Stossel wearing fake chains claims "America may be on" the "road to serfdom"
February 11, 2010 8:18 am ET
From the February 11 edition of Fox News' Fox and Friends:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Someone better wake up Glenn Beck and tell him Stossel is ripping him off.
Your network has been arguing that the Republicans are getting stronger, the Teabagger movement is a legitimate political voice, and that Scott Brown's election has changed the landscape.
So, I'm guessing by doing this now Stossel's report is going to warn people that we can't turn back to the ridiculous growth in government that we saw under Reagan and Bush, and we absolutely have to put tighter reigns on the financial sector before they once again find a way to place the economy in serious jeopardy.
To get off the road to serfdom we have to stop the conservatives now. That's going to be your message, right?
The current administration is just doubling down on all of this ( the requested defense budget for next year is 708(!) billion dollars). The only difference is that instead of Greenspan we have Helicopter Ben Bernanke. Nothing is going to change until we transfer most of the legislative power back to state and local governments and away from the central government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel#David_Schultz_incident
Stossel never collected under his collectivized insurance program as some have implied here. He did get very low premiums because the American taxpayer was underwriting the risk however. This home was originally insured in 1980 and many years after that he sold it. Stossel was still enthralled with the socialist idea at the time he received the subsidized insurance. He probably had no moral qualms about it at all. On the contrary, I suspect that he thought the National Flood Insurance program was the height of progressive government given his misguided ideology at the time. To his credit, he educated himself later on.
The problem with collectivized risk is that it creates moral hazard. People end up building in high risk areas only because the rest of us are assuming much of the risk. People would still live in these areas in much smaller numbers, but they would pay for their own insurance. How many more people die every year because they are encouraged to live in high risk areas (albeit frequently beautiful areas)that they would have never built on absent the government guarantee? This same collectivized risk is present with FDIC insurance. The banks collectivize their risk, and as a consequence they engage in activities they would never entertain absent the government guarantee. They should have to buy their own insurance. The Federal Reserve also creates an incredible amount of moral hazard by acting as lender of last resort -- it acts as a form of collectivized risk in that the American taxpayer will pay for the new money given to the banks by way of price inflation). The concept of collectivized risk is a big part of our current economic problem.
You are definitely thinking of a different case. See my link above to where he sued and collected $425,000.
The Federal Reserve System is nothing more than a cartel arrangement that allows member banks to inflate the money supply at the same time in cooperation. The banking system needed to addressed in the early 20th century. The government should have criminalized fractional reserve banking and punished it as the fraud that it is. This would have resulted in stability. Instead, they created a system that has resulted in the dollar losing 97% of its purchasing power since 1914. How many bubbles have we lived through courtesy of the Fed? How many recessions and depressions courtesy of the Fed?
HA HAA!!! Eat my dust, grammar police!
Very few play "jackpot justice". But if you're willing to trade the jackpot money for the money really deserved, the money that the courts award to pay ongoing medical attention and pharms, restitution for loss of property or quality of life, the money that dissuades companies from continuing unsafe, unhealthy, or illegal practices, just say so.
I will reiterate, we are the only westernized country without the English System of litigation. The loser pays everywhere else. This is effective propaganda put out by the Democratic Party and their benefactors in the trial lawyer lobby that you posted though.
What you really mean by an "unfettered" market is one in which the state doesn't control and direct. People attack that which they don't understand. They also seek to control that which they don't understand. You don't understand how markets work nor do you understand freedom which is why you so quickly assent to government force. A free market is freedom after all.
Also, consider that when you live under a heavily centralized federal government, then where can you turn when the government is intrusive and burdensome? If most of the power resides in the states, then people can always vote with their feet. There isn't a lot of difference between the states because of all the federal government controls along with the endless mandates coming from the central government.
Also, our Federal Government is large now, yes, but I don't think there is anyway we can back it off without a lot of pain and upheaval and loss of certain things that a lot of us take for granted. It all sounds great, in theory, but it would never work.
