PBS: Why poverty? Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream

[Julien]

Worth watching: http://video.pbs.org/video/2296684923

It depicts the rhetoric and superficial analysis which is fed through mainstream media.

Unfortunately it contains so many fallacies, non sequiturs and downright deception, that it's too long a list to address.

Consider it a mental obstacle-course for the astute voluntaryist
audience, to practice their analysis skills and understand the popular
mythology.

Including some of my notes/comments:

The analogy of Monopoly board game is correct in one sense (rule making matters), but deeply incorrect in others (you win in Monopoly by  having more money than other players, you don't make money by serving others, monopoly is a win-lose game with fixed wealth). This segment also seeds the idea that rich individuals are jerks. Nevermind that in real life the main way people get rich is by providing valuable service to many (but that kind of helping doesn't count).

The theme continues with a look at income concentration. Of course, this framing ignore the issue of real standards of living, and whether they rose during that period. Also, this ignore that rich people do you no harm and cannot prevent you from improving your life, except for political means.

The show goes on to consider undue political influence of rich individuals in rigging the game. Sounds promising, but the entire argument rests on outrage. So it simultaneously complains about rigging the game (not having a rule of law) and lack of political pull for welfare recipients (education, food stamps, public housing, etc). More on that later.
While many of the examples (bailed out bankers, hedge fund managers, etc) are clearly gaining massive advantage from the political system, the show focuses on dergulation and libertarian philosophy as the culprit. Not mention of central banking cartel.

Segment on Koch, Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan. Somehow, Ayn Rand is discredited, republicans are libertarians and the government is too libertarians (which is the source of the problems).

Clearly, the welfare state is needed, staring with education. Never mind that amount of taxes going into government schools clearly isn't the problem (see amount spent per child and that private schools get better results for less in controlled experiment). Mention of high cost of college, with no mention of government policies inflating said prices or that price labels are not actual prices paid.
So clearly people talking about reducing government spending and those programs are greedy jerks.No mention of spending per capita, debt per capita, size of regulations.
Republicains and libertarians only talk of reducing taxes. 2.6 trillion of government debt attributed to tax cuts, including Bush's. Nevermind that our debt is 16 trillion, not including unfunded liabilities (80 to 200 trillion). Also, let's not consider overall spending and what good it does.
Looking at tax rates of richest over time (falling), but not tax amounts and share of taxes paid. Brief class warfare argument which falls into relativistic morals and rhetoric (if the rich can argue about defending what they earned, then the poor surely has equivalent claim to taxing the rich "fairly").

Overall, the show brilliantly stitches the oft-repeated story. It hits on most popular themes and myths. Never stopping on any one argument for analysis, but offering a mesmerising and agile flow.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

You wouldn't expect a network that's funded through the violence of the state to point out the violence of the state... would you?

[Julien]

True, although I do see some reasonably critical ideas coming out of NPR Planet Money on occasion (pointing out negative effects of car dealership regulations for instance, but never going as far as pointing out foundation of coercion in the State).

Also, it is worth pointing out that about 15% of PBS's funding comes from government (according to their page). This can be interpreted in two ways: see how much effect such little funding has, or with such little funding you would hope for some independence to remain.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

All news networks and even local news programs highlight the failures of the state from an argument from effect stance. That's because the same people will use the same arguments against their own parents. And, those arguments are useless. None of them will use an argument from morality, because to do so would expose the evil of the state and, those who raised them.

 

As for the 15% number, that's a direct cash number. They also pursue and receive a huge percentage of funding for the programs they air through government grants for pet projects which they know will only be aired on PBS. Likewise, most of the scienctists who appear on PBS receive their entire incomes from the state. So in the end, PBS claiming the state only provides 15% of its income is exactly like a seven year old claiming that his parents only provide him with a five dollar a week allowance while mentioning nothing about who buys his clothes, his food or his medical insurance.

[Julien]

Thanks. Both excellent points. I had taken the 15% funding figure at face value.

[MrCapitalism]

Also they don't have to compete with other companies for frequency allocation from the FCC for radio and television.