Tipping Point

[AtticaFlinch]

You don't strike me as that sort, and so perhaps you ought to re-evaluate your outlook on greed, broadly defined.

Interesting points, all of them. However, despite what you may think, I still don't see myself driven by greed, or at the very least, unrestrained greed. In the loosest sense, considering I am motivated to be a provider for my family, I suppose this can be interpreted as having some greediness in that. Yet I'm more convinced that such is the instinctive paternal desire to provide safety and shelter to those I love, and that this has been passed down in my genetic code for a million years or more as something larger than greed. From an intellectual perspective we can break this down and say food is available everywhere and if really necessary I could live in a homeless shelter in order to put a roof over my head. But that's mere survival, and wanting more than mere survival isn't greed, it's duty. It's my duty as a father and a husband to provide, therefore I provide. These are actions I take for other people, not myself. If it were just me, I'd probably be living in a cabin on squatted land in western Alaska or piloting a riverboat on the Amazon right now. Greed is selfish. My actions and the things I provide are a product of selflessness.

And I feel that many other men and women are similarly motivated. I could be wrong, but despite my deadpan pragmatism, I'm an optimist at heart.

[Marksmu]

Interesting points, all of them. However, despite what you may think, I still don't see myself driven by greed, or at the very least, unrestrained greed. In the loosest sense, considering I am motivated to be a provider for my family, I suppose this can be interpreted as having some greediness in that. Yet I'm more convinced that such is the instinctive paternal desire to provide safety and shelter to those I love, and that this has been passed down in my genetic code for a million years or more as something larger than greed. From an intellectual perspective we can break this down and say food is available everywhere and if really necessary I could live in a homeless shelter in order to put a roof over my head. But that's mere survival, and wanting more than mere survival isn't greed, it's duty. It's my duty as a father and a husband to provide, therefore I provide. These are actions I take for other people, not myself. If it were just me, I'd probably be living in a cabin on squatted land in western Alaska or piloting a riverboat on the Amazon right now. Greed is selfish. My actions and the things I provide are a product of selflessness.

And I feel that many other men and women are similarly motivated. I could be wrong, but despite my deadpan pragmatism, I'm an optimist at heart.

Greed is a tricky word...what really is greed? If anything more than the absolute necessities is greedy, then everyone, even the poor are greedy. If anything that makes life more convenient, but is not necessary, then again everyone is greedy. What is the difference between rewarding work, and greed?

What is unrestrained greed? You dont think you are driven by unrestrained greed, but is it you, or is it your neighbor who gets to decide when you have enough? Maybe it should be the guy at the soup kitchen who gets to decide that you are driven by unrestrained greed? I mean, you probably have a guest room in your house...many people do....that poor homeless guy could sleep in that bed without costing you anything more than it already costs you to have that room...so are you being greedy by not letting him use free of charge? He may be the nicest guy in the world, with no criminal record, or bad habits who is just down on his luck....

I do not fault you for wanting things, or for wanting to provide for your family....the new war on the "rich" that the democrat party seems to be weighing is all breaking down to who gets to decide when you have enough. Personally I think that should be the individuals choice, not the neighbors, the guy at the soup kitchen, or the government. If a person wants to work for more, they should not be penalized for doing so.

[Fringe]

I agree. You can't confuse the "American Dream" with greed. So what if someone wants a big house and nice car and other material possessions? If they have worked hard all their lives to obtain those things then they deserve it. I don't see a problem with that.  

[AtticaFlinch]

If a person wants to work for more, they should not be penalized for doing so.

The problem is you view taxes as a penalty when in fact it's a civic duty no different than voting or jury duty. When income taxes first came out, only the rich were taxed, and back then it was seen as a source of pride - if you were taxed, you were successful. Now we have a bunch of pansy rich who go about wringing their hands about their awful lot in life being forced to pay more because they make more. Cry me a river. The more the system benefits you, the more you're obligated to pay it back. The rich aren't victims. Continuing down this path of victimhood is ridiculous and only serves to infuriate the masses. If you're rich, good for you. I don't wish to make you poor, but you owe more for all the benefits having your wealth here in the United States has given you.

