WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

[Thailandnotes]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

We've had deregulation of the banking sector, but hyper-regulation of every other aspect of our lives. Those regulations, supposedly for our own good, are often, usually, for the good of some special interest.

This was the idea behind the Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “Deregulation” has secretly meant the financialization of industry after industry. On my yearly visit to the US, I was amused by how much more expensive it is to own, operate, and park a car. I drove on many new toll roads. Tolls on existing roads were way up. Parking fees and fines were hirer. And Wall Street is right in there behind a lot of it. Best quotes…

“With usury rates of 120% or more, rent-to-own tires companies are preying on the flat broke.”

“We lost our shirts when we took a gamble refinancing our toll roads said the Harris County tax assessor.”

Watching a friend shop for a Kindle at Staples, we asked the salesman if the tablet’s price included the opt out of advertising. “Oh no,” he said, “You buy the tablet and then go online and pay Amazon the fee to turn it off.” (And even paying the fee and opting out does not get rid of the banner scrolling along the bottom that says, "People who bought this also...") This leads back to Bezos buying the Post. Maybe he’s got similar tricks in mind with online newspapers, but I’d bet he loses money on this one.

[lektrode]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

This was the idea behind the Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “Deregulation” has secretly meant the financialization of industry after industry. On my yearly visit to the US, I was amused by how much more expensive it is to own, operate, and park a car. I drove on many new toll roads. Tolls on existing roads were way up. Parking fees and fines were hirer.

altho i DO feel yer pain on this one, having experienced it myself - and _quite_ painfully at that, over the past few years - as the political class suddenly discovers that the roads need fixing and somehow seem to have lost track the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS they have already collected (annually/state-level, never mind fed'l) for that purpose - and so, instead of doing the most fair/rational thing, like simply raising the gas/fuel tax - noooo, thats 'politically' suicidal (for the gutless wonders known as 'career' public 'servants' ) - better to do something like raise the registration fees - that way they get to tell the electorate how they "are keeping taxes low and socking the rich guys/mercedes owners" (even tho we all know just who pays when that happens - since theres far more chevy/toyota owners than MB's)

adding: altho i do believe in USER FEES for all or nearly all public services = you use em, YOU pay for em
vs 'funding' that seems to come magically from that black hole known as 'the general fund' (that also seems to lose... uhhh.. i mean fails to keep track of almost as much as goes down into it... but thats a diff matter entirely and why NH still works much better than most states in that regard, since they DONT co-mingle as much, charge user fees/tolls for the roads thus denying the political class their slushfunds to buy votes with... O&BTW - still - after nearly 400 years - has NO SALES TAXES AND NO INCOME TAX, but YOU get to take yer _own_ trash to the dump ;)

And Wall Street is right in there behind a lot of it. Best quotes…

“With usury rates of 120% or more, rent-to-own tires companies are preying on the flat broke.”

“We lost our shirts when we took a gamble refinancing our toll roads said the Harris County tax assessor.”

Watching a friend shop for a Kindle at Staples, we asked the salesman if the tablet’s price included the opt out of advertising. “Oh no,” he said, “You buy the tablet and then go online and pay Amazon the fee to turn it off.” (And even paying the fee and opting out does not get rid of the banner scrolling along the bottom that says, "People who bought this also...") This leads back to Bezos buying the Post. Maybe he’s got similar tricks in mind with online newspapers, but I’d bet he loses money on this one.

DING DING DING!!!

BINGO!!!

we have a winner!

precisely what i was thinking (and great minds DO think alike ;)

[DSpencer]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

I believe that a concerted and coordinated effort by the primary donators to the Reason Foundation to purchase major metro news outlets is underway. And I believe that there are several folks at the Reason Foundation who are openly hostile to democracy. That's all I was saying. My guess is that most of the hardcore types at Reason and Cato either have or would publish that they are hostile to democracy if given a chance. They certainly heap praise upon lots of public intellectuals who were openly hostile to democracy.

Look. In general, this is not too much different than when the reformed trotskyists at the Heritage Foundation made their power play after the Project for a New American Century. Except there is one big difference. Nobody at Heritage was antithetical to democracy (even if some of them had been in the past). It does make things different, and darker I think, when democracy itself is the enemy of a philosophy, and people publish as much.

