Are You A One Percenter

[lektrode]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

astonas, you have summarized powerfully our condition. as i read your words i felt them viscerally, like a punch in the stomach. they are that real, and sorrowfully that accurate. the only thing i would modify is the role of gov't officials - they are just henchmen of the true predators.

+1
Mr A = one of our best commentaters

[astonas]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

eye did watch it/commented - would agree.
altho i happen to think the private sector's 'surveillance' is the more... uhhh... nefarious - vs the .gov's motivation, which is rightfully aimed as keeping the 'spooks/kooks/kidkillers and assorted whackos' from attempting harm - as he mentioned in the vid about the 'panopticon' and orwell's warning - if they think they might be being watched they a bit less inclined to mess around or try that much harder to be clandestine, which increases their logistix load, which reduces the available resources to launch in the first place ? (pls feel free to critique/correct my thinking on this)

I see things differently; indeed I take exactly the opposite view.

The effect of being watched depends on embracing social norms.

Those who respect the social norms of our society most will feel its limitation, and self-censor the most.

Those who actively seek destruction of those norms will delight in flouting them, and prefer to remain just beyond range of retribution, but still as visible as possible.

The government's stated targets are terrorists advancing a radically different cultural agenda, with radically different social norms. Those undoubtedly fall into the second category. They will take pride in being seen to defy our norms, in full view of a watcher, every time they think they can get away with it.

Why do you think ISIS makes videos?

Those groups the government might be justified in intimidating, only become more inflamed.


No, self-censorship can limit only those who don't really need to be limited.

One can complain about the press letting them, of course, but they're really just the middleman. An occasion, not a cause.

WILL disagree on this in particular, as its become quite clear that the lamerstream media is steering 'the agenda'
and mostly by distracting/diverting attention to all the 'hotbutton social issues' while IGNORING/downplaying whats really been goin on....

Hmm, this one may be worth rethinking, lek. Are you aware that you cited a media report of insufficient SEC oversight, as evidence of insufficient media oversight? That might hint that the problem may not lie where you think.

I too, used to blame the media for insufficiently deep reporting, and it's true that it could always be better. Indeed, if transparency is to help us, it still needs to be, and by a lot! But that isn't the same thing as saying the media is at fault. That it is the cause of the problem.

Not at all.

In fact, I think the fact that this particular red herring is brought up so much on iTulip does a lot of damage to this site. It actually distracts us from having real, meaningful, and productive discussions, by displacing the blame from where it (chiefly) belongs.

Reasoning on who controls the media:

The media actually does compete in a free market.

(With such a strong 1st amendment, it is actually one of the freest markets in the world.)

But the really important thing to remember is that it is, to a large degree, an ADVERTISING market.

This means that the consumer of the content that the media generates is not the customer.

And this, in turn, means that the media does not set the agenda. In fact, it means that they can't. The only parties that COULD set the agenda are (a) the viewers who make up the product being sold, and (b) the advertisers who buy the product.

Note that this is true not because news editors don't wish to set the agenda, but because they are actually incapable of doing so. In the short term, they may have influence. On a single story, they may. Perhaps even for a given month. But not in the end. In the end, we as media consumers get (in aggregate) exactly the media we ask for, and pay for. No more, and no less. That's the problem. It is the consumers (viewers) who would rather be entertained than informed. And it is the customers (advertisers) who would rather we aren't challenged to think critically.

I know the above might seem like a counterintuitive answer, but that's because media is a bit of a counterintuitive industry, since the people who consume their products are not their customers.

I'll break it down in more detail to make my reasoning abundantly clear, and accessible for debate. But I'll also set it aside as a quote, so it's easy to skip for those (probably the vast majority of) readers who think I'm belaboring the obvious, or being even more preachy than usual:

You'll already know most of this, but I'll step through it anyway, because it may help make my reasoning more clear:

The media market is almost entirely for-profit. And profits depend on ratings (or readership, sales, clicks, eyeballs, etc.) Even non-profit media costs are based on the same ratings scales. The whole game is about chasing, courting, and counting media consumers. (Not customers, mind you, consumers.) The attention of these consumers is the product that the media companies sell to their customers (the companies that are buying advertising slots from them.) That's who gives them the money.