What is unrestrained greed?

Greed without restraint.

Which is bad.

[TheNiche]

Interesting points, all of them. However, despite what you may think, I still don't see myself driven by greed, or at the very least, unrestrained greed. In the loosest sense, considering I am motivated to be a provider for my family, I suppose this can be interpreted as having some greediness in that. Yet I'm more convinced that such is the instinctive paternal desire to provide safety and shelter to those I love, and that this has been passed down in my genetic code for a million years or more as something larger than greed. From an intellectual perspective we can break this down and say food is available everywhere and if really necessary I could live in a homeless shelter in order to put a roof over my head. But that's mere survival, and wanting more than mere survival isn't greed, it's duty. It's my duty as a father and a husband to provide, therefore I provide. These are actions I take for other people, not myself. If it were just me, I'd probably be living in a cabin on squatted land in western Alaska or piloting a riverboat on the Amazon right now. Greed is selfish. My actions and the things I provide are a product of selflessness.

And I feel that many other men and women are similarly motivated. I could be wrong, but despite my deadpan pragmatism, I'm an optimist at heart.

What, you think that finance executives such as you might characterize as exemplary of "unrestrained greed" don't dote on their kids (inadvertently creating little sociopath demon hellspawn in the process, that'll probably pull the plug at the first opportunity and then sue their estate for more money on the grounds that their parents were insane when they wrote the will)?

If you acts are motivated by a desire, that is greed. You may desire to build a statue of yourself in a public place. You may desire to wield power over people. You may desire to accumulate material resources. You may desire to provide for your family (above other families). You may desire to give to a charity that provides social services for others' families. And...when you do right by your wife in bed, so to speak, don't tell me that you aren't getting anything out of that.

The thing is, the actions that you take that are motivated by greed do not necessarily have a distributive impact on the economy or our society. There are a lot of win-win transactions, and the winnings don't have to be pecuniary.

[LTAWACS]

Marksmu's dissatisfaction was never really about politics anyways.

Interesting. What could it really be about? What drives his furious anger?

[AtticaFlinch]

What, you think that finance executives such as you might characterize as exemplary of "unrestrained greed" don't dote on their kids (inadvertently creating little sociopath demon hellspawn in the process, that'll probably pull the plug at the first opportunity and then sue their estate for more money on the grounds that their parents were insane when they wrote the will)?

If you acts are motivated by a desire, that is greed. You may desire to build a statue of yourself in a public place. You may desire to wield power over people. You may desire to accumulate material resources. You may desire to provide for your family (above other families). You may desire to give to a charity that provides social services for others' families. And...when you do right by your wife in bed, so to speak, don't tell me that you aren't getting anything out of that.

The thing is, the actions that you take that are motivated by greed do not necessarily have a distributive impact on the economy or our society. There are a lot of win-win transactions, and the winnings don't have to be pecuniary.

You take a pretty broad definition of the word greed. Let me see if I understand your definition correctly. From what I gather, you're saying any attainment exceeding the most basic functional level of survival is achieved because of greed, correct? If it extends a hair beyond absolute necessity, it's a product of greed. OK, fine, by your definition I'm greedy. I don't think there's one person out of seven billion that isn't greedy by your all-encompassing definition. Even Mother Theresa had a change of clothes. Even Ghandi had more than one loin cloth.

I'm sure I'm running the risk of sinking this debate into a semantic morass, but I think most people can agree that even though it can't be defined beyond all relative exclusions, we can be modern day Potter Stewarts and recognize greed when we see it. I'll take it a bit further and suggest it works on an Adam Smith/Herbert Spencer sort of level, and that greed is the attainment of excess beyond which is necessary and to the detriment of others. Me doting on my daughter doesn't mean some other kid isn't being doted upon, but me paying fewer taxes and shifting more of the burden to people who make less than me may indeed mean that someone of lesser means than myself may not eat, or be able to pay his rent, or be able to buy gas to get to the welfare office, or whatever.