I mean, once you get guys like Lew Rockwell, who was employed for years by Ron Paul, publishing stuff like this, it's obvious that they hate Democracy.

I mean, read this quote he wrote just last year:



This is a man who wants to destroy democracy. And he's a big thinker in the libertarian movement - along with Rothbard and the rest of the Mises men.

And Rothbard and Rockwell and the Charles Koch Foundation were all kicking around together in the late 70s when the Charles Koch Foundation was renamed to the Cato Institute. Rothbard was so extreme that in his mind, children were not people, but rather property that might be bought and sold on open, unregulated markets like sides of beef. Meanwhile, David Koch was busy trudging up the hedge fund guys and spinning up the Reason Foundation, whose primary donor is none other than the David Koch Foundation. And now the three top donors, David included, are looking to buy up major newspapers all over the country. And this after they have spent 30 years writing anti-democratic diatribes and funding political machinations. I'd doubt they're just buying this stuff up for a larf.

These people are out there. When people become property and democracy becomes evil, your philosophy has jumped the shark. I fear the damage they could do, bullhorn in hand, if they wished. After all, they would not be the first enemies of democracy to try to grab power through democratic means. That's a pattern old as history itself.

As is often the case on itulip, this is becoming too cumbersome to debate. I ask if you think Bezos is openly hostile to democracy and you write several paragraphs about other people without ever actually answering the question.

Also I think you've gone overboard trying to paint libertarians as some kind of awful monsters. "children were not people, but rather property that might be bought and sold on open, unregulated markets like sides of beef." That's an exaggerated view to say the least. If you actually look at what he wrote it mostly favors children having MORE rights than they do currently. Children are basically treated as property already. The only grain of truth that you think is EXTREME is the idea of being paid for giving your child up for adoption. Adoption is already legal and mostly encouraged. It's also common to pay for a surrogate mother through pregnancy. Is taking it one small step further really such an abomination? Consider: it's also already legal to simply dump your child at a hospital and wash your hands of them completely.

In any case, if I didn't generally enjoy our discussions I wouldn't have kept it up for years. However, this libertarian issue just seems to cloud your judgment. So you think Adam Kokesh is a dangerous radical. If a Muslim had bought WaPo would you be similarly worried based on the views of Osama bin Laden?

In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard explores in terms of self-ownership and contract several contentious issues regarding children's rights.^[62] These include support for a woman's right to abortion, condemnation of parents showing aggression towards children, and opposition to the state forcing parents to care for children, including those with severe health problems. He also holds children have the right to "run away" from parents and seek new guardians as soon as they are able to choose to do so. He suggested parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or even sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract, which he feels is more humane than artificial governmental restriction of the number of children available to willing and often superior parents.
He also discusses how the current juvenile justice system punishes children for making "adult" choices, such as underage drinking or sex, removing children unnecessarily and against their will from parents, often putting them in uncaring and even brutal foster care or juvenile facilities, while at the same time denying to them those legal rights adults enjoy, such as trial by jury or provision of a written transcript of their court proceedings

[vt]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

-- C. S. Lewis

[dcarrigg]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

-- C. S. Lewis

If you believe democracy is tyranny, I'd like to hear your alternative.

[dcarrigg]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

As is often the case on itulip, this is becoming too cumbersome to debate. I ask if you think Bezos is openly hostile to democracy and you write several paragraphs about other people without ever actually answering the question.

Also I think you've gone overboard trying to paint libertarians as some kind of awful monsters. "children were not people, but rather property that might be bought and sold on open, unregulated markets like sides of beef." That's an exaggerated view to say the least. If you actually look at what he wrote it mostly favors children having MORE rights than they do currently. Children are basically treated as property already. The only grain of truth that you think is EXTREME is the idea of being paid for giving your child up for adoption. Adoption is already legal and mostly encouraged. It's also common to pay for a surrogate mother through pregnancy. Is taking it one small step further really such an abomination? Consider: it's also already legal to simply dump your child at a hospital and wash your hands of them completely.