Media companies don't sell news to us. They sell our attention to their advertisers.

This means that each media outlet has to serve its segment of the market with whatever that segment will most eagerly consume. Note that word choice. Not lead. Not educate. Not teach. Serve. If a news organization starts to try to tell their consumers to think in a way they don't like, they'll loose the very product they are trying to sell: us. And thus also all the revenues they get for selling us to their customers. And if they start trying to tell us to think about whether consumerism is a good thing at all, they will even more quickly and directly lose their customers.

When it comes to the political sphere, the right is served by different media outlets than the left. Extremists consume different ones than moderates, and so on. The total market is extraordinarily fractionated, and heavily-analyzed statistically by those operating in it. It has to be, since that's how the media justifies their prices to advertisers.

And in this environment, with media companies desperately competing for eyeballs to sell, every single major media outlet claims to be at the "center" of the political spectrum. Each claims to represent the silent majority's view, even when it is perfectly obvious that it is impossible for this to be true for more than one of them (and likely true for none). This is because "News" is supposed to be about objectivity, and even if this lie is perpetrated as much from tradition as it is for sales, it is by now stretched thin to the point of translucency.

So unless a media operation is trying to change its stance to a position it thinks is more popular, or less critical, it always does so at its own mortal peril. No major outlet is even trying to get to the center, except perhaps of their target market segment.

Offending the consumer by telling him he's wrong means taking a financial hit. In general, those media outlets that are still in existence are the ones who (a) know who their customers are, and (b) refrain from challenging them to change their minds about anything.

The consequence of this is that on average, the distribution of news media opinions will always have a very strong driving force toward a time-weighted distribution* of the political views of media consumers. The media is not pushing on public opinion, it's being pulled around by it.

If it does anything else, it does so by choosing to give up profits for the sake of ideology. Money can, and in cases does, permit control. But control is not free. Even the media must choose between pleasing advertisers, and exerting whatever influence they do wield, for their own purposes.


* I included the "time-weighting" term to account for people who, for example, might view twice the news. In effect, they get counted twice in the distribution. If they seek out a balance of opinions, they might partially cancel out. If not, they double, etc.

In general, then, the "media opinion" is in fact, nothing more or less than the "popular opinion", but weighted based on media consumption. Consume more media, have more votes.

That's why, when someone complains about the media, they really aren't making a statement about anything external to their own mind. All they are saying is how their personal opinions compare to those of other media consumers (adjusted for advertising pressure). This is generally a pretty meaningless point to make in any discussion, since it is exclusively about a subjective feeling, and even then applicable only to a relative (moving) and manipulated (consumerist) metric.

So the media doesn't lead. If it wants to stay in business, it follows. And not one ocontent creator even tries to chase the overall population (though that's what they claim to represent). Instead each follows its target market segment.

And that's why, when anyone complains that "the media has a bias", or "the media is pushing an agenda" it doesn't make even a bit of sense to believe them. What the media is doing is desperately pandering to their viewers, by telling them that the opinion the viewer already has, is what everyone else has too. That makes the consumer feel good, and lets the media sell those consumers to their customers.

On the fallacy of the "center":

A bias has to be relative to something. In politics, people talk about the "center" as though it is a fixed place. But everyone considers themselves more moderate, and reasonable, than they really are objectively, so they are really taking themselves as a reference point. (That's the basic fallacy that makes people so mad at "the media".)

If they are far enough off center that even they can't deny having a specific agenda, they refer to themselves as "moderates" of the right or left, regardless of whether quotes are definitional or ironic.