1. They don't make you pay for other peoples wants and need, they make you pay taxes (as it does all of us) so that we can live in a great society. It doesn't just pay for wants and needs, and I take that what you mean by that are those nasty social programs that try to attempt to help the least of us in our society live a somewhat more normal life, by providing, you know, really crazy things like food. Clothing. Housing.
2. Mandatory retirement program is called social security, and you're not forced into it. You don't have to take the money if you don't want it, or need it. Nobody is forcing you to do that. If you mean, that you have to pay into it, again, taxes, and I'm more than actually happy to do so, because once again, if SS hadn't been enacted, there would have been millions upon untold millions of people in the country who would have died very early deaths and in abject poverty because they didn't have social security. It's also been the most successful social program ever to come along in our country, that much is undeniable. I'm also glad for it, because if it were not there, my parents would be busted down and broke after working hard all of their lives, they had or have very little towards the senior years. And if nothing else, I'll gladly pay my share to see that they can retire in peace at least for a few years.
3. They tell you that you can't take a life saving drug, because it hasn't been vetted and approved. How many times has this happened to you? I'm betting not once. Would you rather we have safe drugs and medicine, or just let the drug companies foist on us an unknowing public whatever they want? I mean, we see how drug companies get it wrong a lot of times, with drugs that have been approved, only to show that they do greater harm than good later on. Yeah, let's eliminate the FDA, great idea.
4. Again, how do they treat you as a ward of a central state? They don't. You're free to move about, as you want, when you want. They don't encumber you on that front. Are there laws? Of course, there are laws, but do you want a lawless society? Let the free market decide what's right and wrong? Not me, sorry.
5. The Government doesn't steal your money. They can't reach into your savings account and take it. They also insure your savings up to a certain amount of money, so that if your bank goes under, you get your money back. Wow, that's a horrible thing for them to do isn't it? They also don't make it impossible for someone to save for their own retirement. For example, 401k programs, which most, if not all places of employment have these days, make it possible that you get to put away money, tax free, and then when you retire or reach a certain age, you're also free to take that money, tax free. I mean, that is so hard to do. The value of the dollar has fallen, yes, but that is in regards to our economic situation, which is making a comeback, at least in terms of the market. Which, is another way that you can invest for your retirement. There are a lot of ways that one can invest for your retirement, that the government has put out there so that you can do it as tax shelters, as in, they don't get that money, you do. If you don't know about these, I'd suggest going to see a good retirement specialist, because apparently, you don't know what you're talking about.
I guess I don't get it. I asked for specific examples of how the government impedes you on a daily basis, and you gave me the typical libertarian diatribe about taxes essentially (by the way, most of which go towards the DoD budget if you haven't been paying attention) being the big thing around your neck, which, in reality, it isn't. You probably pay a tax rate, like most of us, of around 25-30% of your income. This also includes, like I said, having a military to protect your country, roads, fire departments, police departments, water, sewer, bridges, electrical grids, and things that make life possible for us in the US of A. And yes, those things I listed do get a lot of it paid for with federal dollars.
Then you talk as if the FDA has taken away your life but not allowing drugs to market faster. Well, you're still alive, so I can only assume that you're in decent health, and that the FDA making sure that drugs are safe haven't so much impacted you, in the life saving sense.
Again, you gave me the libertarian diatribe about how big government is bad, but in reality, you gave me a bunch of reasons of why our government is good.
1. you are clueless. you are forced to PAY the gov. SSN.
2. post is to long. way to pompous.
TRANSLATION: It took longer to read than a bumper sticker, so it can't have any legitimate points . . .
Sorry I put too many words in there for you.
I'll try to adress most of your points.
We don't live in a great society. We live under an oppressive federal government. Our living standards are going down the tubes and the state makes it almost impossible for the individual to save for his own retirement. The Federal Reserve has destroyed 97% of the dollar's value since its creation in 1914. The state creates these economic bubbles that cause havoc in people's lives by manipulating the interest rate and debasing our currency.