In any case, if I didn't generally enjoy our discussions I wouldn't have kept it up for years. However, this libertarian issue just seems to cloud your judgment. So you think Adam Kokesh is a dangerous radical. If a Muslim had bought WaPo would you be similarly worried based on the views of Osama bin Laden?

It is not libertarians in general I am against. Nor is it Americans who call themselves libertarians, but who do not subscribe to the extreme political philosophy nor who subscribe to anti-democratic beliefs. I am not against every libertarian policy position. I am simply weary of a those deep-rooted ideologues with deep pockets who hate democracy and yet meddle in it. The result of their success can be nothing but tyranny.

I enjoy my exchanges with you. In several other threads we line up fine. And I would not be ringing bells like the town crier about libertarians if the anti-democratic thought wasn't in the mix. If you want libertarianism to be a truly American mode of thought, I would suggest you work within it to quell the anti-democratic elements of the movement. Even the KKK was pro-democracy in ideology, if not in practice. But the FBI went after the revolutionary communists harder than the KKK because they wanted to kill America. I'm afraid there are deep-pocketed libertarians with the same idea.

If an extremist wahhabi muslim like Bin Laden had bought the wapost, I would be equally upset about it. It is not Islam I am against. As it is not libertarianism I am against. It is extremist, anti-democratic, anti-American billionaires with aspirations to end democracy in the world I am against. I don't care if they're Muslim, Libertarian, Communist, Hindu, or Zoroastrian. I just don't want anti-democratic ideologues playing in American politics.

And I am pretty sure that if Anti-Democratic, extremist Muslims bought the WaPost instead of Anti-Democratic, extremist libertarians, the public outcry would be far greater than me on an internet forum. Libertarians who are against democracy are getting a free pass right now to play in American politics. I think they should have to answer for it.

[vinoveri]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

The USA is technically a constitutional republic - the founders understood and created a nation based on law. Anyone who believes the federal system of government of the USA is a democracy is mistaken both technically and actually. Read the preamble to the constitution - the document was directed at "promoting the general welfare" and "insure the blessings of liberty .. to posterity" via the rule of law, limiting the powers of the Fed gov (contra monarchy) and specifically reserving the rights to the people. Yes, the law provides for representation via a democratic process, but I for one believe that that process is clearly broken - the vast majority of Fed gov activities and intrusion is perpetrated by unelected "officials" (see earlier comments in this thread). The federal judiciary (and state) is likewise compromised (remember Bush v Gore - whether the decision was correct or no, the clear biases of political affiliations of the justices shown like a beacon in their rulings reflecting their respective desire of outcome; take Citizens United as another instance (and I used to be a "conservative"), enablers of Corporatism writ large. Anyone who believes the courts are faithfully interpreting the constitution are similarly deluded. We have one government, one party, by the corporations, for the ruling class, and with liberty and justice for the influential (read deep pockets).

[lektrode]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

The USA is technically a constitutional republic - the founders understood and created a nation based on law. Anyone who believes the federal system of government of the USA is a democracy is mistaken both technically and actually. Read the preamble to the constitution - the document was directed at "promoting the general welfare" and "insure the blessings of liberty .. to posterity" via the rule of law, limiting the powers of the Fed gov (contra monarchy) and specifically reserving the rights to the people. Yes, the law provides for representation via a democratic process, but I for one believe that that process is clearly broken - the vast majority of Fed gov activities and intrusion is perpetrated by unelected "officials" (see earlier comments in this thread). The federal judiciary (and state) is likewise compromised (remember Bush v Gore - whether the decision was correct or no, the clear biases of political affiliations of the justices shown like a beacon in their rulings reflecting their respective desire of outcome; take Citizens United as another instance (and I used to be a "conservative"), enablers of Corporatism writ large. Anyone who believes the courts are faithfully interpreting the constitution are similarly deluded. We have one government, one party, by the corporations, for the ruling class, and with liberty and justice for the influential (read deep pockets).

