Kicking the TV Habit

[doodle]

Has anyone here eliminated TV from their lives? Lately TV seems to be a medium that doesn't add a lot of value. It is mostly just noise and idiotic programs. Nevertheless, I am in the habit of having it running and flipping channels when I have nothing better to do.

Any happy success stories from having dumped the TV?

[RickV42]

I eliminated watching TV a year ago and I have no TV at all now.  I don't miss it at all and wonder how I ever had time for it in the past.  

The internet provides everything needed, and more, in a much more effecient manner.

[MediumTex]

I find that Netflix streaming is a lot more interesting way to watch TV.

I LOVE their documentary collection.  Lots of great stuff there.

What you need to watch out for is entertainment masquerading as news.  This is what leads to a lot of confusion and stress.

[stone]

I grew up without TV (or computers).  Looking back I think it was a benefit not having one.

[moda0306]

MT,

Funny thing is, entertainment masquerading as news (Fox, MSNBC, CNBC) is not nearly as interesting, truthful or entertaining as comedic fake news like Colbert and The Daily Show.

I knwo they have a lefty bent to them, but they are The Onion of TV fake news.

[Storm]

We cut the cable bill a couple years ago and only get cable Internet for $49.99 a month.  Since then, we get all our entertainment from Netflix and Hulu Plus on a PS3.  It works great and other than a couple TV shows we don't watch much.  We pretty much only watch 2-3 hours of TV and 1-2 movies a week.

One of the best things about this setup is that we rarely see commercials any more.  We also get to ignore all of the cable news and get most of our news from the Internet.

For great written news, I really like an iPad/iPhone/PC app called Instapaper.  It downloads great articles hand-selected by a group of editors from the web.  There are a lot of great articles written on sites like The Atlantic and The Economist that are much too long to show up in a Google News feed, but are worth the read.

[Storm]

Moda, what is funny, but quite a bit frightening, is that there has been more real, quality coverage of things like the meltdown in 2008, the Greek default, the Libyan war, and other important issues on The Daily Show than on the real cable news channels.

I think Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the modern Mark Twain's of our day.  Mark Twain was quite a funny comedian, and he was also known for speaking truth to power and using comedy to show the hypocrisy of government institutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Views

[moda0306]

I agree, Storm.

I really challenge anyone to say that those two don't do an excellent job of bringing some perspective to certain subjects through humor.

I remember when John Stewart wanted to play a drinking game on The Daily Show... to take one shot of tequila for every time George Bush, in a speech he made, used the word "terrorist," "dictator" or "evil doer" (or some few terms that he loved to use in regards to our foreign policy).

The camera cut from John sitting there with a bottle of Quervo and a shot glass to GW's speech, but it was trimmed and cut to skip everything else and just hit those terms as often as he used them... the camera then cut back to Stewart, who had abandoned the shot glass, and was halfway through chugging the bottle of what I can only hope wasn't real tequila as fast as he could.

It was maddeningly hilarious.

As is most of what he does (Glen Beck parody is amongst his best).

[Gumby]

I'm a fan of Stewart and I particularly enjoy John Oliver's contributions. This was an awesome segment:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... forecloser

[brick-house]

Big fan of the Daily Show and Colbert.  This segment from March 5th of 2009 roasting Glenn Beck's nonsense was great...   

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... -war-room-

[doodle]

The Main Stream Media and 24 hour sensationalist news cycle in the United States is one of the driving factors behind why I want to get rid of my television. Because there isn't anything on thats worth watching, I naturally just gravitate towards the "news", but the majority of it provokes a very negative physical response in me. If I'm watching Fox for example, my emotions crash between utter depression and violent rage. MSNBC provokes a similar response, but at least they tend to just twist the facts...not invent them out of thin air.

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are somewhat of a salve to my Fox inflicted wounds, but it isn't enough to justify keeping my television.

Yesterday I watched the documentary "Outfoxed" which actually did a very good job of breaking down the techniques Fox News uses to brainwash an entire segment of the voting public. I am actually amazed that the FCC has not shut this racket down. If you haven't seen it yet, its on Youtube broken into 8 segments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok01hJHvobM

One of the reasons that Fox and many of these other main stream media stations are so dangerous in America is because the population here has the notion that the news they receive through them is "fair and balanced". Many people haven't learned to detect bias or look for deception in the news they consume in the way that people have in countries where the media is controlled by the state such as Russia, Cuba, or China. Characters like Sean Hannity or Glen Beck are taken at their word. That is very dangerous for democracy.