You mentioned that your gloriously incompetent FDA hasn't cost me my life yet. Well, congratulations for pointing out the obvious. How many people have lost their lives or lived in severe pain because some ass-covering bureaucrat has delayed the approval of a new drug though? It takes 10(!)years to get many drugs approved. How many drugs end up recalled anyway? The calculus is all wrong here. The individual should be allowed to discern risk for himself. If you or your family want to wait a while before using a new drug to reduce personal risk, then you are free to do that. Others may choose to take the risk given different circumstances. Do you think drug companies want their products to fail or even result in death? They'll face litigation, loss of market share, bankruptcy or all three if they consistently bring ineffective drugs to market. It is the snake oil salesman who cares nothing about reputation or the law that benefits most from the current system.
Most of our taxes don't go to the DOD. Far too much of them do though. The current administration is increasing the warfare state. Have you noticed?
You said that I mostly cited taxes as an argument against the Leviathan State. I gave a lot more examples than just taxes by the way. What do you think taxes are? Those dollars represent goods and services in the economy. Those dollars represent the product of my labor. The dollar has no intrinsic value; it just serves to grease the wheels of commerce. A dollar is like a claim check on goods and services in the economy that I exchange the product of my labor for. Every dollar confiscated from me makes me a little less economically secure. Every chunk of the product of my labor that is confiscated from me is money that I could have spent on things that I enjoy. You don't think that this is a chunk of my personal freedom being stolen? You guys truly don't grasp economic freedom at all. The quote from Jefferson about those who would trade freedom for safety would get neither comes to mind. You think you are getting economic safety, prosperity, and freedom by transferring more power to the state. You are getting none of these things.
The dollar is making a comeback in terms of the market? Really? I'm not even sure what you mean by that. The chief reason that nominal stock prices have gone up is because of the incredible amount of new money creation by the Fed in the last year and a half. We just have more of the medium of exchange and no more (actually less) goods and services. Just more dollars chasing fewer goods and services. The Fed can't create more capital out of thin air like it can fiat currency. The highest stock market valuations in the world are in Zimbabwe. Why? Because the stocks are priced in Zimbabwean currency which is almost worthless. The same thing is at work here except on a far less exaggerated scale. Those new dollars are flowing into equities because equities (stocks, bonds) are perceived to be safer than the dollar. They aren't given the massive price inflation headed our way.
How can the state actually insure my money? The money represents goods and services in an economy. The state can't create any of those things. You are talking about programs like FDIC, but the moral hazard of collectivized risk is a big part of our current economic problem. Banks should have to purchase their own insurance. If I go into a bank that couldn't find an insurer to insure it's deposits, then I would know everything I need to know about the soundness of its books and the quality of its loans. Compare that to the current cartel arrangement of our Federal Reserve System and the collectivized risk of FDIC. A bank that has FDIC insurance is nothing special; it tells you nothing about the quality of the bank. The FDIC is very close to bankruptcy right now. The FED can only act as lender of last resort by creating money out of thin air thereby debasing the currency and taxing people by stealth through inflation. What do you think that means for the saver?
Most of the infrastructure should be paid for by state and local governments. They know their communities far better than the central government ever could and they are less likely to wasteful than the Leviathan in D.C. Some of the things you cited (fire departments, sewer, etc.) have been privatized by many communities by the way. Tax dollars still pay for them, but they are run much more efficiently by profit seeking businesses.
I am free to move about as I wish to a point, but that doesn't mean that I am free. I am made responsible for men that I don't even know by threat of force. By what standard can you define that absurd situation as freedom.
Keep worshiping at the feet of the Leviathan in D.C. We'll see how it works out for your standard of living in the next 5 to 10 years.
Good gracious -- go find a deserted island to live on.
Or better yet, move to Somalia. There's no recognized gov't there -- IOW, its the perfect neoKKKon/libertarian paradise.
