Lack Of Competition In America’s Major Industries Is A Serious Problem, Yet No One Wants To Talk About It

What could be more dangerous and threatening to democracy than having a mere handful of companies controlling our money, our news and entertainment and our food? Yet this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today, and there has been little to nothing said about this situation from either Presidential candidate. The reason why is obvious. Industry giants contribute and control candidates running for office. They help set the national agenda and pad the bank accounts of elected officials who do their bidding.

Some will characterize this claim as a conspiracy theory, but in this case, the facts say otherwise. Here are a few:

- The American economy, and to a large extent the global economy, is controlled by four banking behemoths: Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup (joining them from abroad are BNP, Deutsche Bank, Barclays and a few other older large banks). Eighty percent of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned by eight families: Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York, the Rothschilds of Paris and London, the Lazards of Paris, and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.

- Six companies own 90 percent of the media in America: Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, 21^st Century Fox, Time Warner, CBS Corporation and Viacom. In 1983 there were 50 companies in this category. A mere 232 media executives control the information and entertainment diet of 277 million Americans.

- Ten companies control almost everything we eat and drink: Nestle, Pepsico, General Mills, Coca Cola, Kellogg’s, Associated British Foods, Mondelez, Mars, Unilever, Danone and Mars. From granola bars to frozen foods to your morning glass of orange juice, ten companies determine the diets of most Americans.

Although today’s situation may not conform to the strict definition of a monopoly, the result is basically the same. What makes this so undemocratic and anti-capitalist?

Competition. One of the basic tenets of capitalism is the supposed benefits of competition. If I build a good mousetrap, but you build a better one, you, and supposedly the consumer, benefit. When you have only a handful of giant corporations controlling an industry, competition and innovation are stifled and, in some cases, bought up and incorporated into the mother company. Consumer choices are artificially limited.

Workers’ rights. The less competition, the easier it is to control prices and wages. Workers are the big losers when they have so few choices of companies for which to work, and the companies are more than happy to take advantage of this situation by keeping wages and benefits as low as possible, despite making huge profits.

Market control. The media monopoly is a good example of how a small group can control an entire industry. There have been numerous examples in recent years showing clips of local and national newscasters from different networks not only airing the same stories during the same news cycle, but reading from the exact same script. News is no longer news, but corporate propaganda designed to not only sell things, but to keep the masses docile and uninformed.

It’s really a crime that this very serious situation is receiving absolutely no attention during this campaign. A few notable politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders understand the problem, but they have been excluded from the race to the White House by the Goliaths they are fighting against. When you have two candidates who benefit financially from the very companies we need to break up, there’s little hope change will come anytime soon.

Tonight’s Debate Is A Clash Between Concepts of Reality, Not Merely Ideology

On the morning of the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, my overburdened in-box is filled with subject lines like, “Nate Silver says it’s a dead heat,” and “Hillary’s losing.” Behind all of the hyperbolic fear mongering is the never-ending quest for donations, but back in the real world, the race is far, far closer than it should be. I don’t doubt for a second that Hillary is sitting backstage somewhere or on a plane wondering for the millionth time why she isn’t fifty points ahead of Trump in the polls. We should all be wondering that.

A portion of the blame goes to the corporate media. If the presidential race isn’t a close one, viewers will become bored and tune out, so it’s in their best interests to continuously sell the drama of a neck and neck competition. A second issue is the successful demonization of the Clintons, and especially Hillary, among the right wing media over the past twenty-five years. They’ve accused her of every crime from witchcraft to murder and in the echo chamber of the wing-nut nation if a Clinton is involved, it has to be true.

Most discouraging of all, however, is that there exists in this country of public education, twenty-four seven news and the vast information resources of the Internet such a large group of voters who are unable to discern fact from fiction, reality from ideology. I’ve watched interviews with Trump supporters and while they’re often intended to be humorous, it strikes me as tragic that adults in America in 2016 would lack the basic, almost childish, intellectual skills needed to see that Donald Trump is completely unfit to be President of the United States.

I’d like to think that the debates will be a game-changer, that Hillary will decimate the woefully inept Trump and put his ignorance on display for all to see, but we know that won’t be the case. Trump could stand at his podium and not say a word for an hour and his supporters would declare him the winner. If he walked over and punched Hillary in the nose, his people would anoint him a god. The Clinton/Trump battle isn’t a competition between two ideologies, it is a fight between two versions of reality.

Debating creationists is an exercise in futility

I didn’t watch the debate last night between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ken Ham the Creationist Guy. Based on today’s reactions, however, it sounds like the results were what you would expect, no minds were changed and both camps retreated to their respective corners feeling they’d won.

I have a lot of respect for Nye and his valiant attempts to take the science versus creationism battle directly to the enemy, but I have to agree with the large number of scientists who oppose these kinds of events as they only lend unnecessary credence to those who believe in the supernatural origins of the universe.

There really can’t be a traditional debate between scientists and creationists because they have two fundamentally opposing viewpoints that prohibit any form of agreement about anything. The creationist’s one and only source for their position is the bible, which they believe is divinely inspired. If I, as a scientist, don’t believe the bible came from a supernatural source, we are debating from different universes that have none of the same touch points. From the scientist’s standpoint, you might as well be basing your arguments on Aesop’s Fables or Mother Goose stories. And if you’ve ever tried to engage the cheerful Mormon robots who knock on your door, you know they’re coming from a far different galaxy than the one in which you live.

The always brilliant Dr. Richard Dawkins has this to say about debates with creationists. "Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs," Dawkins wrote in a 2006 article entitled Why I Won’t Debate Creationists. "But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science."

McCain Team Demands Eleventh-hour Concessions in VP Debate

Representatives from John McCain’s campaign have given the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) a list of demands related to the debate scheduled for this Thursday evening. Democrats angrily responded by claiming the maneuver was a blatant attempt to rig the debate in Sarah Palin’s favor.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” said a McCain representative, who asked to remain anonymous. “These are really quite minor adjustments that should not have any impact on the debate itself.”

A copy of the demands was leaked to the press and highlights are reprinted here.

Questions addressed to Mrs. Palin may only include the following topics: Clothes, moose hunting, snowmobiling, make-up, Jesus.

Mr. Biden may not look at Mrs. Palin during the debate.

Mr. Biden may only answer questions in Mycenaean Greek

Mrs. Palin will be allowed to wear electronic devices that may or may not involve a helmet.

Following every response by Mr. Biden, the moderator will say, “That is the most ridiculous answer I’ve ever heard, even from a Satan-loving liberal. Don’t you agree, Governor Palin?”

Following each question for Mrs. Palin, she will be allowed five minutes to confer with advisors before answering.

Mrs. Palin will be declared the winner. Period.