Millions of Americans saw “The Big Short” over the holidays. The blockbuster movie, based on the book by Michael Lewis, is a primer on how the crookedness and fraud rampant in the U.S. financial system brought down the global economy in 2008.
Bernie wants to conserve, restore, and extend the progressive mechanisms that made the country strong before they were systematically rendered "irrelevant", demonized, and outright obliterated by the neoliberal and neoconservative axis of evil.
I really, really object to the comparisons of "war-chests" - how much money a candidate raises - inoder to be a serious contender. If true, that means the most money wins and we know who has the most money...the 99% lose under that asuumption. That we are subject to mindless manipulation through constant adverts diminishes the possibility of human dignity, dammit.
I've never worked for a campaign so I'm probably naive about it all, but I've never understood in the digital age why it takes hundreds of millions of dollars for a candidate to expose his/her message. I guess most americans are stubbornly inattentive and only respond to flashy emotional rallies.
As we look, thanks to Sander's candidacy, at the criteria for reform I just ant to link to a 2010 interview with author of the The Big Short - with film released in Dec. Like sitting down with a brother who is a terrific storyteller, maybe worth filing away for later - a very interesting interview and narrative from a guy who resisted the contemptuous manipulative environment and writes about it. Going in originally as a trader at Solomon Brs. in the Regan era, and with the Dec. film release, spanning that critical period.
The Big Short is an excellent movie! I've seen it twice!
You might benefit from an education on this.
Start by reading up on Edward Bernays.
Mass media IS mass media because it touches MILLIONS of American lives, and billions throughout the world.
Due to this concentration, mass media has tremendous influence.
And if it didn't have that influence advertisers wouldn't pay MILLIONS of dollars for Ad spaces; and PR firms wouldn't exist at all!
Mass media sets the cultural trends into motion. Mass media has the power to essentially christen the latest stars and define who is an expert or luminary.
While more educated persons, and arguably, more Left-leaning individuals get their news and culture from the Internet, that is not the case for the majority of American households.
And this is true across the globe. That's why right wing business interests make it a strategic objective to purchase media--that includes TV, radio, and print forms of mass communications.
Another component of this "digital age" is that it sets up Balkanized communities. Right wing anti-gun regulation types have their sites, and "conspiracy theorists" have their sites, etc.
The mass media has the power to make direct infusions into the collective consciousness. Therein lies its power, and that explains why the MIC has infiltrated so much of it in order to make ongoing WAR a new norm.
It also explains why the 1% spend millions to fund candidates who will do their bidding; and the lion's share of that funding goes to the purchase of media ads: i.e. face time for their candidates.
I like Bernie, but there is still this $8.58 million M1 Abrams Tank in the living room:
Re: media capture, Sanders will probably take that on as
well, being as he is a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform. Public financing
of campaigns, anyone? Count me in.
He seems to be on the right side of every single issue
regarding our dysfunctional political systems, and has strong arguments for
I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s advocated reinstating the
Fairness Doctrine. Wouldn’t that go over well!
I just hope the guy is well protected, he’s threatening a
lot of very powerful people.
What courage that must take.
I agree that Mr. Sanders is "on the right side of every issue" that is DOMESTIC in nature. As the forum's purists point out, he has not shown much opposition (not enough) to the military-industrial-complex or any of the nation's military-driven foreign interventions.
I think he'd do more to offset climate chaos and if he did manage to rope in the big banks, that would provide a lot more leverage for defining and pursuing a saner, wiser foreign policy.
Bernie is the "Ehud Barack Obama" of 2016. The media treated Obama as if he were a god. Now, Bernie supporters are treating him as if he were a god. I voted for Obama in '08 but still thought all that talk about "Hope & Change", "Change You Can Believe In" & "The Audacity of Hope" were too much. Human beings should be treated as human beings no matter what your opinion is of each individual. Obama did not deliver on his promises. When it comes to foreign affairs, Sanders will not be a good POTUS. He wants ME nations to play a bigger war against ISIS & says he favors a 2-State Solution but says Israel must defend itself. He won't say the others in the ME including the Palestinians should defend themselves.
You miss the point - it is not the most money; it is the most contributors. One million contributors each giving $30 (I think that's about the average for Bernie) says a lot more about the popularity of the candidate than 30 contributors each giving one million. If I donate $30 to Bernie's campaign, I do not expect him to pander to my wishes. If I donate $1,000,000 to another candidate, darn right I expect something in return.
In the end, liberals always win. Its time we started winning with Bernie.
It also explains why the oligarchy spends so much time trying to control the Internet under the guise of fighting terrorism, child porn, online gambling, etc. They know that with increasing online information dissemination, the MSM propaganda machine's days are numbered.
Bluedolphin_9 sez: "I voted for Obama in '08 but still thought all that talk about 'Hope
& Change', 'Change You Can Believe In' & 'The Audacity of Hope'
were too much."