[TheNiche]

Me doting on my daughter doesn't mean some other kid isn't being doted upon, but me paying fewer taxes and shifting more of the burden to people who make less than me may indeed mean that someone of lesser means than myself may not eat, or be able to pay his rent, or be able to buy gas to get to the welfare office, or whatever.

When you dote on your daughter, you are expending material resources that had alternative uses. Moreover, you are expending a claim to resources that could have been transferred to someone struggling with the necessities of life. By purchasing a plush animal for your daughter, you have provided evidence of revealed preference. Your daughter's smile and giggle have a higher payoff to you than does feeding a homeless man for a week. Regardless of the primitive urges that shape your preferences, you have chosen a course of action whereby your greed is satiated.

Now, consider that different people have different preferences. It matters not why their preferences are what they are. At issue is the extent to which they ought to be free to satisfy those preferences.

[AtticaFlinch]

When you dote on your daughter, you are expending material resources that had alternative uses. Moreover, you are expending a claim to resources that could have been transferred to someone struggling with the necessities of life. By purchasing a plush animal for your daughter, you have provided evidence of revealed preference. Your daughter's smile and giggle have a higher payoff to you than does feeding a homeless man for a week. Regardless of the primitive urges that shape your preferences, you have chosen a course of action whereby your greed is satiated.

Now, consider that different people have different preferences. It matters not why their preferences are what they are. At issue is the extent to which they ought to be free to satisfy those preferences.

So was this understanding of your definition correct as you've used the word?

From what I gather, you're saying any attainment exceeding the most basic functional level of survival is achieved because of greed, correct? If it extends a hair beyond absolute necessity, it's a product of greed.

I think you're overreaching now and just don't want to admit it. Or, if anything, my definition had a limiter on it which yours (as I've interpreted) does not. And, by extrapolating the example you've just listed, if I were to be hungry nearly to the point of death and I ate a few grains of rice, simply because someone else could have also had a grain of rice (regardless of whether or not they're even hungry) I've now committed an act of greed. The implications of your reasoning don't follow any rules of logic. You've basically reinterpreted the dictionary definition of the word to a limit that exempts all common usage. By your usage, any individually beneficial act, imperitive, instinctual or deliberate, would be inherently greedy. Everything we do would be motivated by greed, and if that's the case, then everything ever done throughout the course of human evolution, from the building of fires to painting cave walls to developing religion to developing egalitarian societies to developing complex cultures to developing agriculture to developing class hierarchies to developing capitalism, socialism and communism... all these things have been accomplished because we've been greedy. Our desire to share has been motivated by greed. Our desire to hoard has been motivated by greed. Our desire to be successful has been motivated by greed. Our desire to be unsuccessful has been motivated by greed. Everything is greed, greed, greed.

At least, this is how I've understood what you've said.

And if that's the case, then Marksmu's contention that taxing the wealthy will act as an innovation demotivator is wrong. If greed drives motivation, and every human act is driven by greed, then greed will motivate regardless of the reward. If that's what you're saying, then I can get on board with that. In fact, I think this gives Comrade Obama even more ammunition to tax the crap outta the corporate aristocracy as innovation and work ethic aren't going anywhere no matter what anyhow. This is kinda a back-end promotion of communism, but I like it nonetheless. Karl Marx couldn't have defended it any better.

[TheNiche]

Everything is greed, greed, greed.

Yes. Even that example you put forth where you had the choice of eating a few grains of rice to satiate a morbid hunger...there's no reason to exempt that. In extreme circumstances, there have been documented cases of individuals offering themselves up to be butchered and cooked for sustenance. And even that is an act conceived of out of greed.