THANK YOU.
couldnt have said it better myself.

i also hold BIG MEDIA responsible for most of what ails us - that and a/the political class who seems to think THEY are The Power, esp when it comes to them voting themselves perks that most (not in the top 2%) can only dream of and then seem to think the laws they pass dont apply to them

and only seem to pay attention to what We, The People think when its time to run for re-election - the rest of the time its a free-fer-all at the hog trough, as they give away the treasury to buy votes and curry favor with the crony class.

with most of them apparently believing that they own The Office and its theirs to horsetrade with - as in: "you vote for my states boondoggle and i'll cover you on yours" - all the while they maintain the facade of 'the 2 party system' during the 30second sound bites that passes for 'news' at 6pm.

why i maintain that THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE UNTIL THERE ARE TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS.

else why would _any_ of em ever move against the status quo?
when that would be political suicide - to do The Right Thing for The Rest of US vs their pet special interest group(s), who just coincidentally happen to get the most exposure from BIG media, for 'the cause' du jour - most recently the farce of 'gun control'

[shiny!]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

why i maintain that THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE UNTIL THERE ARE TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS.

else why would _any_ of em ever move against the status quo?
when that would be political suicide

Again, I agree with you but ask:

HOW do you make it happen? How do you get politicians to vote for term limits when it would

A. go against the status quo, and

B. be political suicide

A bill for term limits would never even get out of committee, much less win a majority of votes. Term limits will never, EVER happen. I hate to say it, but believing that term limits can happen is like putting one's faith in the tooth fairy.

So dealing with the world as it is rather than as we wish it would be, what can we do?

[lektrode]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

Again, I agree with you but ask..
...
hate to say it, but believing that term limits can happen is like putting one's faith in the tooth fairy.

So dealing with the world as it is rather than as we wish it would be, what can we do?

also not-quite-hate to say it, ms shiny! - but i agree with you on the tooth fairy - about as much chance of them balancing the budget (or even coming up with one) any time in our lifetimes.

what would I do (had i The Power, to say whats going to cause 'change we can believe in' ) ??

1st: mandate that the campaign 'season' begin no sooner than 60 days prior to the election and FORCE THEM TO CAMPAIGN ON THEIR OWN TIME (not ours, with the grandstanding and photo-ops that happen mostly while congress is in session) - and changing either the summer recess or the election dates to accomodate the New Schedule.

2nd: eliminate the profits of the lamestream (and liberal-dominated) media machine, by returning to the regulations that used to exist, that would be the ole 'equal time' rules and FORCE BIG MEDIA TO MAKE FREE AIR TIME (and column inches, bandwidth etc) AVAILABLE TO ***ALL*** CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE.

this would have a number of interesting effects, not the least of which would be to _concentrate_ the eyeballs when it is MOST important - 60days before the elections (vs the 2years and counting/increasing period the 'campaign season' is now sucking up)
and prevent the 'news' media from spinning stuff to benefit their own teams agenda.

it would also ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR BILLIONS in campaign spending (and fundraising from special/privileged interests)
and truly _level_ the playing field.

vs the present farce, whereby the loudest, most well-funded machines get all the attention - which merely funnels the billions into the coffers of BIG media, whereby the liberal-dominated editorial depts can run rings around anybody who challenges the status quo or bucks the liberal agenda (to give away the treasury, to buy the votes of those dependent upon gov 'largesse' (read: borrowed trillions that fills the coffers of FIre) and the crony class -

and then they wonder why foxnews is number one?

[jk]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

term limits would guarantee that elected officials were newbies on every issue, at the mercy of permanent staff and - more so- permanent lobbies. i think much more helpful, though at least as unlikely, would be public funding of elections and a very limited period for campaigning.

[shiny!]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

also not-quite-hate to say it, ms shiny! - but i agree with you on the tooth fairy - about as much chance of them balancing the budget (or even coming up with one) any time in our lifetimes.

what would I do (had i The Power, to say whats going to cause 'change we can believe in' ) ??

1st: mandate that the campaign 'season' begin no sooner than 60 days prior to the election and FORCE THEM TO CAMPAIGN ON THEIR OWN TIME (not ours, with the grandstanding and photo-ops that happen mostly while congress is in session) - and changing either the summer recess or the election dates to accomodate the New Schedule.