First, you should probably learn as to what the term hypocrite actually means, because in order for my diatribe to be hypocritical, I first would have had to have said something exactly opposite of that, but, since I didn't, I'm not a hypocrite.
I don't worship the state, or the Government, but I do realize that they offer up things for me, things for you, that make life for ALL of us better.
Yes, yes they do actually. 40 cents of every dollar you or I put into our taxes goes to the DoD. 40%. That's more than anything else. I actually DID notice that the current administration has increased the military budget.
We don't live in a great society? I disagree completely and fully with that premise. I do think that the US is the best place to live in the world, sure there are other places I'd like to live in, but the US has me probably for good. You keep saying that you can't save for retirement, but that is BS. You certainly can. I have. I know lots of people who have, like I said before, get a some investment advice, most places will do it for free, and show you that indeed, you CAN save for retirement, and barring that, you've got social security. Our money is backed now, not so much by gold or silver, but, backed by the goods and services or GDP within the United States. Are you trying to tell me that our GDP was better in 1913? BEcause, I can call BS on that.
How is the FDA incompetent? As I said, I asked you for examples from YOUR life of how the FDA impacted you, or the Government has impacted you, and you keep repeating the same things that haven't impacted you. The individual should be able to discern risk for themselves? Really? In terms of what drugs you put into your body? You seriously believe this? I'm pretty sure most of us aren't doctors or scientists, and wouldn't be able to discern which drugs would be, or would not be good for us. Drug companies are in the business of profit, and yes, sometimes, they have been seen to fudge data, in order to bring drugs to the market early, so they could make more money, and the small amounts they lose in lawsuits, doesn't affect them too much.
You did cite taxes as your biggest issue with all of the things that you listed, and again, paying taxes is part and parcel of living in the United States, and for the nation that we have today. These dollars are not confiscated. Jefferson didn't say that quote, it was Franklin, and guess what? They believed in paying taxes. I think that transferring some of my money to the state (which I get back some at the end of the year, which you probably do as well), is the cost of living in a free and open society. You can choose to NOT pay taxes, such as, when you fill out your W2, claim 10-15 and you'll get most of your money, then don't file a return at the end of the year. Sure, there are consequences to those actions, but you can do it. See what happens, give it a try. My money, as I said before, goes towards the defense of our country, towards the betterment of our country, and I'm not ecstatic to pay said taxes, but, I still do it without much complaint, because as I said before, we do get a lot back. You just don't seem to realize it. And also, our tax rates are at historical lows.
Because, as I said before, the FDIC insures your deposits, so if a bank goes down the tubes, you can get your money, the cash, back. Banks do purchase their own insurance as well as federal backing that they get.
If that's the case that the state and local governments should pay for infrastructure, then expect your state and local tax rate to go WAY up. There are literally no private fire departments, no private police, no private sewers. I'd love to see some examples of that, because most of the time, those things are still run by different towns/cities. You can't run a fire department, or a police department for profit, that's ridiculous. When you run basic services, as a privatized company for profit, then you get greedy profit seeking companies who couldn't care less about the services being provided, and instead, focus on the profits. See, for a good example, Enron and how they controlled electricity in California, how they rolled blackouts, and deprieved people of services, because it wasn't in their profit interest.
[quote][I am free to move about as I wish to a point, but that doesn't mean that I am free. I am made responsible for men that I don't even know by threat of force. By what standard can you define that absurd situation as freedom.
/quote]
What do you meant to a point? Again, you haven't pointed out anything that has made you less free, not even remotely. Who are you made responsible for through threat of force? Are you talking about not paying taxes? BEcause, if you are, then, I don't think they're coming to break down your door for not paying your taxes, but you might end up in jail, or having to pay back what you rightfully owe. Has someone come to take you away lately? How has your freedom been impacted? It hasn't been in any way, shape, or form.