And if that's the case, then Marksmu's contention that taxing the wealthy will act as an innovation demotivator is wrong. If greed drives motivation, and every human act is driven by greed, then greed will motivate regardless of the reward. If that's what you're saying, then I can get on board with that. In fact, I think this gives Comrade Obama even more ammunition to tax the crap outta the corporate aristocracy as innovation and work ethic aren't going anywhere no matter what anyhow. This is kinda a back-end promotion of communism, but I like it nonetheless. Karl Marx couldn't have defended it any better.

Your analysis of the political implications is sound enough, but only because your comprehension of freshman-level microeconomic theory is as equally abominable as the typical voter's.

[RedScare]

I do not fault you for wanting things, or for wanting to provide for your family....the new war on the "rich" that the democrat party seems to be weighing is all breaking down to who gets to decide when you have enough. Personally I think that should be the individuals choice, not the neighbors, the guy at the soup kitchen, or the government. If a person wants to work for more, they should not be penalized for doing so.

This statement is symptomatic of the "rich"'s war on the middle class. There is no penalty for working more, any more so than there is a penalty on all workers. The tax system is set up to pay for all those things that makes life easier to live, to make commerce easier to conduct, and the wealthy easier to protect. If the rich do not want these things they should say so. But, they do not, because quite simply, the rich want more roads, more police, more prisons and bigger armies. They simply do not want to pay for them.

There is no new war on the rich. There is finally a realization that George Bush was conducting a stealth war on the middle class. Your initial claim that the poor and middle class do not pay anything is evidence of that. The lowered tax rates and capital gains rates and deregulation of banks, etc., allowed the wealthy to become wealthier at the expense of the middle class, to the point that growing numbers of workers do not make enough to even owe taxes. It also came at the expense of the budget deficit that you scream so much about. There is a move to roll back some of these rates...not to the 50% Reagan years...but to the 39.5% Clinton years. Frankly, until tax rates return to the level of your hero Reagan, I think you are simply full of hot air.

[AtticaFlinch]

Yes. Even that example you put forth where you had the choice of eating a few grains of rice to satiate a morbid hunger...there's no reason to exempt that. In extreme circumstances, there have been documented cases of individuals offering themselves up to be butchered and cooked for sustenance. And even that is an act conceived of out of greed.

Your understanding of altruistic suicide would likely make Emile Durkheim role over in his grave. From a numbers standpoint, you appear to be right. From a sociological standpoint, you're way off base. You take for grated the nature of American individualism. Many cultures don't operate the way we do, nor do they have a similar understanding of self.

Your analysis of the political implications is sound enough, but only because your comprehension of freshman-level microeconomic theory is as equally abominable as the typical voter's.

You guys are supplying me with the puzzle pieces. If I can't put together a coherent picture it's only because your point-of-view has gaping holes in its logic.

I'll make you a deal though. I'll read up on microeconomic theory if you'll read up on anthropological and sociological theory. Somewhere, perhaps on HAIF, we can develop a unifying theory (of sorts) that can cohesively fuse economics and social theory. Doing so will of course eliminate any need for future conflict between groups, so I suggest this with the caveat that this may work your way out of another job.

Edit: Errr... that last sentence came out sounding harsh, didn't it? I meant it as a joke, not a dagger in the back.

[TheNiche]

The lowered tax rates and capital gains rates and deregulation of banks, etc., allowed the wealthy to become wealthier at the expense of the middle class, to the point that growing numbers of workers do not make enough to even owe taxes.

I find that difficult to believe. Please cite a source or otherwise clarify your statement.

[TheNiche]

Your understanding of altruistic suicide would likely make Emile Durkheim role over in his grave. From a numbers standpoint, you appear to be right. From a sociological standpoint, you're way off base. You take for grated the nature of American individualism. Many cultures don't operate the way we do, nor do they have a similar understanding of self.