2nd: eliminate the profits of the lamestream (and liberal-dominated) media machine, by returning to the regulations that used to exist, that would be the ole 'equal time' rules and FORCE BIG MEDIA TO MAKE FREE AIR TIME (and column inches, bandwidth etc) AVAILABLE TO ***ALL*** CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE.

this would have a number of interesting effects, not the least of which would be to _concentrate_ the eyeballs when it is MOST important - 60days before the elections (vs the 2years and counting/increasing period the 'campaign season' is now sucking up)
and prevent the 'news' media from spinning stuff to benefit their own teams agenda.

it would also ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR BILLIONS in campaign spending (and fundraising from special/privileged interests)
and truly _level_ the playing field.

vs the present farce, whereby the loudest, most well-funded machines get all the attention - which merely funnels the billions into the coffers of BIG media, whereby the liberal-dominated editorial depts can run rings around anybody who challenges the status quo or bucks the liberal agenda (to give away the treasury, to buy the votes of those dependent upon gov 'largesse' (read: borrowed trillions that fills the coffers of FIre) and the crony class -

and then they wonder why foxnews is number one?

Those are all wishes. Nice wishes, but still in tooth fairy land. Like term limits, they will never be actualized for the same reason. Any proposed legislation asking corrupt politicians to vote to shoot themselves in the foot will never pass. Expecting power mad sociopaths to vote to strip themselves of their power? They're corrupt, not stupid!

I wasn't asking what you would do if you had The Power. My question was pragmatic, not fanciful:

"So dealing with the world as it is rather than as we wish it would be, what can we do?"

Does anyone have any realistic ideas for getting us out of the mess we're in? Or are we just deceiving ourselves that we still have options because the truth is too grim?

I don't see any way to fix it through legislative means. We can fall for all the promises of the Republican Revolutions and Tea Party Revolutions and Term Limit Revolutions and Campaign Finance Reform Revolutions, but as soon as those new politicians get sworn in, they immediately become corrupted by the system they vowed to reform. Insanity is expecting different results from the same behavior.

So I ask again: REALISTICALLY, what can we do? Can the system be fixed, and if so, HOW?

About the only thing I can think of that will change the status quo is if things get so bad that government simply breaks down under the weight of its own bloated inefficiency.

[DSpencer]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

"So dealing with the world as it is rather than as we wish it would be, what can we do?"

Does anyone have any realistic ideas for getting us out of the mess we're in? Or are we just deceiving ourselves that we still have options because the truth is too grim?

The problem as I see it is that we could change things if we agreed on how they should be changed. Most successful movements involve lots of effort and/or risk. These are both reduced if there is a widespread agreement on the desired change and so both effort and risk are reduced for each individual. Snowden took a risk trying to do what he thought was right, but in the polls I've seen barely more than half think he did the right thing. A good number of people think he is a traitor and should be be punished for treason.

In my opinion the Occupy Wall Street/ We are the 99% protests were an attempt to gain a critical mass by trying to appeal to well...99% of the population. But one problem is they lacked a clear and concise demand. The other problem is that in reality...they weren't the 99%. How many gainfully employed people making $150,000/year were at these protests? Does a lawyer making $250,000 relate more to a banker making $500,000 or to an unemployed 25 year old?

Look around on itulip. Does a consensus ever emerge? Even things like corruption are hard. Almost everyone would say they want to get rid of it in theory. But when it comes down to an individual most people still "support their team". So they vote the crooks back in.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

Peter Thiel...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

[shiny!]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

The problem as I see it is that we could change things if we agreed on how they should be changed. Most successful movements involve lots of effort and/or risk. These are both reduced if there is a widespread agreement on the desired change and so both effort and risk are reduced for each individual.

Are you talking about changing things from outside the Federal legislative system? Protests, strikes. boycotts? Something else? With all the advanced crowd control technology at police/military disposal, is that even possible anymore?

Will middle class people rise up in protest if a stint in jail means losing their job and then losing their house because they missed their mortgage payment? That's the real, underlying reason for the "American Dream" of universal home ownership.

Will people protest if it means losing welfare/unemployment/food stamp or health care benefits? Do most people receiving safety net benefits even want change to a smaller government? Is that the intended consequence of making so many people dependent on government?