I can say that my standard of living has gone up over the last 10 years, and I expect that it will continue to climb, mostly, because I am good at my job, and I continue to move up within the companies I have worked for. During the 8 years of the Bush administration, poverty levels went way up, and now, we're at trying to reverse that, so I'm thinking standard of living should be going up hopefully over the next 10-15 years.
And through your entire postings, you've yet to show HOW the government has impinged upon your freedoms. You are free to move around. You are free to basically do whatever it is you want. Some things have consequences, and some don't. You are free to not use any of the resources that your government provides to you.
There are countless examples of private companies for ambulance services, fire departments, sewer treatment etc. They sign contracts with local governments and are payed for with tax dollars. They aren't run by government though-- they are merely overseen. Our ambulance services were run by private companies in Knoxville, Tennessee when I still lived there for instance.
I don't think that their should be payroll taxes either. If the federal government were constitutionally sized, it wouldn't need trillions of dollars in revenue. Every time someone argues for a much smaller government, you guys twist it to mean that the person is arguing for no government. I am not opposed to government; I am opposed to your Leviathan State. And the part about the FDA being competent was a laugh riot.
I am not free to do what ever I want. I would be able to do a lot more with my money if the state hadn't taken it and wasted to give to another or by directing the resources inefficiently. Why do you think that the state can spend your money better than you? The state has no profit/loss test to determine if it is using resources that have alternative uses efficiently. You assign the state magical, mystical powers that it will never possess.
The state forces me in to a government retirement program. The state makes it almost impossible for an individual to save for his own retirement without risking the stock market. The nineteenth century saw very little price inflation outside of the Civil War era because the money was either gold or silver or paper money tied to gold and silver. The Gold Standard for U.S. citizens ended in 1933 and ended completely for even nation-states in 1971. The only thing stopping the state from debasing the money now is their good judgment. Good look with that. The average person could save for their retirement in the nineteenth century and early 20th century. Why do you think so many are dependent on welfare programs like social security and medicare?
The state should have no right to tell me that I can't put substance in my body. My body and mind don't belong to the state. Their are so many regulations effecting the individuals ability to create new wealth. The state interferes with contract and fails to enforce contract (see GM bankruptcy) in other instances. We are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of men who choose to ignore laws or the Constitution as they see fit.
ROFLMAO -- Are you proposing the states print their OWN individual currencies?
That's BRILLIANT :( Now, you'll need traveler's cheques the next time you vacation in another state, LOL.
Welfare babe, with each post you make, you continually prove correct the classic definition of libertarianism: a rightwingnut who likes his drugs.
Untainted meat is just another step on the road to serfdom.
You're getting way too deep into facts and details.
A lot of the "industry standards" that came into being in the early 20th century were advocated by the largest corporations because it gave them a big advantage over local butcher shops. A lot of the "industry standards" of the New Deal era were advocated by large corporations as well. They got to be state-sponsored cartels in this way during that era. This is the difference between corporatism and a free market. The cost of compliance was much more difficult for the small businessman. It also served as an obstacle for new entrants to the market.
AWWW, poor baby -- you're right; let's have NO regulation for the safety of food and medicine . . . that way, the next time you get ill from bad food, you can just go to the ER for emergency treatment {you'll have to pay out of pocket, of course, 'cause I don't wanna pay for YOUR "wants and needs" any more than you wanna pay for mine.}
Of course, since you believe in putting more power to the states, you can always go to the next state over and get treatment -- IF they'll let you. And good luck bringing back any medication . . .
I guess the questions I asked would have had far more creditability if I had asked them while wearing fake chains.
Fox is looking more like a bad comedy sketch show from the 70s every day. Does their audience actually respond to the GOP spokesmodels dressing up in costumes to explain politics ?
Teabagger: I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.
No wonder we are on the way to serfdom.
Let's also talk about how Stossel sued for millions and got a 425K settlement after he got sissyslapped by a wrestler.
It seems that is how Stossel works the system for himself. More of the right wing "F*** YOU, I got mine" type of family values.