[KevinW]

We cut the cable bill a couple years ago and only get cable Internet for $49.99 a month.  Since then, we get all our entertainment from Netflix and Hulu Plus...

We did the same thing and it works great.

I don't watch the news or read newspapers.  A few years ago I realized that the stories were only making me feel anxious and upset about matters that I couldn't control.  My voting habits are unlikely to be swayed, I invest consistently regardless of news, do my own consumer research, and don't benefit from knowing about horrific crimes or accidents.  So why bother?

[Coffee]

We did the same about a year ago.  Just Netflix/Hulu+ and the basic cable package.

Both my wife and I really miss the 24 hour news networks and the interesting shows on Discovery/History channels... though not enough to pay for it.  LOL.

[Gumby]

The Main Stream Media and 24 hour sensationalist news cycle in the United States is one of the driving factors behind why I want to get rid of my television. Because there isn't anything on thats worth watching, I naturally just gravitate towards the "news", but the majority of it provokes a very negative physical response in me. If I'm watching Fox for example, my emotions crash between utter depression and violent rage. MSNBC provokes a similar response, but at least they tend to just twist the facts...not invent them out of thin air.

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are somewhat of a salve to my Fox inflicted wounds, but it isn't enough to justify keeping my television.

Yesterday I watched the documentary "Outfoxed" which actually did a very good job of breaking down the techniques Fox News uses to brainwash an entire segment of the voting public. I am actually amazed that the FCC has not shut this racket down. If you haven't seen it yet, its on Youtube broken into 8 segments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok01hJHvobM

One of the reasons that Fox and many of these other main stream media stations are so dangerous in America is because the population here has the notion that the news they receive through them is "fair and balanced". Many people haven't learned to detect bias or look for deception in the news they consume in the way that people have in countries where the media is controlled by the state such as Russia, Cuba, or China. Characters like Sean Hannity or Glen Beck are taken at their word. That is very dangerous for democracy.

Doodle, I gotta say, I originally thought you were a Fox news believer. The main reason I blew up at you — and let me apologize for everything I said, I was wrong to do that — was that I thought you were simply regurgitating debt-fear-mongering straight from Fox News (and Jim Rogers). I have no problem with people having their own opinions about our nation's debt issues — who am I to say who is definitely right or wrong — but I do have a problem when people use fear mongering tactics to scare others into a particular point of view. I think that Fox News intentionally takes hot-button issues and then gets so-called "experts" to make people fearful about those issues — and that pushes them towards a pre-scripted conservative conclusion. As you know, The Daily Show exposes this sort of thing practically every day.

So, when I see Jim Rogers as an hour-long guest on Glenn Beck — and then he proceeds to do a fear-mongering-tour around the Cable TV networks telling everyone that Treasuries are going to tank (which, in reality, should only happen if stocks go up) then it becomes pretty clear to me that Jim Rogers is using his investment expertise to push a conservative political dialog with a heavy dose of fear-mongering. I'm not saying that Rogers won't be proven right someday. But, what better way for Glenn Beck to push a conservative agenda with fear than to get an expert like Jim Rogers to tell a scary economic tale?

So, I was wrong about you, and I wanted to apologize to you for my words and actions. I'm still not quite sure why you would fall for the Jim Rogers political fear-mongering tactics — to the point it would scare you from Treasuries — when you clearly seem so opposed to those fear-mongering Fox News tactics. I guess what I'm saying is that I would have had more respect for Jim Rogers if he weren't so obviously part of the Glenn Beck fear-mongering crowd (which I disdain). Again. It's one thing to lay out a reasonable argument for an issue. It's quite another to scare people into believing an argument — which is what Fox News does constantly.

[doodle]

Gumby,

I wasn't aware that Jim Rogers regularly appeared on Fox News. Some of his opinions regarding the debt issue resonate with that network, others such as his outrage regarding America's military imperialism are in direct contrast to the chicken hawk war-mongering happening at Fox.

I have believed for a long time that Fox, as well as other main stream media stations parading opinion as fact, are more dangerous to our country than Osama Bin Laden ever was. In all honesty, I am more fearful of the medias reaction to a possible future terrorist attack in this country, than I am of the terrorist attack itself. By creating an atmosphere of fear, Fox is actually allying itself with Al Qaeda. The right wing media and the left wing counter argument happening every day on cable news is destroying our country from within and making it impossible to address our countries truly pressing issues with unemployment and healthcare. Al Qaeda really isn't even necessary anymore. We seem to have become our own worst enemies.