And I'll be honest, while I like to think of myself as a centrist, try to be one, and describe myself as one, I have no idea where I actually stand on the spectrum. No one does. Without unbiased, quantitative numbers (which I'm not sure can really exist) I'm not sure there is a way to know where the real center is.

So for example, if someone says "The media has a conservative bias." All they have really told you is the following: "I am more liberal than the average media consumer."

Similarly when someone says "The media has a liberal bias." The only sensible translation is: "I am a conservative, compared to other media consumers."

When someone is deeply convinced of the media bias because it matches their personal experience, I would ask if that isn't better understood as them having surrounded themselves with people who think like them, or having restricted their own media input, so their view of "center" is different from a numerically accurate center of the overall market. That seems more logical, and by Occam's razor, more likely.

On the correct interpretation of remarks disparaging the aggregate media:

There is one other consequence to my perspective on the media, and I hope that you don't take offense that I'm pointing it out. I respect you, Lektrode, but there is one of your habits that I can no longer respect.

If someone says "lame-stream media" I now tend to interpret that as a request for media content to be dumbed down to Sarah Palin levels, free of any shades of gray, nuance, or subtlety. (I believe that it was she that really popularized the term in that light, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)

My reason for thinking this is that I sincerely cannot see a good reason to categorically defame (not criticize, mind you, but categorically defame) the vast bulk of all public opinion. The only (insufficient) reason I can come up with is that one wishes to replace the body of public opinion with a simplistic, but usually false, dichotomy. The term "lame-stream" is simultaneously so all-encompassing (plays off "mainstream" and thus by definition encompasses the majority of public opinion) and so simplistically dismissive (can one get more schoolyard than "lame?) that it is incompatible with any spectrum of public opinion containing even a bit of variety and nuance.

I understand that this isn't the sentiment that you intend to convey as you use the term "lame-stream." But it is nevertheless how I've come to understand the term, as I've re-evaluated my view of who is really in the media driver's seat.

(I should point out, for completeness, that all of the above applies in aggregate, and most especially to large media outlets. There are other arguments that explain how the fine traditions of muckraking journalists and investigative reporting can survive, and the existence of fact-checking services whose credibility depends on neutrality. But these are very small players when it comes to the big-money game of influencing public opinion.)

If you're going to make a case for OVERALL bias of the ENTIRE industry, you're going to have to justify how the bias you are claiming improves the profit for not only one, but EACH of the media players in the field.

That is a case that is very easy to make about the dumbing-down of media (which I think is quite real) as well as about a bias toward consumerism (which is the essential paradigm of most advertising) but is a much harder case to make for a net left-right political bias in media.

After 9-11, the people CHOSE to become sheep, so they could feel like they had a shepherd. They just didn't realize that when you become a sheep, there can be no shepherd.

Only wolves on your side of the border.

and THEN we cant even gettem to focus on that aspect (withOUT a 'triangulation calculation' on how many votes it can buy by NOT ADDRESSING IT) - how in hell does anybody think we'll EVER have 'security' without SECURING THE BORDERS (esp the southern)

So ... my reference to borders was not intended to relate to "border security" at all. It was merely a poetic way of saying that the people preying on Americans are in fact those who we ourselves elevate, that we give them power over us, even ultimate power, when we abdicate our responsibility to think for ourselves.

To the extent that it relates to physical borders at all, it would actually allude to the opposite of your apparent concern. The true threat is not outside of any border. It is always inside. That's true no matter where the border is, no matter what country you're in, and no matter how impermeable the border is.

It is true not because of the nature of the government. It is true because of the nature of people.

It is a property of government that we need to give up a measure of control to it, so that it may serve our needs. But if we cease being vigilant in supervising it, ANY government, large or small, capitalist or communist, can run amok.

That's why one does not have the option to settle for a government that is only as good as the people in it. Such a system is always inherently flawed.

Instead, we need a system that makes elected officials ACT as good as they possibly can, regardless of how they WANT to act.