Exactly so. I was taken in by Stossel about twenty years ago. He seemed informed and tolerant, and then I started hearing the subtext. I remember shouting at the screen several times during his stint on "20/20", what did I shout? "Give Me a Break!" of course.
I also don't think you understand the difference between corporatism and a free market. We live under the same corporatist structure set up during the New Deal. I resent this system greatly; you are an apologist for it.
Government doesn't create any wealth. Their role is to protect private property and to enforce contract. The productivity created by the private economy creates all of the wealth. The central state has slowed everything down. We would have far more wealth and much greater social freedoms if not for your Progressive Era. The reason that our standard of living is (was) higher than Europe's for so long is because we started down the collectivist road much later.
You also mentioned workers. Real wages can only rise if productivity rises. A central government can't repeal the law of causality. How do "workers" always fare in your glorious collectivist states anyway?
Now, go back to reading Ayn Rand and asking who John Galt is.
Mussolini was an opportunist above all else though. He couldn't get a Marxist system in Italy given the power structure and politics of Italy so he took what he could get. He did manage to nationalized large swaths of the economy though. He settled for national socialism over International Marxism because that was all he could get.
It might also interest some of you to know that upon being captured while attempting to flee Italy, Mussolini's last words were "long live socialism." Does that sound like a man who had abandoned the planned economy? The word fascism only became unpopular in the mid 30's and especially after the war when it became associated with war, dictatorship and eugenics.
Many of the ideasof fascism,however, weren't discredited in the popular mind or among many intellectuals either. Economic Fascism is still very popular the world over. It's just not properly identified as such. It's proponents like to call it good government, the planned economy, or public/private partnerships instead.
The Fascisti Party of Italy and the National Socialists weren't just a little socialistic. They were collectivists to the core. You also mentioned the John Birchers--LoL. What do they have--10 members. You also assume that millions of leftists aren't racists. that is patently untrue. Economic illiteracy and racism aren't mutually exclusive after all.
If fascist ideology only appealed to thugs, miscreants, and alcoholics, then they would have never been more than a fringe party. Fascism appealed to hundreds of millions the world over because it was a populist ideology. It was especially populist in regard to economics. The message appealed to people across the social and economic strata. It was especially popular among intellectuals. One intellectual who wasn't fooled was F.A. Hayek. Why not read the Road to Serfdom? It would be a good starting point for you.
Hitler had read Marx and found his ideas fascinating while agreeing with much of it. He did rejected the internationalism of Marx. Hitler was above all else a nationalist first and foremost. Hitler also didn't like that so many leading Marxists including Marx himself were Jewish. Marx was actually a self-hating Jew.
When Nazi party intellectuals scrapped the Internationalism of Marx and interjected German nationalism into the mix, Hitler wholeheartedly endorsed most of its economic ideas and principles. National Socialism was a collectivist ideology in regard to race first and foremost, but it was a collectivist system in regard to economics as well. Read through the National Socialist German Worker's Party political platform. Google it. In regard to economics, the platform is socialistic.
Also, you mentioned Jonah Goldberg. Do you think he was the only person to make these arguments? The references in the back of his book cite many authors making many of the same points. The difference is that most of these books are dry, academic books with bland titles and even blander cover jackets that almost no one ever reads. There is a large scholarship that many of you are unaware of.
American Progressives then and now did not advocate a collectivist communist/socialist authoritarian state. They were by and large reformers not revolutionaries. Obama is no Marxist.
Beck is comparing apples to oranges, or rather apples to boa constrictors or whooping cranes.
If you want to read some history, try "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" by Richard J. Hofstadter. Much insight into Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh.
The allied forces weren't fighting against an ideology; they were fighting against countries. The ideologies were irrelevant. We fought with the Soviet Union after all. Does this mean we were fighting for communism? When the dictators of two countries fight, are they fighting over dictatorship, or are they fighting over land, wealth, resources, and power? Answer:obvious. It's the same argument that neoconservatives give about Iraq, they say it is a War on Terror. Are we fighting the tactic of terrorism of are we occupying them for geopolitical reasons(energy). You discredit yourself with your arguments.