Most people go about every-day social interactions without performing a cost-benefit analysis over every single utterance. Those that do are predisposed to having some form of ASPD. There's a reason I try to keep my theory broad. It's more defensible in a greater variety of situations.

You guys are supplying me with the puzzle pieces. If I can't put together a coherent picture it's only because your point-of-view has gaping holes in its logic.

I'll make you a deal though. I'll read up on microeconomic theory if you'll read up on anthropological and sociological theory. Somewhere, perhaps on HAIF, we can develop a unifying theory (of sorts) that can cohesively fuse economics and social theory. Doing so will of course eliminate any need for future conflict between groups, so I suggest this with the caveat that this may work your way out of another job.

Edit: Errr... that last sentence came out sounding harsh, didn't it? I meant it as a joke, not a dagger in the back.

Pass. I'm way more entertained by quibbling over things on the internet than I am by learning and perhaps contributing constructively to unmarketable subject matter.

[AtticaFlinch]

Most people go about every-day social interactions without performing a cost-benefit analysis over every single utterance. Those that do are predisposed to having some form of ASPD. There's a reason I try to keep my theory broad. It's more defensible in a greater variety of situations.

I suppose. With this particular definition, you've made the word mean so much, it's lost its relevance in the discussion. It's a little frustrating to argue this with you when we can't even settle on a common definition of the word greed. This must be what it's like to work in the UN or as a Republican congressman towards the end of Clinton's presidency.

Pass. I'm way more entertained by quibbling over things on the internet than I am by learning and perhaps contributing constructively to unmarketable subject matter.

Books are fer burnin', not fer learnin'! Yee-haw!

Me agree.

[TheNiche]

I suppose. With this particular definition, you've made the word mean so much, it's lost its relevance in the discussion. It's a little frustrating to argue this with you when we can't even settle on a common definition of the word greed. This must be what it's like to work in the UN or as a Republican congressman towards the end of Clinton's presidency.

What's frustrating is when an otherwise innocuous word or concept gets co-opted by moral authorities or politicians and equated with some conception of evil. Another one that irks me is "elitism"; nobody knows what that means anymore.

[gto250us]

I'm not too mad because I know these people who aren't paying taxes own the corporations that generate jobs for us working folk.

You have a twisted view of how the world works. In fact those who own the corporations - PAY THE MOST TAXES.

[gto250us]

I agree. You can't confuse the "American Dream" with greed. So what if someone wants a big house and nice car and other material possessions? If they have worked hard all their lives to obtain those things then they deserve it. I don't see a problem with that.  

PBO (president Barack Hussein Obama or Bro Barry) has a problem with it. It is his goal to see that the money that you work hard for and that you want to use to buy the things that you want, should instead go to those who won't or can't work hard to earn. PBO is evil and he is doing his best to shape a class war in this country. The political divisions are swinging from a left-right (liberal-conservative) axis to an up-down (have-have not) axis. This is what happened in Colombia during the last half of the 20the century. The left-right division was/is largely ideology and we "agree to disagree" but the other axis inevitably leads to violence. Once folks start to loose property that they feel they should retain, violence will ensue, guaranteed.

[AtticaFlinch]

What's frustrating is when an otherwise innocuous word or concept gets co-opted by moral authorities or politicians and equated with some conception of evil. Another one that irks me is "elitism"; nobody knows what that means anymore.

Elitism is frustrating because it has no meaning and therefore no value. The -ism suffix is supposed to indicate a belief or, at the very least, a principle. Being elite or acting elite indicates neither of those. Greed, however.... Greed does have a value. The connotation has always been negative, never neutral. The meaning of the word and the value ascribed therein wasn't coopted by moral or political elites. The word avarice lies a bit further to the darker end of the spectrum, and the negative implication of that word is unquestionable. Avarice indicates the concept of stockpiling and witholding, whereas the tone of greed indicates the slightly less evil unquenchable appetite for more.