Transparency -> accountability -> efficiency. Only then can scope be discussed.

other than those couple Mr A - i'm with ya, 100%

Glad to hear it, lektrode. Always nice to chat. Sorry it got so long, I didn't have time to do any editing, but wanted to get a reply out before everyone lost interest, so there's more stream-of-consciousness babbling than I'd like.

[lektrode]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

I see things differently; indeed I take exactly the opposite view.

The effect of being watched depends on embracing social norms.
....Why do you think ISIS makes videos?

Those groups the government might be justified in intimidating, only become more inflamed.
No, self-censorship can limit only those who don't really need to be limited.

maybe so - but its the ones that we DONT know about that are the problem - hence 'the need' to be, as you say below VIGILENT

and my only comment on that video was that while i agree with the author's general theme - as well as most of your observations - it seems like his primary issue is with .gov surveillance and the patriot act - and my question remains: how ELSE does he and everybody else think that the DOD/state/NSA et al are supposed to keep an eye on the 'evil doers' ?

and while i WISH i could compose+type anywhere near as fast as some appear able around here - never mind have the intellectual horsepower to even TRY to keep up with the more vocal/verbose in these discussions, Mr A - i simply dont have the time to do so (and with ALL due respect sir - at least when it comes to the 'psycho science' of the so poly-sci-animated-motivated types that are drawn to this sort of stuff (read: i know when i'm in waaaaay over my head, here in the 'deeper end' of the 'tulip pool ;)

but all i can offer is my 'uneducated' J6P/workin stiff POV - something that most of the political class/intellectual 'elite' seem quite happy to ignore - esp if 'their jobs depend upon them ignoring it' (to paraphrase that one about how 'bond traders/financial advisors not knowing how markets really work' - with apologies/due respect to all occupations mentioned here)

Hmm, this one may be worth rethinking, lek. Are you aware that you cited a media report of insufficient SEC oversight, as evidence of insufficient media oversight? That might hint that the problem may not lie where you think.

ok - fair enough - but since when is PBS/frontline considered - by anybody - cept maybe PBS or NPR afficionados, of which i count myself among) - since when is frontline a 'mainstream media' product?

and what % of the electorate would you suppose EVER watches PBS, never mind documentaries like Frontline ?
(and/or even saw or even are interested in movies like INSIDE JOB)

or how about mags like rollin stone - with matt taibbi's very illuminating series - what 'mainstream media' has focused on much of anything thats happened since the meltdown of 2008-09 - never mind since 1999 -

my guess would be less than 10%

I too, used to blame the media for insufficiently deep reporting, and it's true that it could always be better. Indeed, if transparency is to help us, it still needs to be, and by a lot! But that isn't the same thing as saying the media is at fault. That it is the cause of the problem.

Not at all.

guess we're pretty much on opposite poles on that one, Mr A....

and i'll have to defer to your exhaustive explaination/essay on why you think that, for reasons i stated above -

On the correct interpretation of remarks disparaging the aggregate media:

There is one other consequence to my perspective on the media, and I hope that you don't take offense that I'm pointing it out. I respect you, Lektrode, but there is one of your habits that I can no longer respect.

If someone says "lame-stream media" I now tend to interpret that as a request for media content to be dumbed down to Sarah Palin levels, free of any shades of gray, nuance, or subtlety. (I believe that it was she that really popularized the term in that light, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)
.....

and i'll just say that when someone uses this as an example of why the media ISNT to blame?
with ALL due respect Mr A - it sounds like the typical 'apologist' tactic to discredit anyone who challenges the status quo that the lamerstream media has concocted - and insults whatever intelligence the opposition may exhibit

and as much as i'd appreciate the opportunity to examine/discuss all that you so generously kranked out on this one, i just cant think/compose/type that fast (and i'd be on this one for at least a(nother) day ;)

so lets just say that i've been further enlightened on this topic (media influence etc) but remain unconvinced - but will thankyou for your otherwise excellent output here.