Also, when I speak of private property, I am speaking not just of capital but money. That money is the product of my labor. It is my property. I very much resent the state confiscating my property(my money) to pay for other people's wants and needs. So you don't think of money as property? Where do you live? I'll claim your money as property if you won't.
Watch his report in where admits getting his home and beach rebuilt twice after devastating storms tore them down AGAIN. He admits being embarrassed by that the first time but took the money anyway. Building in the same spot. Fact is that the Army Corp of Engineers told the owners that NO one will build there anymore.
It was more a story of the wealthy building with NO insurance.
He is just another greedy fool that fits in the conservative movement de jour.
Take interest rates as an example of our drift toward a more centrally planned economy. The interest rates is greatly influenced by what the Federal Reserve does. The free market isn't allowed to set the interest rate. Central Planners at the Fed try to centrally plan the economy by manipulating the interest rate. How is this any different from the 5 year plans of the old Soviet Union?
The interest rate is the most important price in the economy. It is supposed to coordinate production across time. If there is little savings, there can be only limited credit. The Fed tries to replace real savings (those dollars just represent goods and services in the economy) with it's power to create money out of thin air. This is where the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble came from. This is also why we have had an incredible amount of price inflation over the last decade. The net savings rate of Americans has been abysmally low for a long time; how can interest rates be low then? These bubbles could never have happened under a free market system. Excessive credit creation by national banking systems have been the source of every financial bubble in this country's history.
Our central bank is creating a new bubble in U.S. Treasuries right now. They have been creating new money to buy up our own debt. What do you think is going to happen to the purchasing power of your dollars given this? The real crisis to come is the dollar crisis.
As an aside, Mr. Greenspan appeared on Jon Stewart's show in 2006. Mr. Stewart asked a very obvious question that journalist never ask; he asked Mr. Greenspan why the free market can't set the interest rate, and even Mr. Greenspan's apologists were surprised at the difficulty that he had answering this simple question. Mr. Stewart also noted that the current monetary system punishes savers ,and Mr. Greenspan readily admitted that as well. Our monetary system is irrational and needs to be addressed and soon. It's just too bad that our glorious overlords in D.C. seem to like the status quo. No surprise there given that the political class benefits from the current arrangement. It's easier to tax the population by stealth through the hidden tax of inflation than doing it obviously through direct taxation you see.
This poster seems to want to indoctrinate, not educate. The history of the industrial revolution is one of the saddest chapters in america's story. Everything we take for granted today, is a response to that history. Things like workplace safety, the 40 hour week, the weekend, vacations and child labor laws.
Unfortunately, this history is no longer taught, only glossed over in our schools. Soon, it will be gone or rewritten to favor the owners and robber barons.
We also can thank the industrial revolution for institutionalized racism in America. As each wave of immigrants arrived in this country, those already hear were pitted against the newcomer.
If the owners could depend on animosity between the Italians and the Irish and Germans, they knew that their workers would not agitate against industry. When more African Americans moved north to make a better living for themselves and their families, the bosses instigated hostility between the recent immigrants and the newcomers from the south.
I'm old enough to remember speaking to family members and other people who actually experienced working in sweat shops.
I was fortunate to learn the true history of the period from my teachers in school and also from those who lived that history.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/
I've got snow to shovel. I've been ignoring it all morning, but realized I've been here reading what wel/warstate has been shoveling. I'll take the snow any day.
I use my scrollin' wheel now, to pass by what are essentially more pretentious versions of Stossel walking around like a cheap ghost of wingnuttery future.
We are finally reaping the whirlwind for the excessive taxation, burdensome regulation and our irrational monetary system. The government is creating a new Great Depression. The Great Depression is going to have to be renamed the Lesser Depression at the end of this decade.