— I quit hearing all that alleged "change" noise after it was drowned out by his cynically calculated vote for the 2008 FISA bill (the Cheneybush 'Get out of jail free' Act), which hollered that nothing would change. If you don't like Sanders' record of the last 40 years, fine. But at least he has one.
Interesting link. My feeling is those criticizing Sanders on foreign policy have failed to put forth ary real alternative. We can't undo the past so we need details about what to do now and in the future. The critics need to outline steps to take in the Middle East, as well what to do about China's claims in the South China Sea, North Korea, Russia, etc. I don't hear a lot of detailed ideas coming from the left of Sanders. If there are a good alternatives to the current policies we need to hear them so they can be judged. Cutting back drastically on military spending is not a policy. You need a policy to be able to do that.
And that's why the media "outlets" ought to be the primary focus of progressive attack during the upcoming presidential election. They and the high cost of focus grouping the politicians' messages, creating and producing slick commercials for them, test marketing the messages to see what is the most persuasive spin, having dozens of highly paid "spin doctors" to buttonhole reporters after every speech and event to get them to cover it in a way that presents their guy and gal in the most favorable light.
People complain about the money raising and spending that's built into the US election process but don't look at who is getting that money, whose "deep pockets" are being filled. The money collected by media moguls and their surrogates on US's way longer than necessary "election season" that most democracies manage to limit elections to four months, and many countries have the unmitigated gall to legally forbid paid commercial political advertising of candidates for office.
What I would love to see would be a major mass PR move, a counter propaganda barrage, coordinated if possible but it wouldn't have to be, aimed at the segment of the establishment most vulnerable to public opprobrium: the media. This election cycle could be a golden opportunity to foment anger against the media for their criminal complicity in the high cost of elections leading directly to the inordinate influence of big money in election outcomes. And a lot of nonprogressives even full on conservatives are angry about this too, and this would be the ideal place to get some dissent in play.
Keep in mind that in Europe and in North America Governmnets are passing legislation to change the definition of deposits a consumer might have in a bank.
Consumer deposits will be considered PAPER investments in the bank. Added to this as a "creditor" the consumer who has a deposit at the bank (thus an investment) will receive a lower priority as a creditor so that Institutional investors such as other banks or richer investors are paid out first.
In other words if a bank gets in trouble they can simply refuse to give the customer money they might have on deposit.
Now none of these changes happen in a vacuum. If people will remember companies that issued Credit Cards and issuers of Student loans pushed for all manner of changes to the Bankruptcy laws many years before consumer debt became the problem that it did. They did this because they could see the trend of more debt and wanted to have legislation implemented proactively so as to "protect their investments" and make sure they could keep squeezing the consumer with high interest rates. The crash then hit several years later.
As this article alludes to it is believed Governments recognize the world over that banks in a perilous state. In order to protecter the INVESTOR class or that 1 percent , they want to be able to bail them out and protect their investment by ensuring laws implemented to make it not look like a bailout.(The bank will pay off liabilities with its "assets" as in YOUR deposits. While your deposit is also considered a liability the big boys at the table get first dibs at it)
Now on paper , much like in Cyprus when queried on these changes the consumer is assured that only those with bank deposits over 250000 will see money skimmed away while those with under 250000 will be protected by Governments through institutions such as the FDIC.
This is a crock because in a major failure the FDIC simply does not have the money to guarantee all of those deposits.
The banks are way too large and such a collapse could see trillions in dollars needed.
Thanks to Ms. Bottari for a well written, thoroughly researched article. Like Ellen Brown, she's another powerful voice for sensible banking. But there's one problem that still might be lurking even after breaking up the big banks. The director Michael lewis stated: [...] "The first thing I would do is break up the banks so that they are much smaller and they could all fail." [...]
So let's imagine 10 huge investment banks (hat-tip to the Donaldo) are broken up into 100 smaller investment banks (all w/o commercial bank accounts) but they ALL engage in risky securitization/derivatives activity. Then a collapse of one could likely sink them all because their underlying business is ALL the same. Much like if consumers stop spending all stores see their revenues plunge. So unless these risky activities are curbed in general, not just pushed off to non-FDIC institutions, we're back in the same mess, an investment system that's totally frozen with the stock & bond markets crashing on our heads. Pension funds and retirement accounts will lose huge (there's that Donaldo again) percentages and we're looking at a new depression.
But I imagine that with the Robin Hood Tax, increasing liquidity requirements on these trades plus transparency, these risky/fraudulent investment products can be limited if not killed off entirely. But if the whole Wall Street apparatus collapses and these 100 smaller companies go belly-up, the public is still on the hook for a bailout because we can't afford to let Wall Street crash and take our savings/investments with them.
re: Edward Bernays
Adam Curtis explained Bernays quite well
in his 4-part documentary, ''The Century of The Self''