Instead, we need a system that makes elected officials ACT as good as they possibly can, regardless of how they WANT to act.

Transparency -> accountability -> efficiency. Only then can scope be discussed.

and see, no matter how we got here, we still agree!

Glad to hear it, lektrode. Always nice to chat. Sorry it got so long, I didn't have time to do any editing, but wanted to get a reply out before everyone lost interest, so there's more stream-of-consciousness babbling than I'd like.

well if anybody is guilty of that, Mr A - its me
;)

[LazyBoy]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Regarding regulating lemonade stands:
https://wetheeconomy.com/films/lemon.../?autoplay=yes

[lektrode]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Regarding regulating lemonade stands:
https://wetheeconomy.com/films/lemon.../?autoplay=yes

quite the production = nicely done
eye note morgan 'supersize me' spurlock is involved - and even has paul allen behind him:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dinagach...e-the-economy/

should be interesting... will have to watch the rest of em
thanks LB!

[DSpencer]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Regarding regulating lemonade stands:
https://wetheeconomy.com/films/lemon.../?autoplay=yes

Very strange. There's another video on the site about why the minimum wage is important. It's basically a propaganda video that centers on Seattle's $15/hr minimum wage debate. I can't help but laugh at the irony at the end of the lemonade movie:

"You should come work for me, I can give you minimum wage. That's good regulation."

Hmm, I highly doubt that. Has Spurlock actually considered that there's little chance that a child could make enough money selling lemonade (at a 75 cent gross margin in the video) to pay someone a $15/hr wage?

And if he does think a child could make that much: does he think that everyone working at McDonald's is so stupid that they don't realize that if they want to make a "living wage" they could just quit their $10/hr job, open a lemonade stand and get a 50% raise?

This guy has so little economic sense that it's simply embarrassing he would attempt making videos to teach others.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Very strange. There's another video on the site about why the minimum wage is important. It's basically a propaganda video that centers on Seattle's $15/hr minimum wage debate. I can't help but laugh at the irony at the end of the lemonade movie:

"You should come work for me, I can give you minimum wage. That's good regulation."

Hmm, I highly doubt that. Has Spurlock actually considered that there's little chance that a child could make enough money selling lemonade (at a 75 cent gross margin in the video) to pay someone a $15/hr wage?

And if he does think a child could make that much: does he think that everyone working at McDonald's is so stupid that they don't realize that if they want to make a "living wage" they could just quit their $10/hr job, open a lemonade stand and get a 50% raise?

This guy has so little economic sense that it's simply embarrassing he would attempt making videos to teach others.

Let's not make this into a minimum wage argument.

But I'll tell you, I thought the video was stupid for whole different reasons. The regulatory capture imagery was ridiculous. Lemonade stands aren't even market economy - they're kids being cute. And the picture of corruption was so stupid and over the top, you don't want to get me started. Plus the illustration of monopoly was poorly done, as was the criticism of intellectual property.

If anything, it smelled a lot like libertarian propaganda to me except for the last couple seconds where they drop externalities and minimum wage.

So, suffice it to say, seems to me that us two watched this from two different angles and found it lacking for two different reasons.

I don't know what that means. Either we can agree the thing sucks, or it succeeded at showing 2 sides of something.

Probably we can agree it sucks.

[astonas]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

maybe so - but its the ones that we DONT know about that are the problem - hence 'the need' to be, as you say below VIGILENT

and my only comment on that video was that while i agree with the author's general theme - as well as most of your observations - it seems like his primary issue is with .gov surveillance and the patriot act - and my question remains: how ELSE does he and everybody else think that the DOD/state/NSA et al are supposed to keep an eye on the 'evil doers' ?

I'm with Franklin on this one:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-- written by Benjamin Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor (11 Nov. 1755)

I regard the demand for perfect domestic safety to be a considerable act of cowardice.