I wish I could think of a word off-hand that indicates what you're trying to say and that still remains as benign as the way you're trying to say it.

Self-interest, perhaps, but not greed.

[AtticaFlinch]

Once folks start to loose property that they feel they should retain, violence will ensue, guaranteed.

It's happened many times in this country. You are correct. JP Morgan and Carnegie sent out government troops to kill innocent Americans who wanted to be able to afford to eat food not from the company store and to work less than sixteen hours per day - taking money away from Morgan and Carnegie. Violence ensued. The South left the Union because Comrade Lincoln wanted to take and then redistribute liberty to black people - taking property away from aristocratic land-owning southerners. Violence ensued.

[gto250us]

...I wish I could think of a word off-hand that indicates what you're trying to say and that still remains as benign as the way you're trying to say it.

Self-interest, perhaps, but not greed.

Nothing wrong with wanting to better ones self. This is what motivated most humans. One person's idea of "Better" is more money, another - bettter job or more education. Perhaps another's view is to give everything away and serve selflessly to help those less fortunate. There is nothing wrong with any of these views. The government should stay out of the equation all together.

We saw what happens to countries who adopt the idea that the individual does not matter, thus personal ambition disappears. I good local example can be found at the Post Office. No ambition - no way to better ones self. In any society those who are successful have ambition to become better and those at the bottom of society lack the ambition.

[gto250us]

It's happened many times in this country. You are correct. JP Morgan and Carnegie sent out government troops to kill innocent Americans who wanted to be able to afford to eat food not from the company store and to work less than sixteen hours per day - taking money away from Morgan and Carnegie. Violence ensued. The South left the Union because Comrade Lincoln wanted to take and then redistribute liberty to black people - taking property away from aristocratic land-owning southerners. Violence ensued.

I guess that you are sort of right. The Civil War was not so much about changing slavery in the South but much-much more about whether or not slavery would exist in the new western states. Lincoln had no intention of taking slave away from southern states. That only became an option after the war started.

Yes, you are correct about the labor riots but it is also safe to say that JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie and other have distributed more wealth throughout this country than any union leader.

Ask all those auto union members in Detroit where all those high paying jobs are now. You should never pay Doctor's wages to high school drop-outs to bolt bumpers of Pontiacs. That is a bad business model. You can see the results of it now all over the northern manufacturing cities.

[AtticaFlinch]

We saw what happens to countries who adopt the idea that the individual does not matter, thus personal ambition disappears.

We've already covered this. Theoretically, it makes no difference to personal ambition. It's about ten posts or so above.

In any society those who are successful have ambition to become better and those at the bottom of society lack the ambition.

You have a narrow and incomplete view of history.

[gto250us]

We've already covered this. Theoretically, it makes no difference to personal ambition. It's about ten posts or so above.

You have a narrow and incomplete view of history.

I could not disagree more on both points.

[AtticaFlinch]

I guess that you are sort of right. The Civil War was not so much about changing slavery in the South but much-much more about whether or not slavery would exist in the new western states. Lincoln had no intention of taking slave away from southern states. That only became an option after the war started.

That's the way some historians have interpreted it. Others have come to different conclusions.

Yes, you are correct about the labor riots but it is also safe to say that JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie and other have distributed more wealth throughout this country than any union leader.

Carnegie, certainly, towards the end of his life when his guilt got the better of him. You're the first person to ever tell me Morgan was a philanthropist though.

Ask all those auto union members in Detroit where all those high paying jobs are now. You should never pay Doctor's wages to high school drop-outs to bolt bumpers of Pontiacs. That is a bad business model. You can see the results of it now all over the northern manufacturing cities.

Do you think our manufacturing sectors would still be able to compete with that of Mexico had unions never gained traction? I agree that unions got a little too big for their britches in Detroit, asking for some ridiculous things, but if you think Detroit wouldn't be a ghost town today regardless of the unions, you're wrong. Ethics from the highest echelons in the corporations changed. Business models changed. Instead of just exploiting developing nations for their raw goods, business operators realized they could harness the labor to the same effect. But this is all so much speculation, and we don't like speculation.

