The Murdoch Media

[Giardiasis]

"Bob Stewart has lived in Bermuda all of his adult life, and was chief executive of the Royal/Dutch Shell Group of Companies in Bermuda until his retirement in 1998. Subsequently, he was President of Old Mutual Asset Managers, Bermuda, and retired from there at the end of 2002. He is a director of several Bermuda companies and investment funds, and the author of A Guide to the Economy of Bermuda."

So Bob who lives in Bermuda (presumably to avoid tax, but that is a value judgement and I am happy to be proved wrong).

Bob Stewart's background is immaterial to the arguments he presented. Ad hominen has no place in rational debate.

Now i may be a just a dumb bloke from the suburbs, but from what I can tell good ole Bob here basically spells out the problem. It's not that our friends on Wall Street packaged loans that had no chance of ever being paid back with with loans that had a good chance of being paid back and when the people that had no chance of paying back their loans defaulted the value of these mortgage backed securities became toxic.

That goodness Bob explained that it was by the poor people who took out the loans and could not pay them back and the US government for not deregulating enough. Not the good men of Wall Street who were just helping out....

Of course the far left is going to blame the free market and the far right is going to blame government interference..

He isn't blaming poor people for taking out loans, but he obviously made it clear that it would be a grave error to point the finger at Wall Street. The actions of both parties were at the end of the day a result of government policy. Now if you have a counter argument to this, then I'm all ears, but if you do not, then perhaps you should consider whether the truths you hold dear might need a review. Otherwise you will remain a cheerleader for the left. The right incidentally ignore the biggest issue, i.e. the perverse effect of central banking and its loose monetary policy. It also advocates for stimulus and other such government policy options to resolve the problem. The left and the right are both wrong.

We are of subject.. but bugger it I will go out on a tangent....

Lets just imagine for a moment that Ron Paul become President with the current Republican control of the two houses and he was able to implement a Libertarian model that began with getting rid of the the Fed reserve and completely dismantling all government agencies leaving a minimal tax that pays for security of private assets only. In 8 years this may be possible although he may lose control of the houses at some stage.

At sometime between 2025 and 2035 we will reach a level of technology that allows artificial intelligence. Most jobs in IT and manufacturing will be gone or go by 2035. In fact mining, food production, transport, finance, certain health areas, defense and telecommunications will change dramatically.

The message is clear whatever we are doing now, the likelihood is that work will not exist in 20 years. Possibly the service industry will grow. The question is how will anyone apart from some cleaners, nurses and the owners of capital make money?

Who will be able to purchase what the owners of capital make?

Rupert will be dead, but how will his kids make money if no one is working and cannot afford foxtel. (love the way I brought this back on topic)

Good ole Bob will be dead but at least he will have been able to leave Bermuda and get back to the USA because of the great changes Ron Paul had made.

The shift from labour to capital is happening right now, we will get there without a Ron Paul as president of the US. You are making the same argument that all Luddites through history have made. Try this:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/part-ii-robots-to-rule-world-taking-all.html

 

[AngryAnt]

Ratings are skewed by the fact that the ABC is free (ignoring tax costs). If the government came out and offered free financial advice, the demand for financial advice would skyrocket. This doesn't tell you anything meaningful about the demand for financial advice.

Television and radio are both "free" for the end user, whether commercial or government owned.

Media will be increasingly online and infinitely measurable so your argument around "price signals" is invalid. Adapt your theory.

 

[AngryAnt]

Now of course you might argue that certain individuals will benefit from state intervention that benefits them but hurts the majority (e.g. tariffs). But if you consider the policy as a single instance in a general pro-tariff state of affairs, economics would show that the whole system is to the individual's detriment. In the short run, individuals might also profit from violating others. But in the long run, in indulging in such actions, they damage their own selfish interests no less than those of the people they have injured.

Utilitarian liberalism does not say, "You want B, but you should really want A." Rather, it says, "You think B will result in Y, which you want. But it will not. Instead it will result in X, which you do not want. However, if you adopt A, you will get Z, which you would like best, but did not even know was possible."