Regarding the debt issue, I do think that we are in a big pickle. We are witnessing (in my opinion) the first steps towards a shift away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency. In addition, the harsh talk emanating from China (the largest purchaser of our debt) is also something I feel we need to be concerned about over the medium term. The counterargument that China doesn't have any other options is very shaky position to adhere to longer term. Yes, it might be true at the moment, but there is a strong desire in China to find an alternative.

I understand the MMT theory that we can always honor our debts by printing money, but this is not a real solution. To monetize debt would certainly destroy the international perception of the United States as a financial safe haven.

While I believe our fiscal problems can definitely be rectified, I just don't think they can be rectified with the media and pandering politicians currently in control. Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing with the present system in time to avert a crisis. Taking our country to the brink seems to be something that our politicians are perfectly comfortable doing.

[melveyr]

doodle,

The fact the government prints money makes me more comfortable holding a treasury bond, not less. They print money ever day. That's what the Fed does. It's nothing new.

BTW, I totally agree with your comments about Fox.

[Gumby]

We are witnessing (in my opinion) the first steps towards a shift away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

But, I see that notion as fear mongering as well. The British Pound lost its reserve currency status, and their economy has done quite well ever since. Not to mention that being a reserve currency requires an ginormous money supply — which usually requires a large deficit.

In addition, the harsh talk emanating from China (the largest purchaser of our debt) is also something I feel we need to be concerned about over the medium term.

It's just political posturing from China. We do it all the time back to them on other issues (including currency issues). What are they going to do, not to business in the United States? And if they don't, so what?

The counterargument that China doesn't have any other options is very shaky position to adhere to longer term. Yes, it might be true at the moment, but there is a strong desire in China to find an alternative.

That's not the counter-argument. The counter-argument is that they need to buy Treasury Bonds if they want to do business with us. Their entire economy depends on it. And if they find another country to support their economy, that implies that our domestic manufacturing (or another country's manufacturing) takes its place.

I understand the MMT theory that we can always honor our debts by printing money, but this is not a real solution. To monetize debt would certainly destroy the international perception of the United States as a financial safe haven.

As I understand MMT (and I admit that I am only scratching the surface), we fund ourselves by re-issuing bonds into infinity. We don't need to monetize the debt to do that. As long as banks have reserves (from savings accounts, etc) they simply recycle the stagnant money back into the Treasury at Treasury auctions. And if we do monetize the debt, that doesn't automatically translate to inflation. It only translates to inflation if people have more disposable income.

While I believe our fiscal problems can definitely be rectified, I just don't think they can be rectified with the media and pandering politicians currently in control.

Agreed.

Anyway, I'm glad to know that our view of the media is quite similar. I just wish you didn't believe all of the mainstream/Fox News "debt" fear-mongering!

[stone]

Gumby, how true was it that the £GBP was a really a reserve currency in the sense that the USD is? The GBP was on a gold standard until the late 1930s or something. Also the exchange rate to the USD went from about 4.5:1 to 1.6:1 from 1945 to 1975 (I hope those figures aren't wildly wrong). Would people in the USA be happy if oil became three times more expensive? I'm not saying that would be the result though.

[MediumTex]

Would people in the USA be happy if oil became three times more expensive? I'm not saying that would be the result though.

Well, in the late 1990s oil was trading at around $15 a barrel.  Today, it's about $85 a barrel, or over quintuple the price it was a little over a decade ago.

Perhaps what you are describing has already occurred.

Oh, and I'm not happy about it at all.

[doodle]

Gumby,

I too am happy that more people are starting to see the fundamental dangers of our mainstream media to our democratic freedom. Ironically, I think Comedy Central along with Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert deserve a ton of credit in opening American's eyes to the deliberate political agenda that underlies the main stream media. They have helped many Americans to become wiser consumers of information.

Regarding the economics of the debt and deficit, I am sorely lacking (despite my best attempts) to understand all the complexities of the banking system and how this in turn relates to the world of global economic finance. I don't feel however that concern for this country's debt and deficit is necessarily an extremist position that only resides in the minds of fear mongering shills.