We've all had the same type of education. We read books, we live our lives and expose ourselves to what the world offers.
It's funny how our self-education is not as valid as yours; how your experiences are more meaningful than not only mine, but the people who lived and worked in the nations factories in the earlier parts of the twentieth century.
I guess my parents, my in laws and grand parents were making up those horror stories to scare me into becoming the socialist and eventually the full-fleged red commie bastard I've become.
Uh-huh. NTM, Sean Hannity, Rush Limpballs, etc. . .
If you understood what a free market actually is, then it would be easier to have a conversation with you. You guys really do think that the state can create wealth. You might as well be asking for pink unicorns that crap skittles.
Really? What about the large defense contracts that bring butt loads of money to those corperations? Road constuction projects? Government building construction projects?
I am sorry, but these are a few examples how the Government does indeed create wealth.
Political collectivism requires force, however. You must use the police powers of the state to enforce it. A political collectivist system must devolve into at best soft tyranny, and at worst a totalitarian state. The concept of private property is antithetical to political collectivism. It is just not in regard to "social justice" that the state justifies the use of force. The state advocates drug laws in the name of the community or the collective. The individual must take a back seat in such a system. It is inevitable.
They hate me there too.
Look into it.
Any book.
Isn't it true that only "progressives" and "liberals" are condescending?
Geez, Mr. Welfare, why don't you just stand a street corner and shout your no-govt, no-tax, no-social services to get your orthodoxy to the masses instead?
I know that you probably believe you are one of the "intellectually elite." Funny, I haven't seen it.
You might benefit from the same education.
Two of the better economic historians you would benefit from as well.
You might benefit from a rereading of your precious Progressive Era.
Many of you would benefit from a reading of this enlightening book.
First of all, nobody here hates you. And as pure free market advocates go, you seem relatively well-informed. The controversy here is that many think you've misinterpreted the facts which have led you to the wrong conclusion. Such as:
The truly free (unregulated) market results in no bubbles, because the large population of middle class becomes extinct as money gravitates toward those who have the most of it, and economic Darwinism occurs. epkklk851's reference to the Industrial Revolution also includes this truth. So while your assertion may be true, your affinity for a truly free unregulated market remains misguided. Unless, of course, you like the idea of someday working for $5/day, shopping at the company store, living in company housing, and watching from the sidelines as the few inconceivably wealthy business owners play the electoral process and determine your future. That's your neo-liberalism in a nutshell.
"I get it, you don't / you're all proles because I can toss out an Orwell reference (who can't?) / enlighten yourselves by reading Hayek / I'm so much better read than any of you... but you're all condescending."
They screwed up, they missed the -ism, they must be getting tired.
Feudalism by the way, is a system whereby families go on a television show and try to outguess each other as to what 100 people said when they were asked to
"Name an occupation where you can make a lot of money without having a lot of brains"
SURVEY SAYS...
"Fox News Channel Morning Quackery Host!"
It wasn't Haitians lying under the ruble, it was their neighbors. And the posters turned the conversation away from concern for the lives of those still buried to complaints about topics usually covered by the right wing media.
I am ashamed of what America is becoming.
The USSR was reigned by central authorities that failed time after time in the efforts of 5-years planning. I heard that Glenn Beck is planning America's future now by a 100-years concept. Will it really take so much time to become disappointed?
Galatians 4:8 But then, indeed, not knowing God, you served as slaves to those not by nature being gods.
Let's see -- Stossel already had the '70's porn-star mustache, now he has fake chains.
What's next, John? Leopard-print bikini pants?
Serfdom - is the socio-economic status of unfree peasants under feudalism, and specifically relates to Manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe. Serfdom was the enforced labour of serfs on the fields of landowners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields.
Oh like the rich has had a hold on the middle and lower class since 1980???
Is Stossel advocating an anarchy? No wonder libertarians have such bizzare ideas. Their ideals never will succeed in modern industrialized countries. It is fun to listen to them though.