John Stossel on Government, Free Enterprise, and Media
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/12/exclusive-interview-john-stossel-says-government-cant-solve-our-problems/ | John Stossel’s skepticism of government and his storytelling approach about free-market economics have made him a rock star in conservative and libertarian circles.
He spoke at The Heritage Foundation on Wednesday about his new book, “No, They Can’t: Why Government Fails—But Individuals Succeed.” It is Stossel’s latest attempt to debunk the myths that government can solve America’s problems. He tackles everything from crony capitalism and federal regulations to teachers’ unions and gun control.
source
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
IMO the real reason we have more millionaires, billionaires and I believe we have trillionaires within a few years, because United States has printed too much money in the first place. Without those dollars, the money would be worth more. I would like to see the dollar go back to the gold standard. Or something tangible. The dollar is what worth less then 20 cents or less today. This is why prices are so high. the dollar is almost worthless. so it takes more to pay for the same items.
Subsidies for a specific resource or technology end up distorting private-sector investment to align with political agendas rather than market realities. Businesses end up competing for government subsidies rather than your business as a customer.
Strong, viable businesses cannot be created from on high in Washington. The government has a long history of being a poor judge of private market success.
John sounds exactly the same interviewed as he does interviews, that's cool
John is a real journalist, the people in main stream media are propaganda.
But you were given a open hand slap!
https://youtu.be/pZk6ia1vFAc
stossel the man
Dear Fox News. Please pay John Stossel more. Give him more air time. Increase his department budget and let him decide how to spend the money. And, above all, give him more freedom in how he presents his shows and what he covers.
Please? He's saying stuff that enhances my life.
pretty kick ass interviewer …clear questions and then lets him talk freely.
Stossel explains very well why it is easy for the big government liberals to get their message across: "Shallow wins".
Ron paul is not a real candidate or a real capitalist. he is only there to divide the conservatives who want The republican party to go back to supporting capitalism. Read his "big flyer" right after he claims to want to abolish subsidies(something real capitalist have wanted for decades) he list all the subsidies he would propose. Why would anyone say the delusional things he said about orthodox Islam ? WE NEED A CAPITALIST PARTY .
We do have an opportunity and his name is Ron Paul. How? Contact your state delegates and start pleading Ron Paul's cause. The reublican nomination starts Aug 27th and Dr. Paul's name will be up for nomination along with Romney's!
-peace-
The problem we have is that we have no opportunity to vote for going back to being a free country again. All of the republicans give lip service to the free market, but than vote for more subsidies, tariffs, market orders,tax credits, etc. socialism is when the govt. determines the price and distribution of commodities, capitalism is when the govt. doesn't determine the price and distribution of commodities. A tax reduction is just socialism with temporarily lower taxes, it is not capitalism.
neither type of argument is inherently better than the other it's all on the person presented with the argument. From my experience, speaking with several people on the left and right, moral arguments work well on some hard numbers with graphs on the others. However, it's in the combination of both these arguments that you make real progress.
In my experience that usually defaults to, "Well we just need more money" or some other excuse. That's when I pull the moral argument out. Not that we shouldn't help the poor and needy but that we shouldn't steal from people to do it; that we shouldn't waste that stolen money by allowing the government bureaucracy to mismanage and lose millions of it, that charitable organizations that existed pre-welfare state were so much more effective with so much less money. At least thats how I got success
Google market faliurs. Take the great depression for example. People borrowed money from banks for the banks then to use it on the stockmarket. This was a lucrative buissness. Suppliers and consumers were acounted for here – only one problem… it crashed. Regulations for banks were put in place thereafter to prevent it from happening again.
I sincerly dont think subsedizing and runing are the same thing, if Govt would run a buiessness – I would most likly object to that yes
Cont: It's not like someone getting rich hurts others. There isn't a finite amount of wealth & penalizing one group doesn't help another group. Yea, some of the left wing idealism is nice but gov can't force it. Look at welfare & the "war on poverty" It was designed to give the poor a helping hand. In actuality it created generations riding the system & never getting out of poverty because they never had to work. If they never work they never advance out of poverty. That's gov problem solving?
How do you define allocating resources effectively? If there is a need for something there will be someone there to sell it & prices will be set based on supply & demand. If someone overprices,someone else will step in & sell for less. Gov just isn't that responsive,especially in local markets. If you are talking about income,high taxes takes away the motivation to become highly productive. I may risk all I have for a business if possible rewards are high but I won't risk it for moderate reward
Because free markets are excelent when allocating resources in an effective manner. Whether that is the political or moral goal on the other hand is up for debate. I am in no sense any form of hard left winger – though some aspects of the left wing stands for are good things.
Free markets is not a solution in itself – govt can be on the other hand. This is due to the fact that market is a system pure and simple. Whereas govt can influence the direction one might take.
The only thing that doesn't work well is Repub rule. The 2 presidents who added the most to the Nat. debt were 1) Reagan who tripled it & 2) Bush who doubled it. Reagan still holds the record for requests for debt ceiling increases,18. Just 12 yrs ago we were doing just fine. A budget surplus, peace, 22 mil jobs etc.Then came the new Keystone cops, Bush Adm. What'd we get? 9/11, 2 stupid ass wars, 8K dead troops, Nat debt, 5 to 11 tril, unpaid tax cuts,etc & the mother of all recessions. Enough.
Thanks for watching!
Actually, government is the source of long-term research and development. It is then turned over to the private sector. The Internet is a case in point. The standard pattern is public subsidy, private profit. The ruling class would not have it any other way.
I just don't get these left wingers. They turn to gov to solve every problem. I don't dislike gov, there is a place for gov but they can't solve every problem. When they try to,they tend to create more problems. Free markets & individual freedom built the best country in the world in just a few hundred yrs. How can you argue against that? The constitution got the balance of gov VS. personal freedom just right. How do these left wingers question that & fight it for things we know don't work well?
Ron Paul's Press Secretary?
Like you John, I couldn't care less about wacko. Over 300 million citizens, how can a small infinitesimal fraction even begin to manage even the smallest part? They can't! Sorry, "No They Can't." Another good read I am sure.
Stossel is a libertarian hero! Free minds and free markets!
And he is right, arguments about the practical effects of policies tend to work better than moral arguments for free markets. Why? The big govt/socialist/progressive types don't share our individualist moral foundations. They are collectivists. But if you can show them that their big govt programs don't make the poor better off, and that free markets do, you might get somewhere with some of them who may be sincere.
I know Heritage is a conservative think tank, and having a strong national defense is NOT the same as interventionism. In fact, non-interventionalists believe in a strong national defense. Non-interventionism is what every single conservative (including W. Bush and Reagan) ran from 2000 back. Interventionism actually hurts our national defense.
Go John!
so refreshing to hear truth for a change . it's like opening a window after a fart !
Dear Heritage Foundation: Are you going to embrace Stossel's skepticism that our military aught be the policemen of the world? Please don't pay lip service to libertarianism if you're going to embrace the Republican's view of interventionism.
What products are popular world-wide and bring in the most money that we make?