(I'm not directing the term at you specifically, it's just my general stance. I'm hoping that on consideration, you might rethink, and agree with the categorization.)

Not only is it impossible to achieve, the quest for it is destroying that in our nation which is legitimately worth fighting for. It also demands that the men and women of our armed forces go to fight and die in distant and unproductive wars, which not only fail to make us safer, but even if they could do so, it would be at the cost of letting other Americans die on our behalf. I don't think the marginal increase in safety is worth the added cost.

Personally, I would rather live with a higher risk of a terrorist attack, than lose all our freedoms, blood, and treasure, to stop them all. I don't think the "evil-doers" are nearly as scary as they're made out to be, and even if they were, I think it'd be worth the risk.

We accept risk trade-offs, even fatal ones, every time we get in the car to drive. And we do so for far lesser benefits than the preservation of essential privacy.

and while i WISH i could compose+type anywhere near as fast as some appear able around here - never mind have the intellectual horsepower to even TRY to keep up with the more vocal/verbose in these discussions, Mr A - i simply dont have the time to do so (and with ALL due respect sir - at least when it comes to the 'psycho science' of the so poly-sci-animated-motivated types that are drawn to this sort of stuff (read: i know when i'm in waaaaay over my head, here in the 'deeper end' of the 'tulip pool ;)

but all i can offer is my 'uneducated' J6P/workin stiff POV - something that most of the political class/intellectual 'elite' seem quite happy to ignore - esp if 'their jobs depend upon them ignoring it' (to paraphrase that one about how 'bond traders/financial advisors not knowing how markets really work' - with apologies/due respect to all occupations mentioned here)

The "aw, shucks" act works well most of the time, lektrode, but I'm not buying it.

After hanging around on iTulip this long, you've picked up more debate skills than you like to let on. ;)

But I will readily admit that I threw too much text up in my last post, so I won't demand that you slog through it all, to respond.

ok - fair enough - but since when is PBS/frontline considered - by anybody - cept maybe PBS or NPR afficionados, of which i count myself among) - since when is frontline a 'mainstream media' product?

and what % of the electorate would you suppose EVER watches PBS, never mind documentaries like Frontline ?
(and/or even saw or even are interested in movies like INSIDE JOB)

or how about mags like rollin stone - with matt taibbi's very illuminating series - what 'mainstream media' has focused on much of anything thats happened since the meltdown of 2008-09 - never mind since 1999 -

my guess would be less than 10%

guess we're pretty much on opposite poles on that one, Mr A....

and i'll have to defer to your exhaustive explaination/essay on why you think that, for reasons i stated above -


and i'll just say that when someone uses this as an example of why the media ISNT to blame?
with ALL due respect Mr A - it sounds like the typical 'apologist' tactic to discredit anyone who challenges the status quo that the lamerstream media has concocted - and insults whatever intelligence the opposition may exhibit

and as much as i'd appreciate the opportunity to examine/discuss all that you so generously kranked out on this one, i just cant think/compose/type that fast (and i'd be on this one for at least a(nother) day ;)

so lets just say that i've been further enlightened on this topic (media influence etc) but remain unconvinced - but will thankyou for your otherwise excellent output here.

What matters is not the percentage of the total market. There is a source for each segment of the market; It is the responsibility of the media consumer to find a sufficient selection of decent sources, and patronize them. When the bad providers become favored, instead of the good ones, that is the fault of "We the People," at least as much as it is the bad actors themselves. Without the complicity of the population, they couldn't get away with it. That was the essence of my point.

and see, no matter how we got here, we still agree!

It is indeed nice to see agreement on the basics.

[DSpencer]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Let's not make this into a minimum wage argument.

But I'll tell you, I thought the video was stupid for whole different reasons. The regulatory capture imagery was ridiculous. Lemonade stands aren't even market economy - they're kids being cute. And the picture of corruption was so stupid and over the top, you don't want to get me started. Plus the illustration of monopoly was poorly done, as was the criticism of intellectual property.