All well and good but now you are suggesting that people don't know what is best for themselves and need someone enlightened - ie a liberatarian - to tell them what is best for them because they "can't see it themselves".

Sounds rather like Marx and Engels promoting class consciousness to me.

 

[Giardiasis]

Television and radio are both "free" for the end user, whether commercial or government owned.

Media will be increasingly online and infinitely measurable so your argument around "price signals" is invalid. Adapt your theory.

It is true that the ABC can tailor their programming around how successful they are at attracting readers/viewers/listeners to certain programs like the commercial networks. But this is not the same thing as measuring subjective value. The content of radio and TV is free in that you don't pay money, but you have to sit through lots and lots of advertising. What would you rather listen to/watch, media with or without advertising? This will distort true demand.

The ratings can be used to identify what people want to consume, but the ABCs ratings are skewed given the fact that the ABC isn't constrained by the need to make a profit. They can continue to make programs at a loss. Only under conditions in which business' require profit making can media companies correctly economise their content to satisfy demand.

 

[Giardiasis]

All well and good but now you are suggesting that people don't know what is best for themselves and need someone enlightened - ie a liberatarian - to tell them what is best for them because they "can't see it themselves".

Sounds rather like Marx and Engels promoting class consciousness to me.

You misinterpreted, the whole point I was making was that utilitarian economics has nothing to say about ends, only means to ends. Libertarians aren't interested in telling people what outcomes are best for them. They are interesting in telling people how best to achieve what ends they want to achieve. They aren't interested in forcing this upon people either, people have to come to that conclusion themselves.

Unlike Marxism, which seeks to destroy all traitors to the true proletarian class interests (as determined by the dictator at the top).

 

[tigersnake]

What I said was that you said nothing to invalidate the concept of subjective value. That isn't shifting goal posts.

Ok, well if you don't want to find evidence, then forgive me for rejecting it.

And there you have it, on the one hand the ABC analyses public opinion and provides balanced media reporting based upon it, and then on the other hand it makes a judgement of the worth of public opinion, and rejects a large chunk of it. If the ABC is true to providing balanced reporting, it would present both sides of the argument freely, and offer equal content to both. As you agree, it does not do this. Clear cut evidence that the ABC reports purely on the subjective value of the people that work there.

on the first point, I have explained, or tried to, 2 or 3 times, you have implied subjective societal values are invalid, fake, irrelevant. I countered that point with the evidence of our legal system. A real, living, breathing, bricks and mortar, blokes wearing wigs, manifestation of the subjective societal values of justice and equality. This was attempt to illustrate that subjective values are real, important and assessable. Thats all I can do or say really.

On the second point, this is ludicrous to me. The ABC does prosecute and give some weight to the CC skeptic position, I hear it all the time. (I don't think they should but thats just me). This is in spite of all reasonable indicators showing thats its a pretty kooky view, (a bit like a significant proportion of Queenslanders thinking daylight savings fades curtains, makes cows give sour milk etc). Some people out there think that we dont have to eat, that we can subsist on air and water, that 2 + 2 = 22 etc, at some point the ABC, like all other aspects of society, sifts out certain views based on evidence and consensus. I understand you don't like that, and I understand why (at least with that particular issue, I'm sure if they started prosecuting other kooky issues you didn't like your view would change), but thats how societies advance and solve collective problems.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Murdoch's lapdog Tony doing a fine job of dismantling the ABC before our eyes.
The lying sack of sh!t makes me so mad.

 

[bullus_hit]

Murdoch's lapdog Tony doing a fine job of dismantling the ABC before our eyes.
The lying sack of sh!t makes me so mad.

The ABC is very resilient, the next government will hopefully restore balance. I find it very disappointing that Fairfax has joined the hyenas with regards to the cuts, it seems that everyone is in it for themselves.