Many, many mainstream voices feel strongly that our country's fiscal issues need to be tackled sooner rather than later. A few of the more respected names that I have heard comment about our situation are:

James Grant, Pete Peterson, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, Warren Buffet, David Stockman, Bill Gross and Mohammed El-Erian, your favorites Jim Rogers and Marc Faber , a slew of former CBO directors..... I am sure I have left some others out.

Anyways, if these prominent people (coming from all sides of the political spectrum and investment world) feel that our country has a debt and deficit issue, it seems wise to take heed. Also, I think that we should shift the focus off of the "effects" of our fundamental problems which are a large "debt and deficit" to focus on WHAT is "causing" these debt and deficits to begin with. The causation of our debt and deficit issues really are unemployment, health care, social security, and national defense. America seems to have forgotten the fundamental economics 101 lesson of "scarcity". Nevertheless, we want more of everything. More guns....and more butter...(without having to go through the inconvenient step of saving and investing to increase future productivity).  Our huge national debt in part seems to stem from our politicians wish to overcome the fundamentals of economics themselves.  This is the problem....the debt and deficit are only the symptoms of our problem.

[doodle]

MT,

I am actually thrilled about the increase in the price of oil. (Actually when you factor in the price of the military necessary to keep oil supplies secure...we are already spending more than 200 dollars a barrel anyways.) If you factor in all the unpaid negative externalities, you could probably put the cost at more than 300 dollars a barrel.

We are entering into the 21st century on fossil fuel energy generation technology devised in the 19th century and 20th centuries. I feel it is time to start putting our scientific efforts and talents behind creating cleaner, safer, and more sustainable solutions to our future energy demands.



 

[doodle]

Off topic post here....

I am watching Rick Perry on C-SPAN. It seems like he has the makings of a formidable competitor to Obama. He is definitely no George Bush. He has a Reagan type everyman touch to him.

If I wasn't privy to his evangelical background, I would feel a lot more comfortable about him as a candidate.

MT,

What is your opinion of how has he done in Texas? I have heard some negative things regarding his record on education, healthcare, and the environment. How has your experience having him as governor been?

[MediumTex]

We are entering into the 21st century on fossil fuel energy generation technology devised in the 19th century and 20th centuries. I feel it is time to start putting our scientific efforts and talents behind creating cleaner, safer, and more sustainable solutions to our future energy demands.

The only source of energy that is a viable alternative to fossil fuels that provides the energy density needed to support what we think of as a modern lifestyle is nuclear power.

Nothing else comes close to providing the energy density and scale of delivery that we take for granted.

Unless you're ready to build a LOT of nuclear power plants in a short period of time, you better be ready to negotiate the American way of life.

Most of the talk about techno solutions to the energy problem reflect a kind of secular religious belief in technology to provide a miraculous solution to any human problem.  The boundaries to this type of thinking are often when Mother Nature stops being the enabler.  "The Flight of Icarus" is a nice illustration of how this process works.

Ironically, it is Newton's Laws that make it clear that there can be no successor to fossil fuels short of nuclear power that provides anything like the amount of energy we are accustomed to using.

The successor to cheap fossil fuels will be expensive fossil fuels.  Bet on it.

[Tortoise]

The successor to cheap fossil fuels will be expensive fossil fuels.  Bet on it.

In one of HB's radio shows, I recall that he expressed skepticism regarding the fears of the peak-oil crowd. He actually suggested that there might be something to the hypothesis of abiogenic petroleum. He didn't mention, though, that it's a fringe hypothesis that has been largely discredited by the scientific community for many years now.

I suppose nobody can be correct 100% of the time. Even otherwise reasonable thinkers sometimes believe some rather outlandish things.

[MediumTex]

The successor to cheap fossil fuels will be expensive fossil fuels.  Bet on it.

In one of HB's radio shows, I recall that he expressed skepticism regarding the fears of the peak-oil crowd. He actually suggested that there might be something to the hypothesis of abiogenic petroleum. He didn't mention, though, that it's a fringe hypothesis that has been largely discredited by the scientific community for many years now.

I suppose nobody can be correct 100% of the time. Even otherwise reasonable thinkers sometimes believe some rather outlandish things.

On the energy subject generally, one of the most common misconceptions seems to be that "we will run out of oil" at some point.  The reality is that we will run out of money to buy oil long before we run out of oil.

Our economy is built to run on cheap energy.  When eneregy gets expensive, the economy begins to misfire badly.  For examples, see every recession in the last 40 years.  They were all preceded by spikes in the price of oil.