I could not disagree more on both points.

I can live with that.

But for sake of argument, do you (or anyone for that matter) have any actual evidence that indicates a progressive tax scale leads to the stagnation of civilization?

It's all hyperbole and greed.

[RedScare]

But for sake of argument, do you (or anyone for that matter) have any actual evidence that indicates a progressive tax scale leads to the stagnation of civilization?

It's all hyperbole and greed.

While gto is providing that evidence, maybe he will explain why the most productive years in US history, from the end of WWII into the 70s, also had the highest tax rates, some as high as 94%.

[TheNiche]

Elitism is frustrating because it has no meaning and therefore no value. The -ism suffix is supposed to indicate a belief or, at the very least, a principle.

From the school of communication, "elitism" has a specific academic meaning. It is one end of a spectrum (the other being "populism", whose meaning has also been warped) along which media caters to different audiences in different ways. You might describe a Clear Channel radio station as being populist because it caters to a broad audience with content that is designed to merely not be objectionable, and a college campus radio station as being elitist because content is meant to showcase quality work or local talent and is not meant to be commercially successful.

Self-interest, perhaps, but not greed.

You say potato, I say potato.

[TheNiche]

While gto is providing that evidence, maybe he will explain why the most productive years in US history, from the end of WWII into the 70s, also had the highest tax rates, some as high as 94%.

I can answer that. Up until the last couple of decades, interest rates on treasury securities were a fair bit higher. Paying down government debt was much more of a fiscal imperative.

Additionally, there was an understanding that issuing government debt saps money that otherwise would've gone to an alternative private-sector investment, and that such investment generates employment and increases the capital stock which in turn increases the productivity of labor. An higher tax rate, on the other hand, tends to have a more direct impact on the level of consumption expenditures than it does on savings/investment. And since it is the act of consumption that correlates with general happiness and higher approval ratings, well...you do the political calculus.

Incidentally, this is also the same principle underlying why I REALLY want capital gains taxes to just go away and never come back.

[AtticaFlinch]

Incidentally, this is also the same principle underlying why I REALLY want capital gains taxes to just go away and never come back.

Just get a bank account in the Bahamas.

Problem solved.

[AtticaFlinch]

From the school of communication, "elitism" has a specific academic meaning. It is one end of a spectrum (the other being "populism", whose meaning has also been warped) along which media caters to different audiences in different ways. You might describe a Clear Channel radio station as being populist because it caters to a broad audience with content that is designed to merely not be objectionable, and a college campus radio station as being elitist because content is meant to showcase quality work or local talent and is not meant to be commercially successful.

This is the problem with allowing the news media to create new words. To them, language is merely a tool, no different than a wrench or (more appropriately) a plunger. People who respect tools, people whose livelihoods are generated through the tools they use, understand and respect that each tool has a specific purpose, and rather than force one tool to do the job of another, they'll use the proper tool. The news media is like that weekend warrior DIY guy who thinks every problem can be solved by beating something with a hammer. The news media are a lazy, self-absorbed lot and they're very insular. Once an idea gains any traction among even a small number of them, it spreads to all of them like the pig flu had spread throughout Texas. (Wait, bad example. Oh, I got it, SARS. No no wait, how about the avian flu?) This is the group of people who've created the suffix -gate to indicate scandal. You know where -gate originated? From the Watergate Hotel. It was the name of the damned hotel! Nowadays, if this group of shiftless ne'erdowells were to stumble upon another scandal that took place in an area with an already extant -gate suffix for the name, what do you bet the scandal would start to sound like a broken record?

"There was a scandal on a famous bridge in San Francisco. It's called the Golden Gategate."

Anyhow, my point is, don't take your language cues from the news.