 

[Ian4]

Murdoch's lapdog Tony doing a fine job of dismantling the ABC before our eyes.
The lying sack of sh!t makes me so mad.

the herald sun tore julia to shreds for the lie on the carbon tax. abbott said on election eve that there will be no cuts to the ABC. did anyone read the herald sun editorial on friday? they openly support the ABC budget cuts.

FFS.

 

[tigersnake]

the herald sun tore julia to shreds for the lie on the carbon tax. abbott said on election eve that there will be no cuts to the ABC. did anyone read the herald sun editorial on friday? they openly support the ABC budget cuts.

FFS.

Pretty basic stuff. The positive is that Abbott and co have gone far too hard too quick. Gone next election failing a tampa~like scenario. The negative is that the ALP are still making with the 'me too, what do we stand for Again?'
I'm a

 

[Giardiasis]

on the first point, I have explained, or tried to, 2 or 3 times, you have implied subjective societal values are invalid, fake, irrelevant. I countered that point with the evidence of our legal system. A real, living, breathing, bricks and mortar, blokes wearing wigs, manifestation of the subjective societal values of justice and equality. This was attempt to illustrate that subjective values are real, important and assessable. Thats all I can do or say really.

On the second point, this is ludicrous to me. The ABC does prosecute and give some weight to the CC skeptic position, I hear it all the time. (I don't think they should but thats just me). This is in spite of all reasonable indicators showing thats its a pretty kooky view, (a bit like a significant proportion of Queenslanders thinking daylight savings fades curtains, makes cows give sour milk etc). Some people out there think that we dont have to eat, that we can subsist on air and water, that 2 + 2 = 22 etc, at some point the ABC, like all other aspects of society, sifts out certain views based on evidence and consensus. I understand you don't like that, and I understand why (at least with that particular issue, I'm sure if they started prosecuting other kooky issues you didn't like your view would change), but thats how societies advance and solve collective problems.

Ok, so you aren't arguing against subjective value; you are arguing in the concept of "societal values", as in values shared by the collective. I'm arguing that only individuals have subjective value, and that there is no such thing as "societal values" in the sense of a collective consciousness. However individuals can share values, such as social cooperation, which forms the basis for the legal system.

It doesn't matter if you consider it a kooky view, the fact is that a large proportion of Australian's are sceptical of AGW, hence the ABC should provide "balanced" coverage for this issue. It overwhelmingly provides coverage in support of AGW as a reality, and advances socialism solutions to solve it. A clear cut case that the ABC is not balanced. Likining scepticism of AGW to the idea that 2+2=22 etc is hyperbole.

 

[tigersnake]

Ok, so you aren't arguing against subjective value; you are arguing in the concept of "societal values", as in values shared by the collective. I'm arguing that only individuals have subjective value, and that there is no such thing as "societal values" in the sense of a collective consciousness. However individuals can share values, such as social cooperation, which forms the basis for the legal system.

It doesn't matter if you consider it a kooky view, the fact is that a large proportion of Australian's are sceptical of AGW, hence the ABC should provide "balanced" coverage for this issue. It overwhelmingly provides coverage in support of AGW as a reality, and advances socialism solutions to solve it. A clear cut case that the ABC is not balanced. Likining scepticism of AGW to the idea that 2+2=22 etc is hyperbole.

On the forst point, fair enough, we were at crossed purposes. We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe societal or cultural values are real.

On the second point, the ABC provides coverage in support of AGW as a reality (not as overwhelmingly as it should due to political pressure) for a very simple reason: I'm afraid the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that AGW is real, and the ABC proceeds on that basis, as it should.

 

[tigersnake]

the herald sun tore julia to shreds for the lie on the carbon tax. abbott said on election eve that there will be no cuts to the ABC. did anyone read the herald sun editorial on friday? they openly support the ABC budget cuts.

FFS.

Its very simple Ian:

The CT THREATENED the vested interests of powerful individuals and corporations.