If anything, it smelled a lot like libertarian propaganda to me except for the last couple seconds where they drop externalities and minimum wage.

So, suffice it to say, seems to me that us two watched this from two different angles and found it lacking for two different reasons.

I don't know what that means. Either we can agree the thing sucks, or it succeeded at showing 2 sides of something.

Probably we can agree it sucks.

I definitely thought it sucked.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

I definitely thought it sucked.

Common ground wins again!

[vt]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Inequality has it's roots in K-12 education:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...b8a_story.html

[lektrode]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

had to 'tro in 2 more cents on this....

Very strange. ...
...
This guy has so little economic sense that it's simply embarrassing he would attempt making videos to teach others.

....

But I'll tell you, I thought the video was stupid for whole different reasons.....
...
. Either we can agree the thing sucks, or it succeeded at showing 2 sides of something.

Probably we can agree it sucks.

1st off - its kinda funny & not surprising that with the rocket-scientist level of economics discussion that takes place here on the 'tulip that this production is considered by 2 of the more opposite POV's to be lame for '2 diff reasons'

when my obs is that its aimed at the 'smart phone' set /demographic (and by that i genl'y mean the 'recreational' smart phone user base = young'ns, vs the biz user base)

and quite likely aimed at the .edu complex (for funding and grants etc - even tho they got m$ft:allen's backing it)

why eye thot it was interesting - it would appear to be an attempt to bring up (broach) the topic of money/economics to those who tend to spend near every free moment pecking away on their 'phones' (more along the lines of back to the future of 'communicating via telegraph' than anything else - since they wont/dont even use voice-mail now)

[DSpencer]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

had to 'tro in 2 more cents on this....

1st off - its kinda funny & not surprising that with the rocket-scientist level of economics discussion that takes place here on the 'tulip that this production is considered by 2 of the more opposite POV's to be lame for '2 diff reasons'

when my obs is that its aimed at the 'smart phone' set /demographic (and by that i genl'y mean the 'recreational' smart phone user base = young'ns, vs the biz user base)

and quite likely aimed at the .edu complex (for funding and grants etc - even tho they got m$ft:allen's backing it)

why eye thot it was interesting - it would appear to be an attempt to bring up (broach) the topic of money/economics to those who tend to spend near every free moment pecking away on their 'phones' (more along the lines of back to the future of 'communicating via telegraph' than anything else - since they wont/dont even use voice-mail now)

That's actually the reason that I find it so disturbing. The only thing worse than being ignorant is being misinformed. The last thing we need is a bunch of people running around pretending to understand the economy because they watched a 5 minute video by Morgan Spurlock.

Remember, this is the same guy who filmed himself eating McDonald's and then vomiting in the parking lot as if that was somehow representative of people's McDonald's experience.

[jk]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

That's actually the reason that I find it so disturbing. The only thing worse than being ignorant is being misinformed. The last thing we need is a bunch of people running around pretending to understand the economy because they watched a 5 minute video by Morgan Spurlock.

Remember, this is the same guy who filmed himself eating McDonald's and then vomiting in the parking lot as if that was somehow representative of people's McDonald's experience.

otoh eating mcdonald's 3x/day started causing him to have liver damage within a few weeks. doesn't mean everyone's liver would react that way, but still worth noting. try googling "n.a.s.h.", the rate of which keeps rising.

[DSpencer]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

otoh eating mcdonald's 3x/day started causing him to have liver damage within a few weeks. doesn't mean everyone's liver would react that way, but still worth noting. try googling "n.a.s.h.", the rate of which keeps rising.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's at all healthy to eat at McDonald's 3x/day. I try to eat there as little as possible.

I just think he is more interested in pushing an agenda than providing an objective view of things. Marijuana might be a gateway drug or cause cancer or impair judgment, but it doesn't mean that Reefer Madness was an accurate portrayal of the dangers.