Archive for the 'Press' Category

Press watches people not the powerful

August 22, 2009

http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/090821_vfl.htm

Joe Guzzardi at Vdare discusses why the liberal press keeps losing readers and has declining circulation.  Its because they are against their readers.

Men’s median wages is the same as 1973, women’s are what men’s were in 1963.  Men and women’s median wages graph page 19:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

Guzzardi:

The logical outcome when corporations offer a product for sale that their audience doesn’t appreciate is that the clients go elsewhere.

Men’s labor force participation rate from 1973 at 75.5 to 68.5 in 2008 and even lower now.  SEe Table page 2 of

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsa2008.pdf

Guzzardi:

When asked specifically about the slant of their hometown newspaper, nearly half of the respondents (47 percent) said their local paper is more liberal than they are.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/even-more-gilded/

Income inequality graph is U shaped, high before 1924 immigration restriction, then low during it, then high again today.  It has gone up with the accumulation of immigrants  and their children since 1965.  Krugman has no explanation.

(Patrick Cleburne comments on this graph at Vdare in response to a column here.)

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/20/robert-novak-old-atlantic-lighthouse-votes-no/

Cleburne: to Novak’s ignorant assertion – which gave no sign of awareness of the 1924 cut-off -

The liberal press can’t explain this graph, because it shows their advocacy of immigration is corporate propaganda.  But its corporate propaganda against their own customers.

Guzzardi: When over time you lose 40 percent of your customer base, you’ll go out of business.

Fertility is an inverted U shape over the same time period, rising during immigration restriction when income inequality fell and then falling afterwards.  Fertility rises from 1940 to peak at 1957 and fall by end of 1970′s and then stay low.  Immigration actually picked up in numbers in the 1950′s even before the 1965 Immigration Act in the US.  The following has US and Canadian fertility graphed from 1940.

http://magicstatistics.com/wp-content/uploads/fertility%20Figure%201.jpg

This is from Stat Guy

http://magicstatistics.com/category/social-sciences/economics/

Scott Gilbreath aka StatGuy Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada

Canadian fertility is at 1.5 even lower than the US.  The destructive impact of liberal PC forced on the people to keep quiet while this goes on is even more powerful in Canada.  Here in America we still have Southern White Birther Bigots (nd ask where is the beef certificate?  That is supposed to be the press’s job.)  as well as no sense Italians like Joe.

Guzzardi:

If you doubt that most reporters are not pleased with themselves, then log onto any of their self-serving websites like the Society of Professional Journalists.

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

Guzzardi:

The crucial question some newspapers should ask is whether they react to their readers’ opinions with quiet contempt.

The sad answer for too many is: yes.

The conclusion is that the press’s job is not to watch the powerful do this to us and make them stop, its to watch us and stop us from stopping this happening to us. That is why the declining circulation doesn’t change the message. The press is a money losing proposition much of the time. But its a way for the elites to keep the people in line. That is why we need our own media like Vdare.com. Which needs support.

The crucial question to ask is why genociding whites still pays better than fighting the genocide? Who Whom as Steve Sailer reminded us recently to ask. Part of the answer is at the graph of income inequality. The top .01 percent are getting a huge share of national income. Who are those top .01 percent? They get their money be pushing us down with immigration. Who are they?

The crucial question to ask for us as individuals is why we don’t support Vdare, NumbersUSA, and others who are fighting this? Why don’t we speak out more? Why are we just taking this?

Saez’s paper with more graphs of the share of top 1 percent, top 10 percent over the period from before 1924 immigration restriction to today:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf

“Top Incomes in the Long Run of History” with Tony Atkinson and Thomas Piketty, April 2009, forthcoming in A.B. Atkinson and T. Piketty eds., Oxford University Press, 2010 (Tables and Figures in Excel format)

See Fig 13.8 of Excel sheet.  The U shaped countries from 1900 to 2004.  These are the UK, US, CA, AUS, NZ, IN, ARG, SE, NO.   We can see why immigration is popular with the elites in Europe.

Look at Table 13A.19.  The top .1 percent in Norway is in column F.  The top .1 percent went from being around 1 percent of national income in the 1970′s to being as much as 8.41 percent in 2005 as well as other high numbers.  These fluctuate with the stock market.  The very top have gotten a huge share of national income by immigration keeping wages down. These are the people who own the newspapers and TV stations.  They own Hollywood studios.

At the top of the press, the pay is very good.   They fly around the world.  Bob Woodward and Tom Friedman are paid by the Post and NYT to stay in their homes and write books.  So its very good for those who go along with this.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.