The cuts to the ABC ASSIST the vested interests of powerful individuals and corporations.

 

[tigers80]

Uncle Rupert and his lap dogs are getting nervous, they put the Rabbott in the PM office and they aren't liking what they see...
The thing I find amazing is that Mr Rabbott wasn't liked before the last Fed election, but we had a government that was fighting amongst themselves for the PM prize ( see egomaniac Rudd)...the OZ public had to vote them out to teach them a lesson, no one truly wanted The Rabbott but that was our choice ( not mine)...slowly we are seeing what in the back of some our minds we thought we would get, a try hard, inept, liar, untrustworthy..list goes on..

The newsCorp papers and their bias will come home to roost.
1 Term Tony has a ring about it don't you think..LOL

 

[tigersnake]

Uncle Rupert and his lap dogs are getting nervous, they put the Rabbott in the PM office and they aren't liking what they see...
The thing I find amazing is that Mr Rabbott wasn't liked before the last Fed election, but we had a government that was fighting amongst themselves for the PM prize ( see egomaniac Rudd)...the OZ public had to vote them out to teach them a lesson, no one truly wanted The Rabbott but that was our choice ( not mine)...slowly we are seeing what in the back of some our minds we thought we would get, a try hard, inept, liar, untrustworthy..list goes on..

The newsCorp papers and their bias will come home to roost.
1 Term Tony has a ring about it don't you think..LOL

Bottom line: in recent times, last 5-7 years, Coalition governments at state and federal levels have been elected by default. Thats why I blame the ALP for the terrible state of Aus politics. The ALP have to get their act together, which will then force a more accountable and human Coalition. The pendulum has to swing.

Article on Murdochs global attack on public broadcasting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/attacks-on-public-broadcasting-have-gone-global-the-abc-is-no-exception?CMP=soc_567

 

[Tigers of Old]

Uncle Rupert and his lap dogs are getting nervous, they put the Rabbott in the PM office and they aren't liking what they see...

Yep the tide is turning against Phony. Liberal media types are turning on him. His days are numbered.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

...
It doesn't matter if you consider it a kooky view, the fact is that a large proportion of Australian's are sceptical of AGW, hence the ABC should provide "balanced" coverage for this issue. It overwhelmingly provides coverage in support of AGW as a reality, and advances socialism solutions to solve it. A clear cut case that the ABC is not balanced. Likining scepticism of AGW to the idea that 2+2=22 etc is hyperbole.

Everyone has a blind spot Gia. I was listening to Jon Fane in conversation with James Randi and other guests a few years ago and they were all amused by stories of people being duped by con artists until Randi lumped acupuncture in with other forms of woo and quackery. Fane who had been along for the ride suddenly jumped to the defence of acupuncture. That was a story about people's blindspots. You constantly amaze me on the issue of climate science. For someone who is clearly well read on issues you feel strongly about I can't understand how you misunderstand what balanced reporting is. It is not about balancing the amount of time it is about balancing the facts (in scientific issues the science decides what the facts are, not economists or scientifically illiterate reporters at The Australian). All the science is on one side. Sure their there are dissenting voices, but this is science not public policy. The proper way to dissent is to publish their data in the proper journals and have their work stand on its merits in their field. If they are right their's will become the accepted science. That just isn't happening. And no your denial of AGW is not sceptcism it is cynicism. The skeptic is not immune to the weight of scientific evidence. In this case 2+2=22 is apt. Sure a mathematician wouldn't come to that conclusion but then you are expecting people to listen to non climate scientists about their conclusions on climate science.

 

[Ian4]

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheMurdochTimes/status/541089084383301632?s=07

 

[KnightersRevenge]

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheMurdochTimes/status/541089084383301632?s=07

I love the juvenile and yet apropos nature of this account.

 

[Tigers of Old]

'As the siege unfolded yesterday, he sought to cloak his actions with the symbolism of the ISIL death cult.' - Abbott

- Rupert Murdoch

Arm in arm. :