in 2012 dollars) income tax free, the recession of 1981 would have ended in six months instead of eighteen and the current mess would already be over as a middle-class destroyer. The mess would still be there, but it wouldn't be as catastrophic to the bottom 33% of wage earners in the US.

To recap: every MAJOR economy in history was based on demand. Demand is to economies what location is to real estate. That is how it has always been. That is how it shall always be. Whether it is diamonds or pet rocks or health care, without demand supply is no guarantee of anything.

Next.

Where do you live? Do you have any idea how many people violate the law to wash windshields for spare change because they are homeless?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Define rich - is this censorship - add propaganda

Defining the rich, those who because of the American system of democracy and free enterprise earn over 300 thousand or have assets exceeding several million including lots of liquid assets. That would be my definition. Three homes and two Bentleys may help too. Most people reading this would be happy earning 80 to 120 thousand but I would not define them as rich. Upper middle maybe.

But the rich or wealthy who manage the message of corporations, or simply own assets that provide millions in earning, are the people who often try to control the message, aka censorship. I think the limitation of censorship to only an enforcing entity, government for instance, misses the point. Censorship takes many forms.

A personal observation: if you are watching TV and President Obama is making a speech of some importance, or addressing some timely issue turn to Fox. If you were watching Fox you would not even know he was speaking. I counted several times these past couple of years when this was the case. Now of course someone will say this is not censorship, I would disagree. Now watch Fox when some story or presumed scandal is unfolding. Weird how the slant changes. Of course this is America and Fox is free to bash our President, I just wish they were just a bit more honest about it. They pretend BS is truth and then engage in a circle jerk of sorrowful loss. One wonders how they get through each day.

OK where's propaganda come in? Is Propaganda censorship? That's a tough question because when you have either the money or the position of power, you can censor ideas simply by ignoring it or giving alternate ideas. I'm gonna leave this question open for now.


Propaganda regardless of truth works if it fits a worldview. From here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/103530-fact-paradox-and-random-musings.html#post4213979

"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves." Eric Hoffer

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

Should I report this post for violating the CDZ?

This area actually requires that you engage people who post in an attempt to defend your position. Your OP made the point that you thought TED was engaged in censorship, and now you are blathering on about how being rich makes people inherently evil.

 

[FA_Q2]

But the rich or wealthy who manage the message of corporations, or simply own assets that provide millions in earning, are the people who often try to control the message, aka censorship. I think the limitation of censorship to only an enforcing entity, government for instance, misses the point. Censorship takes many forms.

No, it does not ‘miss the point.’ It IS the point. Censorship is not a private individual or a company deciding not to broadcast one opinion or the other. As I already stated, that idea is absurd. Censorship is enforced through the government or some other entity of control and power. If all the TV stations got together and decided that one concept would not be aired then that could be construed with censorship as well but what you have here is a SINGLE entity that represents a minute fraction of the total available information that decided to not air one person’s comments. That is not even remotely censorship.

I state again, what you are essentially stating is that when my favorite show is taken off the air it is censorship. That is insanely absurd but that is exactly what you are stating by calling this censorship.

Further, this idea is not being blocked in general. As a matter of fact it is virtually everywhere and people such as yourself are talking about it all the time. There is not even a hint of censorship in this. That is personal projection on your part because there are so many that reject such a misguided concept.

 

[midcan5]

"Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society -- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state." Link below

The only kind of censorship that affects jobs is the censorship of new ideas and/or products....

Paul, who would censor new ideas and products? What reason would there be considering the novelty? Of course if a product were to replace an existing product and do a better job of it how would that work? Tongue in cheek: as an old darkroom photographer, Kodak should have censored digital. lol

Censorship is a much broader issue than most people who have replied recognize. It can even take the form of repeated untruths. Consider the Iraq war for instance, or smoking doesn't hurt you, or any number of issues that if honestly analyzed would offend someone with the wherewithal to censor. Food for thought below.

"Economic censorship is more difficult to define. The Roman essayist Cicero used the immortal phrase "Cui bono?" (Who Profits? -- the ancient version of our "Follow the money."). But numbers may tell only part of the story. In a situation where there is economic censorship, is it isolated or undertaken in conjunction with some type of political censorship? Is there a monopoly within a certain country that is threatened by competition, or a class of oligarchs that is threatened by the emergence of real economic opportunity for smaller firms? Is the economy in a locale more prone to monopolistic arrangements than to genuine competition and innovation?

On a different level, the actions and reactions of large corporations to the Internet has to be factored into any discussion of economic censorship. Some firms have paid search engine companies for preferential placement in particular subject categories when a user submits an online search inquiry. Is the information tainted because someone has paid for it to be "found," or should the standard be that so long as all responsive information is displayed to the user, placement is irrelevant?" What is Censorship?

Another definition.

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression." What Is Censorship? | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[tipofthespear]

QUOTE:

Quote: Originally Posted by PaulS1950 View Post
The only kind of censorship that affects jobs is the censorship of new ideas and/or products....

Midcan 5
Paul, who would censor new ideas and products? What reason would there be considering the novelty? Of course if a product were to replace an existing product and do a better job of it how would that work? Tongue in cheek: as an old darkroom photographer, Kodak should have censored digital. lol

END QUOTE.

For one, Big Oil Companies, and the Big Three Auto Makers have been buying up "new ideas" for years and years and preventing better, more efficient was of transportation............

 

[midcan5]

For one, Big Oil Companies, and the Big Three Auto Makers have been buying up "new ideas" for years and years and preventing better, more efficient was of transportation............

There are lots of problems with that analysis. Buying ideas, however that happens, is not censoring them, that touches more on patents and law. Research facilities used to be internal to large companies, Bell Labs for instance, today companies either copy or buy up the competitor with the new idea. Remember Chrysler's first mini vans, today all the major companies have copies of that idea. None of this is censorship and patent laws exist for new ideas as well.

If you think censorship exists in this area we need a specific example.